Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Remarks on the Possibility of Ethical Reasoning in an Artificial Intelligence System by Means of Abductive Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology (MBR 2018)

Part of the book series: Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics ((SAPERE,volume 49))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Machine learning and other types of AI algorithms are now commonly used to make decisions about important personal situations. Institutions use such algorithms to help them figure out whether a person should get a job, receive a loan or even be granted parole, sometimes leaving the decision completely to an automatic process. Unfortunately, these algorithms can easily become biased and make unjust decisions.

To avoid such problems, researchers are working to include an ethical framework in automatic decision systems. A well-known example is MIT’s Moral Machine, which is used to extract the basic ethical intuitions underlying extensive interviews with humans in order to apply them to the design of ethical autonomous vehicles.

In this chapter, we want to show the limitations of current statistical methods based on preferences, and defend the use of abductive reasoning as a systematic tool for assigning values to possibilities and generating sets of ethical regulations for autonomous systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, there is the authors’ rights problem in cases like Naruto’s (macaque) selfie (monkey selfie copyright dispute).

  2. 2.

    An example is GANS’ Portrait of Edmond Belamy sold in 2018 for $432,500.

  3. 3.

    Both the first and the second examples can be compared and evaluate through some random pseudo- infinite monkey theorem.

  4. 4.

    The reason to put the title in German and not in English is that “Forschung” is “research”, not “discovery”. Thus, as Aliseda says [2, p. 12], English translation «The Logic of Scientific Discovery» is not correct.

  5. 5.

    The reference is only for the “abduction as perception” argument.

  6. 6.

    Cutdown problem refers to two questions around abductive reasoning, the first is about the specification of the conditions for thinking up possibilities for selection, and the second is about the characterization of these possibilities. See also [32, pp. 6–10] and [42, p. 234].

  7. 7.

    The passage quoted by West is from Peirce.

References

  1. Adolphs R (2002) Recognizing emotion from facial expressions: psychological and neurological mechanisms. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev 1(1):21–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aliseda A (2006) Abductive reasoning: logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Springer, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson M, Anderson SL (2015) Toward ensuring ethical behavior from autonomous systems: a case-supported principle based paradigm. In: Proceeding of the AAAI workshop on artificial intelligence and ethics (1st international workshop on AI and ethics)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barrett LF (2006) Solving the emotion paradox: categorization and the experience of emotion. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10(1):20–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Binns R, Van Kleek M, Veale M, Lyngs U, Zhao J, Shadbolt N (2018) It’s reducing a human being to a percentage: perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, p 377

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bonnefon JF, Shariff A, Rahwan I (2016) The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352(6293):1573–1576

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bostrom N, Yudkowsky E (2014) The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: The cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence, pp 316–334

    Google Scholar 

  9. Buolamwini J, Gebru T (2018) Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proc Mach Learn Res 81:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cadwalladr C, Graham-Harrison E (2018) The Cambridge analytica files. The Guardian 21:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  11. Callicott JB (2018) Ecological sustainability. In: A sustainable philosophy—the work of bryan norton. Springer, Cham, pp 27–47

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cunningham WA, Raye CL, Johnson MK (2004) Implicit and explicit evaluation: fMRI correlates of valence, emotional intensity, and control in the processing of attitudes. J Cogn Neurosci 16(10):1717–1729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Douilliez C, Yzerbyt V, Gilboa-Schechtman E, Philippot P (2012) Social anxiety biases the evaluation of facial displays: evidence from single face and multi-facial stimuli. Cogn Emot 26(6):1107–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dreyfus HL (1997) Heidegger on gaining a free relation to technology. In: Technology and values, pp 41–54

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE (2004) The ethical implications of the five- stage-skill-acquisition model. Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:251–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Foot P (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Rev 5:5–15

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goodall N (2016) Away from trolley problems and toward risk management. Appl Artif Intell 30(8):810–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Green SJ (1989) Competitive equality of opportunity: a defense. Ethics 100(1):5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hevelke A, Nida-Rümelin J (2015) Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis. Sci Eng Ethics 21(3):619–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Himmelreich J (2018) Never mind the trolley: the ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situations. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 21:669–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hintikka J (2007) Socratic epistemology. In: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hintikka J (1998) What is abduction? the fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Trans Charles Sanders Peirce Soc 34:503–533

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jain AK, Li SZ (2011) Handbook of face recognition. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kakas AC (2017) Abduction. In: Sammut C, Webb, GI (eds) Encyclopedia of machine learning and data mining. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Keeling, G (2019) Why trolley problems matter for the ethics of automated vehicles. Sci Eng Ethics 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kleinberg J, Mullainathan S (2018) Simplicity creates inequity: implications for fairness, stereotypes, and interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04578

  27. Lin P (2016) Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In: Maurer IM, Gerdes J, Lenz B, Winner H (Eds) Autonomous driving: technical, legal and social aspects. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 69–85

    Google Scholar 

  28. Liu LT, Dean S, Rolf E, Simchowitz M, Hardt M (2018) Delayed impact of fair machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.04383

  29. Łukasiewicz J (1970) Creative elements in science. selected works. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  30. McLaren BM (2003) Extensionally defining principles and cases in ethics: an AI model. Artif. Intell. J. 150:145–181

    Google Scholar 

  31. Magnani L (2018) Eco-cognitive computationalism: from mimetic minds to morphology-based enchancement of mimetic bodies. Etropy 20:430–446

    Google Scholar 

  32. Magnani L (2017) The abductive structure of scientific creativity. In: An essay on the ecology of cognition. Springer, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  33. Magnani L (2009) Abductive cognition. In: The epistemological and eco-cognitive dimensions of hypothetical reasoning. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  34. Magnani L, Bardone E (2007) Distributed morality: exteralizing ethical knowledge in [β] technological 39 artifacts. Found Sci 13:99–108

    Google Scholar 

  35. Magnani L (2006) La moralidad distribuida y la tecnología. Cómo las cosas nos hacen morales (trans: Olmos P (UNED) and Feltrero R (IFS, CSIC)). Isegoría 34:63–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Magnani L (2001) Abduction, reason, and science. In: Processes of discovery and explanation. Kluwer Academic/plenum Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Meaker M (2019) How should self-driving cars choose who not to kill? medium platform

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nepomuceno-Fernández A, Soler-Toscano F, Velázquez-Quesada FR (2014) The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Teorema 23(2):89–103

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nguyen TT, Hui PM, Harper FM, Terveen L, Konstan JA (2014) Exploring the filter bubble: the effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web. ACM, pp 677–686

    Google Scholar 

  40. Niiniluoto I (2014) Representation and truthlikeness. Found Sci 19(4):375–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pariser E (2011) The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  42. Park W (2017) Abduction in context. In: The conjectural dynamics of scientific reasoning. Springer, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  43. Park W (2015) On classifying abduction. J Appl Logic 13(3):215–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pearl J, Mackenzie D (2018) The book of why: the new science of cause and effect. Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pereira LM, Saptawijaya A (2016) Programming machine ethics, vol. 26. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  46. Persily N (2017) The 2016 US election: can democracy survive the internet? J Democracy 28(2):63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Putnam H (2002) The collapse of fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  48. Saptawijaya A, Pereira LM (2015) The potential of logic programming as a computational tool to model morality. In: A construction manual for robots’ ethical systems. Springer, Cham, pp 169–210

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sans A (2017) El lado epistemológico de las abducciones: La creatividad en las verdades- proyectadas. Revista iberoamericana de argumentación 15:77–91

    Google Scholar 

  50. Shanahan M (2005) Perception as abduction: turning sensor data into meaningful representation. Cogn Sci 29:103–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Simon H (1977) Does scientific discovery have a logic? In: Models of discovery, Pallas Paperback, Holland, pp 326–337

    Google Scholar 

  52. Thagard P (1988) Computational philosophy of science. MIT Press, Massachusetts

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Washington AL (2019) How to argue with an algorithm: lessons from the COMPAS propublica debate. Colorado Technol Law J 17(1)

    Google Scholar 

  54. West C (1989) The American evasion of philosophy. In: A genealogy of pragmatism. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wittgenstein L (2009) Philosophical investigations. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to TecnoCog research group: Anna Estany, Jordi Vallverdú, Dafne Muntanyola, and Rosa Herrera. On the other hand, it is necessary to express gratitude to Lorenzo Magnani and Atocha Aliseda because the part of abduction would have been impossible without their advice.

This research paper has been possible by the Research group Epistemic Innovation: the case of the biomedical sciences (FFI2017-85711-P) and FPU predoctoral program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Alger Sans & David Casacuberta

Authors
  1. Alger Sans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Casacuberta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alger Sans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Ángel Nepomuceno-Fernández

  2. Department of Humanities, Philosophy Section, and Computational Philosophy Laboratory, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Lorenzo Magnani

  3. Department of Spanish Language, Linguistics and Theory of Literature, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Francisco J. Salguero-Lamillar

  4. Department of Philosophy, Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Cristina Barés-Gómez

  5. Centre for Philosophy of Science of the University of Lisbon, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Matthieu Fontaine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Sans, A., Casacuberta, D. (2019). Remarks on the Possibility of Ethical Reasoning in an Artificial Intelligence System by Means of Abductive Models. In: Nepomuceno-Fernández, Á., Magnani, L., Salguero-Lamillar, F., Barés-Gómez, C., Fontaine, M. (eds) Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. MBR 2018. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 49. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32722-4_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation