Metaethical perspectives on ‘benchmarking’ AI ethics

Travis LaCroix, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni
{"title":"Metaethical perspectives on ‘benchmarking’ AI ethics","authors":"Travis LaCroix,&nbsp;Alexandra Sasha Luccioni","doi":"10.1007/s43681-025-00703-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in artificial intelligence (AI) research and have been developed for a variety of tasks ranging from question answering to emotion recognition. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the ‘ethicality’ of an AI system. In this paper, drawing upon research in moral philosophy and metaethics, we argue that it is impossible to develop such a benchmark. As such, alternative mechanisms are necessary for evaluating whether an AI system is ‘ethical’. This is especially pressing in light of the prevalence of applied, industrial AI research. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about ‘values’ (and ‘value alignment’) rather than ‘ethics’ when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems. We further highlight that, because values are unambiguously relative, focusing on values forces us to consider explicitly <i>what</i> the values are and <i>whose</i> values they are. Shifting the emphasis from ethics to values therefore gives rise to several new ways of understanding how researchers might advance research programmes for robustly safe or beneficial AI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 4","pages":"4029 - 4047"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-025-00703-x.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-025-00703-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in artificial intelligence (AI) research and have been developed for a variety of tasks ranging from question answering to emotion recognition. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the ‘ethicality’ of an AI system. In this paper, drawing upon research in moral philosophy and metaethics, we argue that it is impossible to develop such a benchmark. As such, alternative mechanisms are necessary for evaluating whether an AI system is ‘ethical’. This is especially pressing in light of the prevalence of applied, industrial AI research. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about ‘values’ (and ‘value alignment’) rather than ‘ethics’ when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems. We further highlight that, because values are unambiguously relative, focusing on values forces us to consider explicitly what the values are and whose values they are. Shifting the emphasis from ethics to values therefore gives rise to several new ways of understanding how researchers might advance research programmes for robustly safe or beneficial AI.

“基准化”人工智能伦理的元伦理视角
基准被视为衡量人工智能(AI)研究技术进步的基石,已被开发用于从问答到情绪识别等各种任务。人工智能中一个日益突出的研究领域是伦理,目前还没有一套基准,也没有一种普遍接受的方法来衡量人工智能系统的“道德”。在本文中,我们借鉴道德哲学和元伦理学的研究,认为不可能制定这样一个基准。因此,对于评估人工智能系统是否“合乎道德”,替代机制是必要的。考虑到应用、工业人工智能研究的盛行,这一点尤其紧迫。我们认为,在考虑当前和未来人工智能系统可能的行为时,谈论“价值”(和“价值一致性”)而不是“道德”更有意义。我们进一步强调,因为价值是明确的相对的,关注价值迫使我们明确地考虑价值是什么以及它们是谁的价值。因此,将重点从伦理转移到价值观,可以产生几种新的方式来理解研究人员如何推进研究项目,以实现安全或有益的人工智能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信