规范的不确定性和社会偏好:评价标准的问题

S. K. Kuilman, Koji Andriamahery, C. Jonker, L. C. Siebert
{"title":"规范的不确定性和社会偏好:评价标准的问题","authors":"S. K. Kuilman, Koji Andriamahery, C. Jonker, L. C. Siebert","doi":"10.3389/fnrgo.2023.1147211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many technological systems these days interact with their environment with increasingly little human intervention. This situation comes with higher stakes and consequences that society needs to manage. No longer are we dealing with 404 pages: AI systems today may cause serious harm. To address this, we wish to exert a kind of control over these systems, so that they can adhere to our moral beliefs. However, given the plurality of values in our societies, which “oughts” ought these machines to adhere to? In this article, we examine Borda voting as a way to maximize expected choice-worthiness among individuals through different possible “implementations” of ethical principles. We use data from the Moral Machine experiment to illustrate the effectiveness of such a voting system. Although it appears to be effective on average, the maximization of expected choice-worthiness is heavily dependent on the formulation of principles. While Borda voting may be a good way of ensuring outcomes that are preferable to many, the larger problems in maximizing expected choice-worthiness, such as the capacity to formulate credences well, remain notoriously difficult; hence, we argue that such mechanisms should be implemented with caution and that other problems ought to be solved first.","PeriodicalId":207447,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Neuroergonomics","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Normative uncertainty and societal preferences: the problem with evaluative standards\",\"authors\":\"S. K. Kuilman, Koji Andriamahery, C. Jonker, L. C. Siebert\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fnrgo.2023.1147211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many technological systems these days interact with their environment with increasingly little human intervention. This situation comes with higher stakes and consequences that society needs to manage. No longer are we dealing with 404 pages: AI systems today may cause serious harm. To address this, we wish to exert a kind of control over these systems, so that they can adhere to our moral beliefs. However, given the plurality of values in our societies, which “oughts” ought these machines to adhere to? In this article, we examine Borda voting as a way to maximize expected choice-worthiness among individuals through different possible “implementations” of ethical principles. We use data from the Moral Machine experiment to illustrate the effectiveness of such a voting system. Although it appears to be effective on average, the maximization of expected choice-worthiness is heavily dependent on the formulation of principles. While Borda voting may be a good way of ensuring outcomes that are preferable to many, the larger problems in maximizing expected choice-worthiness, such as the capacity to formulate credences well, remain notoriously difficult; hence, we argue that such mechanisms should be implemented with caution and that other problems ought to be solved first.\",\"PeriodicalId\":207447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Neuroergonomics\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Neuroergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnrgo.2023.1147211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Neuroergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnrgo.2023.1147211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如今,许多技术系统在越来越少人为干预的情况下与环境相互作用。这种情况带来了更高的风险和后果,社会需要加以管理。我们面对的不再是404页面:今天的人工智能系统可能会造成严重的危害。为了解决这个问题,我们希望对这些系统施加某种控制,这样它们就能坚持我们的道德信仰。然而,考虑到我们社会中价值观的多样性,这些机器应该坚持哪些“应该”?在本文中,我们研究了Borda投票作为一种通过不同可能的道德原则“实现”来最大化个体预期选择价值的方法。我们使用道德机器实验的数据来说明这种投票系统的有效性。虽然平均而言似乎是有效的,但预期选择价值的最大化在很大程度上取决于原则的制定。虽然Borda投票可能是一种确保结果为许多人所接受的好方法,但最大化预期选择价值的更大问题,例如制定良好凭证的能力,仍然是出了名的困难;因此,我们认为,应谨慎执行这种机制,并应首先解决其他问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Normative uncertainty and societal preferences: the problem with evaluative standards
Many technological systems these days interact with their environment with increasingly little human intervention. This situation comes with higher stakes and consequences that society needs to manage. No longer are we dealing with 404 pages: AI systems today may cause serious harm. To address this, we wish to exert a kind of control over these systems, so that they can adhere to our moral beliefs. However, given the plurality of values in our societies, which “oughts” ought these machines to adhere to? In this article, we examine Borda voting as a way to maximize expected choice-worthiness among individuals through different possible “implementations” of ethical principles. We use data from the Moral Machine experiment to illustrate the effectiveness of such a voting system. Although it appears to be effective on average, the maximization of expected choice-worthiness is heavily dependent on the formulation of principles. While Borda voting may be a good way of ensuring outcomes that are preferable to many, the larger problems in maximizing expected choice-worthiness, such as the capacity to formulate credences well, remain notoriously difficult; hence, we argue that such mechanisms should be implemented with caution and that other problems ought to be solved first.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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