设计工具包的伦理政治:负责任的人工智能工具,从大型技术指南到女权主义构思卡

Tomasz Hollanek
{"title":"设计工具包的伦理政治:负责任的人工智能工具,从大型技术指南到女权主义构思卡","authors":"Tomasz Hollanek","doi":"10.1007/s43681-024-00545-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper interrogates the belief in <i>toolkitting</i> as a method for translating AI ethics theory into practice and assesses the toolkit paradigm’s effect on the understanding of ethics in AI research and AI-related policy. Drawing on a meta-review of existing ‘toolkit-scoping’ work, I demonstrate that most toolkits embody a reductionist conception of ethics and that, because of this, their capacity for facilitating change is limited. Then, I analyze the features of several ‘alternative’ toolkits–informed by feminist theory, posthumanism, and critical design–whose creators recognize that ethics cannot become a box-ticking exercise for engineers, while <i>the ethical</i> should not be dissociated from <i>the political</i>. This analysis then serves to provide suggestions for future toolkit creators and users on how to meaningfully adopt the toolkit format in AI ethics work without overselling its transformative potential: how different stakeholders can draw on the myriad of tools to achieve socially desirable results but reject the oversimplification of ethical practice that many toolkits embody.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 3","pages":"2165 - 2174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-024-00545-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ethico-politics of design toolkits: responsible AI tools, from big tech guidelines to feminist ideation cards\",\"authors\":\"Tomasz Hollanek\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43681-024-00545-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper interrogates the belief in <i>toolkitting</i> as a method for translating AI ethics theory into practice and assesses the toolkit paradigm’s effect on the understanding of ethics in AI research and AI-related policy. Drawing on a meta-review of existing ‘toolkit-scoping’ work, I demonstrate that most toolkits embody a reductionist conception of ethics and that, because of this, their capacity for facilitating change is limited. Then, I analyze the features of several ‘alternative’ toolkits–informed by feminist theory, posthumanism, and critical design–whose creators recognize that ethics cannot become a box-ticking exercise for engineers, while <i>the ethical</i> should not be dissociated from <i>the political</i>. This analysis then serves to provide suggestions for future toolkit creators and users on how to meaningfully adopt the toolkit format in AI ethics work without overselling its transformative potential: how different stakeholders can draw on the myriad of tools to achieve socially desirable results but reject the oversimplification of ethical practice that many toolkits embody.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AI and ethics\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"2165 - 2174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-024-00545-z.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AI and ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00545-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00545-z","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

本文质疑了将工具包作为将人工智能伦理理论转化为实践的一种方法的信念,并评估了工具包范式对人工智能研究和人工智能相关政策中伦理理解的影响。根据对现有“工具箱范围界定”工作的元审查,我证明了大多数工具包体现了一种简化主义的伦理概念,因此,它们促进变革的能力是有限的。然后,我分析了几个“替代”工具包的特征——由女权主义理论、后人文主义和批判性设计提供信息——这些工具包的创造者认识到,伦理不能成为工程师的一项打勾练习,而伦理不应该与政治分离。然后,这一分析为未来的工具包创建者和用户提供了关于如何在人工智能伦理工作中有意义地采用工具包格式而不过度推销其变革潜力的建议:不同的利益相关者如何利用无数的工具来实现社会期望的结果,同时拒绝许多工具包所体现的道德实践的过度简化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The ethico-politics of design toolkits: responsible AI tools, from big tech guidelines to feminist ideation cards

This paper interrogates the belief in toolkitting as a method for translating AI ethics theory into practice and assesses the toolkit paradigm’s effect on the understanding of ethics in AI research and AI-related policy. Drawing on a meta-review of existing ‘toolkit-scoping’ work, I demonstrate that most toolkits embody a reductionist conception of ethics and that, because of this, their capacity for facilitating change is limited. Then, I analyze the features of several ‘alternative’ toolkits–informed by feminist theory, posthumanism, and critical design–whose creators recognize that ethics cannot become a box-ticking exercise for engineers, while the ethical should not be dissociated from the political. This analysis then serves to provide suggestions for future toolkit creators and users on how to meaningfully adopt the toolkit format in AI ethics work without overselling its transformative potential: how different stakeholders can draw on the myriad of tools to achieve socially desirable results but reject the oversimplification of ethical practice that many toolkits embody.

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