AI Ethics: how can information ethics provide a framework to avoid usual conceptual pitfalls? An Overview

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) plays an important role in current discussions on information and communication technologies (ICT) and new modes of algorithmic governance. It is an unavoidable dimension of what social mediations and modes of reproduction of our information societies will be in the future. While several works in artificial intelligence ethics (AIE) address ethical issues specific to certain areas of expertise, these ethical reflections often remain confined to narrow areas of application, without considering the global ethical issues in which they are embedded. We, therefore, propose to clarify the main approaches to AIE, their philosophical assumptions and the specific characteristics of each one of them, to identify the most promising approach to develop an ethical reflection on the deployment of AI in our societies, which is the one based on information ethics as proposed by Luciano Floridi. We will identify the most important features of that approach to highlight areas that need further investigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Alter A (2018) Irresistible, the rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ananny M, Crawford K (2016) Seeing without knowing: limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media Soc 20(3):973–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson M, Anderson SL (eds) (2011) Machine ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andrejevic M (2013) Infoglut, how too much information is changing the way we think and know. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Awad E (2018) The moral machine experiment. Nature 563:59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bengio Y, Luccioni S (2019) On the morality of artificial intelligence. arXiv:1912.11945 [cs.CY], December 2019.

  7. Boddington P (2017) Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence, paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boutin E (2006) Biais cognitifs et recherche d'information sur internet. Quelles perspectives pour les indicateurs de pertinence des moteurs de recherche. VSST 2006. https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00827309/document. Accessed 18 Jan 2019

  10. Brey P (2010) Values in technology and disclosive computer Ethics. In: Floridi L (ed) The cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  11. Broussard M (2018) Artificial unintelligence, how computers misunderstand the world. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bruneault F (2012) Comment définir une éthique pour notre civilisation technologique? L’apport d’une lecture conjointe des pensées de Karl-Otto Apel et Hans Jonas. Laval Théologique et Philosophique 68(2):335–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bryson JJ (2019) The past decade and future of AI’s impact on society. In: Towards a new enlightenment? BBVA. bbvaopenmind.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/BBVA-OpenMind-book-2019-Towards-a-New-Enlightenment-A-Trascendent-Decade-3.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2020

  14. Bucher T (2018) If… then, algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cheney-Lippold J (2017) We are data, algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen JE (2012) Configuring the networked self, law, code, and the play of everyday practice. Yale University Press, New Haven, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Costa L (2016) Virtuality and capabilities in a world of ambient intelligence, new challenges to privacy and data protection. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. De Filippi P (2016) Gouvernance algorithmique: vie privée et autonomie individuelle à l’ère des Big Data. In: Primavera De Filippi & Danièle Bourcier (dir.). Open Data & Data Protection : Nouveaux défis pour la vie privée. Mare and Martin.

  19. De Grosbois P (2018) Les Batailles d’Internet, Assauts et résistances à l’ère du capitalisme numérique. Écosociété, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dean J (2009) Democracy and other neoliberal fantasies, communicative capitalism and left politics. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dignum V (2019) Responsible artificial intelligence. How to develop and use ai in a responsible way. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  22. Domingos P (2015) The master algorithm, how the quest for the ultimate learning machine will remake our world. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Feenberg A (1991) Critical theory of technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  24. Feenberg A (2010) Between reason and experience. essays in technology and modernity. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. Floridi L (1999) Philosophy and computing, an introduction. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Floridi L (2011) The philosophy of information. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  27. Floridi L (2013) The Ethics of Information. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  28. Floridi L (2014) The 4th revolution, how the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  29. Floridi L (ed) (2015) The onlife manifesto, being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Freitag M (2003) La dissolution systémique du monde réel dans l’univers virtuel des nouvelles technologies de la communication informatique : une critique ontologique et anthropologique. Dans Mattelart, A. et Tremblay, G. (dir.) 2001 Bogues: communication, démocratie et globalisation. tome 4, Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval, pp 279–296.

  31. Freitag M (2018) La société informatique et le respect des formes. Le Naufrage de l’université et autres essais d’épistémologie politique. Alias, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  32. George É, Kane O (2015) Les technologies numériques au prisme des approches critiques: éléments pour l’ébauche d’une rencontre. Can J Commun 40:727–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gibert M (2020) Faire la morale aux robots: une introduction à l’éthique des algorithmes. Atelier 10, Montréal

  34. Hansen MBN (2006) Bodies in code, interfaces with digital media. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hunyadi M (2018) Le temps du posthumanisme, un diagnostic d’époque. Les Belles Lettres, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) The global landscape of ai ethics guidelines. Nature Mach Intell 1:389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson DG, Verdicchio M (2017a) Reframing ai discourse. Mind Mach 27(4):575–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Johnson DG, Verdicchio M (2017b) AI Anxiety. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol 68(9):2267–2270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jonas H (1979) Das prinzip verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kurzweil R (2007) Humanité 2.0. La bible du changement. M21 Éditions, Paris

  41. Levesque HJ (2017) Common sense, the turing test, and the quest for real aI. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. Maclure J (2019) The new ai spring: a deflationary view. AI Soc J Knowl Cult Commun. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00912-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Maclure J, Saint-Pierre M-N (2018) Le nouvel âge de l’intelligence artificielle: une synthèse des enjeux éthiques. Les Cahiers de Propriété Intellectuelle 30(3):741–765

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mayer-Schönberger V (2014) La révolution big data. Politique Étrangère 4:69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mittelstadt B (2019) Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical Ai. Nature: 501–507.

  46. Mondoux A (2011) Identité numérique et surveillance. Les Cahiers du numérique 7(1):49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mondoux A, Ménard M (2018) Big data et société, industrialisation des médiations symboliques. Presses de l’Université du Québec, Québec

    Google Scholar 

  48. More M (1990) Transhumanism: towards a futurist philosophy. Extropy 6. http://fennetic.net/irc/extropy/ext6.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2020

  49. Morozov E (2013) To save everything, click here. PublicAffairs Books, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nissenbaum H (2010) Privacy in context: technology, policyand the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  51. Oosterlaken I, van den Hoven J (eds) (2012) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ouellet M (2015) Big data et quantification de soi : la gouvernementalité algorithmique dans le monde numériquement administré. Can J Commun 40:597–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ouellet M (2016) La révolution culturelle du capital, le capitalisme cybernétique dans la société globale de l’information. Écosociété, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pasquale F (2015) The black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rouvroy A, Berns T (2013) Gouvernementalité algorithmique et perspectives d’émancipation. Réseaux. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rouvroy A, Stiegler B (2015) Le régime de vérité numérique. Socio. 4. https://journals.openedition.org/socio/1251; https://doi.org/10.4000/socio.1251. Accessed 18 Aug 2019

  57. Russell S (2019) Human compatible: artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Viking, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Stahl BC (2007) Ontology, life-world, and responsibility in IS. In: Sharman R, Kishore R, Ramesh R (eds) Ontologies: a handbook of principles, concepts and applications in information systems. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  59. Susskind J (2018) Future politics, living together in a world transformed by tech. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  60. Taylor A (2014) Démocratie.com, pouvoir, culture et résistance à l’ère des géants de la Silicon Valley. Lux, Montréal

  61. Tegmark M (2017) Life 3.0, being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Vintage Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  62. Turkle S (2005) The second self: computers and the human spirit. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  63. van den Hoven J (2010) The use of normative theories in computer ethics. The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  64. Whittaker M (2019) Artificial intelligence: societal and ethical implications. In: United States house of representatives committee on science, space, and technology. June 26. https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Whittaker%2520Testimony.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2019

  65. Wiener N (1954) The human use of human beings, cybernetics and society. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  66. Zheng Y, Stahl BC (2011) Technology, capabilities and critical perspectives: what can critical theory contribute to sen’s capability approach? Ethics Inf Technol 13(2):69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frédérick Bruneault.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bruneault, F., Laflamme, A.S. AI Ethics: how can information ethics provide a framework to avoid usual conceptual pitfalls? An Overview. AI & Soc (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01077-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ethics
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Transhumanism
  • Liberalism
  • Information