Skip to main content

Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

This article reviews the reasons scholars hold that driverless cars and many other AI equipped machines must be able to make ethical decisions, and the difficulties this approach faces. It then shows that cars have no moral agency, and that the term ‘autonomous’, commonly applied to these machines, is misleading, and leads to invalid conclusions about the ways these machines can be kept ethical. The article’s most important claim is that a significant part of the challenge posed by AI-equipped machines can be addressed by the kind of ethical choices made by human beings for millennia. Ergo, there is little need to teach machines ethics even if this could be done in the first place. Finally, the article points out that it is a grievous error to draw on extreme outlier scenarios—such as the Trolley narratives—as a basis for conceptualizing the ethical issues at hand.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Waymo (formerly the Google self-driving car project) alone reports that its driverless cars had logged over two million miles by the end of 2016. See https://waymo.com/journey/.

  2. 2.

    Granted, ‘is’ statements and ‘ought’ statements bleed into each other, but they still differ significantly. Compare a statement against the death penalty that pointed out that data show it does not deter killers, and one that holds that the state should never deliberately take a person’s life. See e.g. McDermott (2011: 88–114).

  3. 3.

    See Hsu (2016) and Harris (2015).

  4. 4.

    See e.g. van Inwagen (1997: 373–381) and Harris (2011).

  5. 5.

    This is, of course, a popular theme in science fiction, but for a serious treatment of the threat, see Joy (2000).

  6. 6.

    See Etzioni and Etzioni (2016a: 149–156, 2016b: 133–146).

  7. 7.

    See Beshears et al. (2009: 167–195) and Benartzi and Thaler (2013: 1152–1153).

References

  1. Anderson, Michael, and Susan Leigh Anderson (eds.). 2011. Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Batavia, Parag H., Dean A. Pomerleau, and Charles E. Thorpe. 1996. Applying advanced learning algorithms to ALVINN. Carnegie Mellon University, The Robotics Institute. http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub1/batavia_parag_1996_1/batavia_parag_1996_1.pdf.

  3. Benartzi, Shlomo, and Richard H. Thaler. 2013. Behavioral economics and the retirement savings crisis. Science 339: 1152–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beshears, John, James J. Choi, David Laibson, and Brigitte C. Madrian. 2009. The importance of default options for retirement saving outcomes: evidence from the United States. In Social security policy in a changing environment, ed. David A. Wise, and Jeffrey B. Liebman, 167–195. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bojarski, Mariusz, Davide Del Testa, Daniel Dworakowski, Bernhard Firner, Beat Flepp, Prasoon Goyal, Lawrence D. Jackel et al. 2016. End to end learning for self-driving cars. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07316.

  6. Bonnefon, Jean-François, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan. 2016. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352: 1573–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Constant, Benjamin. 1797. Des réactions politiques. Oeuvres complètes 1: 1774–1799.

    Google Scholar 

  8. DMello, Alvin. 2015. Rise of the humans: intelligence amplification will make us as smart as the machines. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/rise-of-the-humans-intelligence-amplification-will-make-us-as-smart-as-the-machines-44767.

  9. Domingos, Pedro. 2015. The master algorithm: How the quest for the ultimate learning machine will remake our world. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Etzioni, Amitai, and Oren Etzioni. 2016a. AI assisted ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 18: 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Etzioni, Amitai, and Oren Etzioni. 2016b. Keeping AI legal. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 19: 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Frankfurt, Harry G. 1969. Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy 66: 829–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fried, Barbara H. 2012. What does matter? The case for killing the trolley problem (or letting it die). The Philosophical Quarterly 62: 505–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gibbs, Samuel. 2015. What’s it like to drive with Tesla’s autopilot and how does it work? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-autopilot-model-s-crash-how-does-it-work.

  15. Goodall, Noah. 2014. Ethical decision making during automated vehicle crashes. Transportation research record: journal of the transportation research board 2424: 58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Harris, Mark. 2015. New pedestrian detector from Google could make self-driving cars cheaper. IEEE Spectrum. http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/new-pedestrian-detector-from-google-could-make-selfdriving-cars-cheaper.

  17. Harris, Sam. 2011. The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hsu, Jeremy. 2016. Deep learning makes driverless cars better at spotting pedestrians. IEEE Spectrum. http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/deep-learning-makes-driverless-cars-better-at-spotting-pedestrians.

  19. Johnson, Eric J., and Daniel Goldstein. 2003. Do defaults save lives? Science 302: 1338–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Joy, Bill. 2000. Why the future doesn’t need us. WIRED. http://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/.

  21. Levin, Sam and Nicky Woolf. 2016. Tesla driver killed while using autopilot was watching Harry Potter, witness says. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-driver-killed-autopilot-self-driving-car-harry-potter.

  22. Lohr, Steve. 2015. Homes try to reach smart switch. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/business/energy-environment/homes-try-to-reach-smart-switch.html?_r=0.

  23. Luban, David. 2005. Liberalism, torture, and the ticking bomb. Virginia Law Review 91: 1425–1461.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lucas Jr., George R. 2013. Engineering, ethics and industry: the moral challenges of lethal autonomy. In Killing by remote control: the ethics of an unmanned military, ed. Bradley Jay Strawser, 211–228. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Markoff, John. 2015. Machines of loving grace: the quest for common ground between humans and robots. New York: ECCO.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McDermott, Drew. 2011. What matters to a machine. In Machine ethics, ed. Michael Anderson, and Susan Leigh Anderson, 88–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Metz, Cade. 2016. Self-driving cars will teach themselves to save lives—but also take them. WIRED. http://www.wired.com/2016/06/self-driving-cars-will-power-kill-wont-conscience/.

  28. Mill, John Stuart. 2008. On liberty and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Millar, Jason. 2014. You should have a say in your robot car’s code of ethics. WIRED. http://www.wired.com/2014/09/set-the-ethics-robot-car/.

  30. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2013. Traffic safety facts 2013: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the fatality analysis reporting system and the general estimates system. US Department of Transportation. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812139.

  31. O’Connor, James. 2012. The trolley method of moral philosophy. Essays in Philosophy 13: 242–255.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rozenfield, Monica. 2016. The next step for artificial intelligence is machines that get smarter on their own. The Institute. http://theinstitute.ieee.org/technology-topics/artificial-intelligence/the-next-step-for-artificial-intelligence-is-machines-that-get-smarter-on-their-own.

  33. Shah, Rajiv C., and Christian Sandvig. 2008. Software defaults as de facto regulation the case of the wireless Internet. Information, Community and Society 11: 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sharkey, Amanda, and Noel Sharkey. 2012. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology 14: 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sharkey, Noel, and Amanda Sharkey. 2010. The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. Interaction Studies 11: 161–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Spice, Byron. 2016. Carnegie Mellon transparency reports make AI decision-making accountable. Carnegie Mellon Computer University School of Computer Science. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/carnegie-mellon-transparency-reports-make-ai-decision-making-accountable.

  37. Van Inwagen, Peter. 1997. Fischer on moral responsibility. The Philosophical Quarterly 47: 373–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wallach, Wendell, and Colin Allen. 2009. Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Waymo, https://waymo.com/journey/. Accessed 14 Feb 2017.

  40. Wood, Allen. 2007. Kantian ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amitai Etzioni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Etzioni, A., Etzioni, O. Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence. J Ethics 21, 403–418 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Artificial intelligence
  • Autonomy
  • Ethics
  • Self-driving cars
  • Trolley problem