· 2019
A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society
- 1,118citations
- 2019year
Short summary
A comparative analysis of prominent AI ethical principles reveals a high degree of overlap, leading to a unified framework of five core principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and a newly proposed principle, explicability.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Analyzed multiple high-profile AI ethical principle sets to identify convergence or divergence.
- Found a high degree of overlap among the analyzed principles.
- Proposes a unified framework of five core principles for ethical AI.
- The five principles are beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explicability.
- Explicability is a new principle, combining intelligibility (how it works) and accountability (who is responsible).
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already having a major impact on society. As a result, many organizations have launched a wide range of initiatives to establish ethical principles for the adoption of socially beneficial AI. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of proposed principles threatens to overwhelm and confuse. How might this problem of âprinciple proliferationâ be solved? In this paper, we report the results of a fine-grained analysis of several of the highest-profile sets of ethical principles for AI. We assess whether these principles converge upon a set of agreed-upon principles, or diverge, with significant disagreement over what constitutes âethical AI.â Our analysis finds a high degree of overlap among the sets of principles we analyze. We then identify an overarching framework consisting of five core principles for ethical AI. Four of them are core principles commonly used in bioethics: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. On the basis of our comparative analysis, we argue that a new principle is needed in addition: explicability, understood as incorporating both the epistemological sense of intelligibility (as an answer to the question âhow does it work?â) and in the ethical sense of accountability (as an answer to the question: âwho is responsible for the way it works?â). In the ensuing discussion, we note the limitations and assess the implications of this ethical framework for future efforts to create laws, rules, technical standards, and best practices for ethical AI in a wide range of contexts.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source., 2019 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Safety Research
Safety ResearchSocial Sciences