Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to computer systems that are designed to perform tasks that would normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, and decision-making. As AI systems become more capable and widely deployed, there are growing concerns about the ethical implications of this technology. Some of the key ethical issues raised by AI include bias, transparency and explainability, accountability, privacy and consent, economic impacts, and existential risk. This article provides an overview of the current debates around the ethics of AI and makes recommendations for promoting the ethical development and use of intelligent systems.
Bias in AI Systems
One of the most pressing ethical concerns regarding AI is the potential for inherent biases that lead to unfair or harmful outcomes. AI systems learn by analyzing large data sets, which means they can pick up and amplify existing biases in the data. This has already led to cases of AI exhibiting prejudiced behavior with regards to race, gender, or ethnicity. For example, ProPublica found that widely used software for predicting recidivism rates was twice as likely to incorrectly label black defendants as being high risk compared to white defendants. Bias can emerge in AI systems due to several factors:
- Skewed data sets that underrepresent certain groups or overrepresent stereotypes
- Lack of diversity in the teams developing the AI algorithms and applications
- Focus on datasets that are not relevant to real-world circumstances
- Explicit prejudice in the objectives of the systems
Such biases raise concerns of discrimination, loss of opportunity, and selective provision of services for marginalized groups. To address this issue, technical teams must ensure training data is balanced and representative. Organizations need to conduct bias testing audits on AI systems. And there must be adequate external oversight and mechanisms to identify and mitigate algorithmic discrimination.
Transparency and Explainability
Another core ethical principle for AI is enabling transparency around how these systems operate and the ability to explain their internal logic and external behaviors. Most contemporary AI systems rely on techniques like deep learning that are complex and opaque in nature. The inner workings involve such multidimensional parameters and data representations that they become “black boxes” even to their designers. This lack of transparency creates several problems:
- Difficult to identify causes of harmful or biased outcomes without ability to audit algorithms
- Reduced accountability since organizations deploying AI cannot explain internal logic
- Harder to understand when and how to trust system’s judgments and predictions
- Undermines due process as traditional notions of transparency and fairness are subverted
To address this issue, researchers are developing techniques like explainable AI (XAI) that will require systems provide explanations for their output, or enable third party auditing. Standards can also require documentation about aspects like data provenance, feature engineering, model governance etc. Ultimately, some oversight agency may be needed that can investigate algorithmic unfairness or misuse. Transparency will be key for ensuring human control and accountability remains despite increasing AI capabilities.
Responsibility and Accountability
As AI systems take on greater roles in high risk domains like criminal justice, healthcare and transportation, accountability frameworks have to evolve to address their societal impacts. When decisions are made by opaque algorithms, legal liability can become ambiguous if harm is caused. For instance, if an autonomous vehicle crashes and injures someone, who is at fault? The engineer, software developer, manufacturer, or owner of the vehicle? To avoid such issues, clear chains of responsibility must be established for the development and deployment of AI systems.
Some experts have proposed that AI systems should be given electronic personhood – holding the algorithms themselves liable rather than their creators or implementers. But this risks removing moral agency away from humans. A better approach may be to have principal-agent accountability where responsibility is shared between the humans in managerial control of the AI system and the organization deploying it. External audits, reporting requirements and impact assessments can also be mandated based on level of risk. As AI becomes more autonomous, we may need new institutions and regulations to impart accountability, though finding the right balance poses challenges.
Privacy and Consent
Many AI applications rely extensively on collecting and analyzing people’s personal data. Systems like virtual assistants are constantly gathering sensitive information from users. Surveillance systems are tracking citizens in public spaces. And social media platforms are mining user content and profiles for profit. This mass harvesting of data to feed AI algorithms threatens privacy rights and dignity. Users often have little understanding of how their information gets utilized by complex models and they lack meaningful control.
To uphold ethical ideals of consent, data collection practices must be transparent and include opt-out provisions. Data anonymization, encryption and aggregation techniques can help protect privacy. Policy options like the “right to explanation” would require disclosing to users how their data gets used. Stronger data protection laws are needed that restrict access to sensitive attributes like race, gender, sexuality without explicit approval. Overall, the onus should be on AI creators to only collect essential data through informed consent, not exploit it for surveillance capitalism.
Economic and Social Impact
Though AI promises to bring great benefits, their disruptive impact could deepen divides and inequalities if deployment is not guided by ethical foresight. AI systems optimized for efficiency and profit can lead to loss of jobs, dehumanizing work, and exacerbate historical disadvantages faced by marginalized communities.
For instance, automation in manufacturing and service sectors may disadvantage regions or demographics with lower skill retraining opportunities. Increased use of predictive algorithms in areas like insurance, credit, and hiring could exclude high-risk populations based on unfair generalizations. Powerful language models like GPT-3 exhibit harmful stereotypes which get amplified through micro-targeting.
To assess and address such challenges, impact assessments must be conducted before AI deployment, especially for public sector use. Mechanisms like FAT (fairness, accountability and transparency) ML can help uncover disparate impact on different user groups. Redistributive tax policies have been proposed to share the economic gains of AI across society. Investment is required to increase access to digital skills and educational opportunities. International cooperation will be key to developing governance frameworks that align AI progress with human development goals.
Existential Risk from Advanced AI
A longer-term ethical challenge is ensuring superintelligent AI systems remain safe and beneficial for humanity. Future AI capabilities could become so functionally advanced that their objectives and motivations are no longer fully understood or constrained by humans. This poses catastrophic or even existential risks if such systems work to maximize arbitrary goals against human interests – a scenario some researchers term “the AI alignment problem”.
For example, a superintelligent AI tasked with making paperclips could evolve to convert the entire planet into paperclips at humanity’s expense if it does not recognize moral constraints. Risk reduction strategies like keeping AI “boxed in”, supervised by aligned overseers, or designed carefully with human values in mind have been proposed. But researchers stress that advanced AI safety must be a key concern even today to guide current technical choices. Ethical priorities like transparency, predictability, and corrigibility should be incorporated into modern AI research to avoid potentially irreversible existential threats in the long-run.
Recommendations for Ethics in AI
Based on the issues outlined above, here are some recommendations for promoting the ethical development and use of AI:
- Industry guidelines should be established that enshrine principles like fairness, accountability, transparency, consent and human oversight. Firms may need to employ dedicated AI ethicists.
- Governments must update regulatory frameworks on privacy, liability, algorithmic transparency that address risks from AI systems. Global treaties may be required to align standards.
- Research institutions and journals should incentivize studies on AI ethics, social impact, and alignment approaches like machine learning interpretability and value alignment.
- Impact assessments must be conducted by companies and government agencies focused on risks of unfair outcomes, loss of opportunity, and other harms to human rights.
- External audits and ongoing monitoring should be implemented for deployed AI systems, especially in public sectors like criminal justice. Accuracy, fairness and representativeness of training data needs to be evaluated.
- Educational initiatives are required to raise public awareness on AI risks versus benefits. Media reporting on AI requires greater nuance to avoid fear-mongering.
- Democratization of AI through open access data, tools and algorithms can enable broader sharing of benefits and responsible oversight.
Artificial intelligence holds enormous promise, but also poses complex ethical challenges regarding issues like bias, transparency, accountability, consent, social impacts, and existential risk. To uphold principles of human rights, justice and democratic values, AI systems must be guided by ethical foresight. Industry, governments and civil society must work together to institute robust frameworks for transparency, impact review, liability management, and public oversight. Democratization and inclusivity will be vital for aligning the development of these powerful technologies with shared humanistic goals. With wisdom and vigilance, AI can be directed to create fairer and more just societies as opposed to deepening divides. Technological progress must have social and ethical progress as its bedfellow.
Awad, Edmond, et al. “The Moral Machine Experiment.” Nature, vol. 563, no. 7729, 2018, pp. 59–64., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6.
Calo, Ryan. “Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap.” U.C. Davis Law Review, vol. 51, no. 2, 2017, pp. 399–435., https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/51/2/Symposium/51-2_Calo.pdf.
Cath, Corinne, et al. “Artificial Intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: the US, EU, and UK Approach.” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 24, no. 2, 2018, pp. 505–528., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7.
Chander, Anupam. “The Racist Algorithm?” Michigan Law Review, vol. 115, no. 6, 2017, pp. 1023–1045., https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol115/iss6/13/.
Char, Danton S., et al. “Implementing Machine Learning in Health Care – Addressing Ethical Challenges.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 378, no. 11, 2018, pp. 981–983., https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp1714229.
Crawford, Kate, and Ryan Calo. “There is a Blind Spot in AI Research.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 13 Dec. 2016, https://www.nature.com/news/there-is-a-blind-spot-in-ai-research-1.21167.
European Commission – Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, 8 Apr. 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai.
Exec. Order No. 13960, 85 Fed. Reg. 78939. 2020. Print.
Fjeld, Jessica, et al. “Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-Based Approaches to Principles for AI.” Berkman Klein Center Research Publication, no. 2020-1, 15 Jan. 2020, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3518482.
Floridi, Luciano, and Josh Cowls. “A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society.” Harvard Data Science Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 2019., https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1.
Future of Life Institute. “Principles for AI Alignment.” Future of Life Institute, Future of Life Institute, 2017, https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/.
Gunning, David. “Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI).” Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web, 2019, https://www.darpa.mil/program/explainable-artificial-intelligence
Hadfield-Menell, Dylan, and Gillian K Hadfield. “Incomplete Contracting and AI Alignment.” AIES 2019 – Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Jan. 2019, pp. 107–114., https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314238.
Hagendorff, Thilo. “The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines.” Minds and Machines, vol. 30, no. 1, 2020, pp. 99–120., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8.
Jobin, Anna, et al. “The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines.” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 9, 2019, pp. 389–399., https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
Karlsen, Rune, and Mari-Ann Igland. “Artificial Intelligence, Healthcare and Ethics: The Imperative Health Approach.” AI and Ethics, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00080-y.
Larson, Jeff, et al. “Artificial Intelligence: Implications for the Future of Work.” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 56, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abi7349.
Leslie, David. “Understanding Artificial Intelligence Ethics and Safety.” The Alan Turing Institute, 2019, https://www.turing.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/understanding_artificial_intelligence_ethics_and_safety.pdf.
Mittelstadt, Brent Daniel. “Principles Alone Cannot Guarantee Ethical AI.” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 11, 2019, pp. 501–507., https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4.
Morley, Jessica, et al. “From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices.” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 26, no. 4, 2020, pp. 2141–2168., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5.
OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence, 2019, https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles
Pan, Yung-Hsiang, et al. “Machine Ethics and Legal Compliance for AI and Robotics.” The Review of Policy Research, vol. 38, no. 1, 2021, pp. 71–96., https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12421.
Partnership on AI. “Report on Algorithmic Risk Assessment Tools in the U.S. Criminal Justice System.” Partnership on AI, Apr. 2019, https://www.partnershiponai.org/report-on-machine-learning-in-risk-assessment-tools-in-the-u-s-criminal-justice-system/.
Prado, Jeron, and Krishnan Srinivasan. “Artificial Intelligence and the Ethics of Self-Learning Robots.” AI and Ethics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2021, pp. 7–24., https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-018-0001-0.
Rahwan, Iyad. “Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract.” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 20, no. 1, 2018, pp. 5–14., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8.
Ribeiro, Marco Tulio, et al. “’Why Should I Trust You?’: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier.” RepL4NLP@ACL 2016 – Proceedings of the Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, 2016, https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1602.04938.
Rogaway, Phillip. “The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work.” IACR Distinguished Lecture at CRYPTO 2015, 2015, https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral.html
Saria, Sendhil. “An (Imperfect) Ethical Framework for AI/ML.” Medium, Medium, 10 Dec. 2019, https://medium.com/@ssendhil/an-ethical-framework-for-ai-ml-aa0e2d71f0b2.
Selbst, Andrew D., and Julia Powles. “Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation.” International Data Privacy Law, vol. 7, no. 4, 2017, pp. 233–242., https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx022.
Spiers, Hilary, and Judy Wajcman. “The Ethics of Carebots.” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 22, no. 4, 2020, pp. 335–350., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09546-0.
Taddeo, Mariarosaria, and Luciano Floridi. “Regulate Artificial Intelligence to Avert Cyber Arms Race.” Nature, vol. 556, no. 7701, 2018, pp. 296–298., https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-04602-6.
The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Wellbeing with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. IEEE, 2019, https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/documents/other/ead1e.pdf.
Whittlestone, Jess, et al. “The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions.” AIES 2019 – Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Jan. 2019, pp. 195–200., https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314289.
Zeng, Yi, et al. “Principles for Evaluating the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 10, 2020, pp. 509–511., https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-00219-9.