人类在环路中做什么?使用机器学习驱动的决策辅助工具时的协同推理和实际判断。

IF 17 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
American Journal of Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-20 DOI:10.1080/15265161.2024.2353800
Sabine Salloch, Andreas Eriksen
{"title":"人类在环路中做什么?使用机器学习驱动的决策辅助工具时的协同推理和实际判断。","authors":"Sabine Salloch, Andreas Eriksen","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2024.2353800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Within the ethical debate on Machine Learning-driven decision support systems (ML_CDSS), notions such as \"human in the loop\" or \"meaningful human control\" are often cited as being necessary for ethical legitimacy. In addition, ethical principles usually serve as the major point of reference in ethical guidance documents, stating that conflicts between principles need to be weighed and balanced against each other. Starting from a neo-Kantian viewpoint inspired by Onora O'Neill, this article makes a concrete suggestion of how to interpret the role of the \"human in the loop\" and to overcome the perspective of rivaling ethical principles in the evaluation of AI in health care. We argue that patients should be perceived as \"fellow workers\" and epistemic partners in the interpretation of ML_CDSS outputs. We further highlight that a meaningful process of integrating (rather than weighing and balancing) ethical principles is most appropriate in the evaluation of medical AI.</p>","PeriodicalId":50962,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":17.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Are Humans Doing in the Loop? Co-Reasoning and Practical Judgment When Using Machine Learning-Driven Decision Aids.\",\"authors\":\"Sabine Salloch, Andreas Eriksen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15265161.2024.2353800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Within the ethical debate on Machine Learning-driven decision support systems (ML_CDSS), notions such as \\\"human in the loop\\\" or \\\"meaningful human control\\\" are often cited as being necessary for ethical legitimacy. In addition, ethical principles usually serve as the major point of reference in ethical guidance documents, stating that conflicts between principles need to be weighed and balanced against each other. Starting from a neo-Kantian viewpoint inspired by Onora O'Neill, this article makes a concrete suggestion of how to interpret the role of the \\\"human in the loop\\\" and to overcome the perspective of rivaling ethical principles in the evaluation of AI in health care. We argue that patients should be perceived as \\\"fellow workers\\\" and epistemic partners in the interpretation of ML_CDSS outputs. We further highlight that a meaningful process of integrating (rather than weighing and balancing) ethical principles is most appropriate in the evaluation of medical AI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Bioethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353800\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353800","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在有关机器学习驱动的决策支持系统(ML_CDSS)的伦理辩论中,"人在回路中 "或 "有意义的人为控制 "等概念常常被认为是伦理合法性的必要条件。此外,伦理原则通常是伦理指导文件的主要参考点,说明原则之间的冲突需要相互权衡和平衡。受奥诺拉-奥尼尔(Onora O'Neill)的启发,本文从新康德主义的观点出发,就如何诠释 "人在环路中 "的角色以及在医疗保健领域评估人工智能时克服伦理原则相互冲突的观点提出了具体建议。我们认为,在解释 ML_CDSS 输出时,应将患者视为 "同僚 "和认识论伙伴。我们进一步强调,在医疗人工智能的评估中,整合(而不是权衡和平衡)伦理原则的有意义的过程是最合适的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Are Humans Doing in the Loop? Co-Reasoning and Practical Judgment When Using Machine Learning-Driven Decision Aids.

Within the ethical debate on Machine Learning-driven decision support systems (ML_CDSS), notions such as "human in the loop" or "meaningful human control" are often cited as being necessary for ethical legitimacy. In addition, ethical principles usually serve as the major point of reference in ethical guidance documents, stating that conflicts between principles need to be weighed and balanced against each other. Starting from a neo-Kantian viewpoint inspired by Onora O'Neill, this article makes a concrete suggestion of how to interpret the role of the "human in the loop" and to overcome the perspective of rivaling ethical principles in the evaluation of AI in health care. We argue that patients should be perceived as "fellow workers" and epistemic partners in the interpretation of ML_CDSS outputs. We further highlight that a meaningful process of integrating (rather than weighing and balancing) ethical principles is most appropriate in the evaluation of medical AI.

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
American Journal of Bioethics
American Journal of Bioethics 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
26.90%
发文量
250
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) is a renowned global publication focused on bioethics. It tackles pressing ethical challenges in the realm of health sciences. With a commitment to the original vision of bioethics, AJOB explores the social consequences of advancements in biomedicine. It sparks meaningful discussions that have proved invaluable to a wide range of professionals, including judges, senators, journalists, scholars, and educators. AJOB covers various areas of interest, such as the ethical implications of clinical research, ensuring access to healthcare services, and the responsible handling of medical records and data. The journal welcomes contributions in the form of target articles presenting original research, open peer commentaries facilitating a dialogue, book reviews, and responses to open peer commentaries. By presenting insightful and authoritative content, AJOB continues to shape the field of bioethics and engage diverse stakeholders in crucial conversations about the intersection of medicine, ethics, and society.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信