使用结构化的伦理技术来促进技术伦理中的推理

Matt A. Murphy
{"title":"使用结构化的伦理技术来促进技术伦理中的推理","authors":"Matt A. Murphy","doi":"10.1007/s43681-023-00371-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite many experts’ best intentions, technology ethics continues to embody a commonly used definition of insanity—by repeatedly trying to achieve ethical outcomes through the same methods that don’t work. One of the most intractable problems in technology ethics is how to translate ethical principles into actual practice. This challenge persists for many reasons including a gap between theoretical and technical language, a lack of enforceable mechanisms, misaligned incentives, and others that this paper will outline. With popular and often contentious fields like artificial intelligence (AI), a slew of technical and functional (used here to mean primarily “non-technical”) approaches are continually developed by diverse organizations to bridge the theoretical-practical divide. Technical approaches and coding interventions are useful for programmers and developers, but often lack contextually sensitive thinking that incorporates project teams or a wider group of stakeholders. Contrarily, functional approaches tend to be too conceptual and immaterial, lacking actionable steps for implementation into product development processes. Despite best efforts, many current approaches are therefore impractical or challenging to use in any meaningful way. After surveying a variety of different fields for current approaches to technology ethics, I propose a set of originally developed methods called Structured Ethical Techniques (SETs) that pull from best practices to build out a middle ground between functional and technical methods. SETs provide a way to add deliberative ethics to any technology’s development while acknowledging the business realities that often curb ethical deliberation, such as efficiency concerns, pressures to innovate, internal resource limitations, and more.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 1","pages":"479 - 488"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using structured ethical techniques to facilitate reasoning in technology ethics\",\"authors\":\"Matt A. Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43681-023-00371-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite many experts’ best intentions, technology ethics continues to embody a commonly used definition of insanity—by repeatedly trying to achieve ethical outcomes through the same methods that don’t work. One of the most intractable problems in technology ethics is how to translate ethical principles into actual practice. This challenge persists for many reasons including a gap between theoretical and technical language, a lack of enforceable mechanisms, misaligned incentives, and others that this paper will outline. With popular and often contentious fields like artificial intelligence (AI), a slew of technical and functional (used here to mean primarily “non-technical”) approaches are continually developed by diverse organizations to bridge the theoretical-practical divide. Technical approaches and coding interventions are useful for programmers and developers, but often lack contextually sensitive thinking that incorporates project teams or a wider group of stakeholders. Contrarily, functional approaches tend to be too conceptual and immaterial, lacking actionable steps for implementation into product development processes. Despite best efforts, many current approaches are therefore impractical or challenging to use in any meaningful way. After surveying a variety of different fields for current approaches to technology ethics, I propose a set of originally developed methods called Structured Ethical Techniques (SETs) that pull from best practices to build out a middle ground between functional and technical methods. SETs provide a way to add deliberative ethics to any technology’s development while acknowledging the business realities that often curb ethical deliberation, such as efficiency concerns, pressures to innovate, internal resource limitations, and more.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AI and ethics\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"479 - 488\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AI and ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-023-00371-9\",\"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/s43681-023-00371-9","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

尽管许多专家的初衷是好的,但技术伦理仍然体现了一种常用的疯狂定义——通过反复尝试用同样的方法来达到道德的结果,而这些方法是行不通的。技术伦理学中最棘手的问题之一是如何将伦理原则转化为实际实践。这一挑战持续存在的原因有很多,包括理论和技术语言之间的差距,缺乏可执行的机制,不一致的激励,以及本文将概述的其他原因。在人工智能(AI)等流行且经常引起争议的领域,不同的组织不断开发出一系列技术和功能(这里主要指“非技术”)方法,以弥合理论与实践之间的鸿沟。技术方法和编码干预对程序员和开发人员是有用的,但通常缺乏将项目团队或更广泛的涉众群体结合起来的上下文敏感思维。相反,功能方法往往过于概念化和非物质化,缺乏在产品开发过程中实现的可操作步骤。尽管尽了最大的努力,但许多当前的方法因此不切实际,或者难以以任何有意义的方式使用。在调查了当前技术伦理方法的各种不同领域之后,我提出了一套最初开发的方法,称为结构化伦理技术(set),它从最佳实践中汲取灵感,在功能方法和技术方法之间建立了一个中间地带。set为任何技术的开发提供了一种方式,在承认经常抑制伦理审议的商业现实(例如效率问题、创新压力、内部资源限制等)的同时,也为伦理审议添加了一种方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using structured ethical techniques to facilitate reasoning in technology ethics

Despite many experts’ best intentions, technology ethics continues to embody a commonly used definition of insanity—by repeatedly trying to achieve ethical outcomes through the same methods that don’t work. One of the most intractable problems in technology ethics is how to translate ethical principles into actual practice. This challenge persists for many reasons including a gap between theoretical and technical language, a lack of enforceable mechanisms, misaligned incentives, and others that this paper will outline. With popular and often contentious fields like artificial intelligence (AI), a slew of technical and functional (used here to mean primarily “non-technical”) approaches are continually developed by diverse organizations to bridge the theoretical-practical divide. Technical approaches and coding interventions are useful for programmers and developers, but often lack contextually sensitive thinking that incorporates project teams or a wider group of stakeholders. Contrarily, functional approaches tend to be too conceptual and immaterial, lacking actionable steps for implementation into product development processes. Despite best efforts, many current approaches are therefore impractical or challenging to use in any meaningful way. After surveying a variety of different fields for current approaches to technology ethics, I propose a set of originally developed methods called Structured Ethical Techniques (SETs) that pull from best practices to build out a middle ground between functional and technical methods. SETs provide a way to add deliberative ethics to any technology’s development while acknowledging the business realities that often curb ethical deliberation, such as efficiency concerns, pressures to innovate, internal resource limitations, and more.

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