Taming the Techno Leviathan: Why We Should Adopt a Society-in-the-Loop Model Inside IoT Utilities

  • Alfredo AdamoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 629)


While the Internet of Things (IoT) has made significant progress along the lines of supporting individual applications, it is only recently that the importance of people as an integral component of the overall IoT infrastructure has started to be fully recognized. Several powerful concepts have emerged to facilitate this vision, whether involving the human context whenever required or directly impacting user behavior and decisions. As these become the stepping stones to develop the IoT into a people-centric utility, this paper outlines how to include the “Society-in-the-loop” approach to govern a lot of ethical, moral concerns. Rapid advances in IoT, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning have raised many questions about the regulatory and governance mechanisms for autonomous sensors, machines and infrastructures. We discuss about, in the context of the IoT utility, a lot of concerns raised about algorithms governing our lives, and how the adoption of “Society-in-the-loop” paradigm could be a solution.


IoT (Internet of Things) Artificial intelligence Machine learning HITL (human in the loop) SITL (society in the loop) Humanities 


  1. 1.
    Floridi L (2015) Background document: rethinking public spaces in the digital transition: the Onlife Manifesto. In: Floridi L (ed) The Onlife Manifesto. Springer, Cham. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Floridi L (2015) Commentary on the Onlife Manifesto. In: Floridi L (ed) The Onlife Manifesto. Springer, Cham. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rahwan I (2017) Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract. DOI, Ethics Inf Technol. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Delvaux M (2016) Motion for a European Parliament resolution: with recommendations to the commission on civil law rules on robotics. Technical Report (2015/2103(INL)), European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Citron DK, Pasquale FA (2014) The scored society: due process for automated predictions. Wash Law Rev 89:1–33Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helbing D, Pournaras E (2015) Society: build digital democracy. Nature 527:33–34ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Procaccia AD (2016) Cake cutting algorithms. In: Brandt et al (eds) Handbook of computational social choice. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 311–329Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conitzer V, Brill M, Freeman R (2015) Crowdsourcing societal tradeoffs. In: Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 1213–1217Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    MIT (2017) The moral machine. Retrieved 01 Jan 2017, from
  10. 10.
    Etzioni A, Etzioni O (2016) AI assisted ethics. Ethics Inf Technol 18(2):149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pentland A (2013) The data-driven society. Sci Am 309(4):78–83. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alan AdvantageRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations