Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Rise of AI Ethics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
AI Ethics

  • 2291 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents an overview of the present state of AI ethics, its main themes, and some of the factors that lead up to the current state of play. An overview of the most prominent value issues in current guidance concerning AI ethics is given, with introductions to these issues, brief case studies for each, and exercises to draw out questions, many of which will be pursued at greater length throughout the book. These are freedom and autonomy, justice and fairness, transparency and explanation, beneficence and nonmaleficence, responsibility, privacy, trust, sustainability, dignity, and solidarity. We explore how having some understanding of relevant historical concerns about technology can help to illuminate current concerns regarding AI, looking briefly at historical apprehensions regarding robots, the technologies of writing, machines, data and statistics, and twentieth-century concerns about computing that preceded specific concerns about AI. An overview of the current state of AI ethics and endeavours to implement ethical guidance in policy and practice is given. Last, we look at a case study of indigenous AI protocols and ask what can be learned from considering diverse perspectives.

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 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
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

References

  1. Powledge TM (2003) Human genome project completed. Genome Biol 4(1):1–3

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rood JE, Regev A (2021) The legacy of the Human Genome Project. Science 373(6562):1442–1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwab K (2017) The fourth industrial revolution. Currency

    Google Scholar 

  4. Skilton M, Hovsepian F (2018) The 4th industrial revolution. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor L, Sharma G, Martin A, Jameson S (eds) (2020) Data justice and COVID-19 global perspectives. Meatspace, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Franck R, Iannaccone LR (2014) Religious decline in the 20th century West: testing alternative explanations. Public Choice 159(3):385–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Amodei D, Olah C, Steinhardt J, Christiano P, Schulman J, Mané D (2016) Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aloisi A, Gramano E (2019) Artificial intelligence is watching you at work: digital surveillance, employee monitoring, and regulatory issues in the EU context. Comp Lab L Pol’y J 41:95

    Google Scholar 

  9. Prunkl C, Whittlestone J (2020) Beyond near- and long-term: towards a clearer account of research priorities in AI ethics and society. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, pp 138–143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bostrom N (2017) Superintelligence. Dunod, Malakoff

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brock DC, Moore GE (eds) (2006) Understanding Moore’s law: four decades of innovation. Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wooldridge M (2020) The road to conscious machines: the story of AI. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Asimov I (2004) I, Robot 1. Spectra. First published 1950

    Google Scholar 

  14. IEEE (2011) Draft guide: adoption of the Project Management Institute (PMI) standard. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)-2008. In: 4th IEEE P1490/D1, pp 1–505. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.5937011

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Hand DJ, Khan S (2020) Validating and verifying AI systems. Patterns (N Y) 1(3):100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Leslie D (2019) Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05684. https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/publications/understanding-artificial-intelligence-ethics-and-safety

  17. Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd GD, Beale R (2004) Human-computer interaction. Pearson, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Riek L, Howard D (2014) A code of ethics for the human-robot interaction profession. Proceedings of we robot

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shanahan M (2015) The technological singularity. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Zanzotto FM (2019) Human-in-the-loop artificial intelligence. J Artif Intell Res 64:243–252

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones ML (2017) The right to a human in the loop: political constructions of computer automation and personhood. Soc Stud Sci 47(2):216–239

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Whittlestone J, Nyrup R, Alexandrova A, Dihal K, Cave S (2019) Ethical and societal implications of algorithms, data, and artificial intelligence: a roadmap for research. Nuffield Foundation, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell 1(9):389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fjeld J, Achten N, Hilligoss H, Nagy A, Srikumar M (2020) Principled artificial intelligence: mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication, Harvard. (2020-1)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mittelstadt BD, Allo P, Taddeo M, Wachter S, Floridi L (2016) The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data Soc 3(2)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hagendorff T (2020) The ethics of AI ethics: an evaluation of guidelines. Mind Mach 30:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  27. Buss S, Westlund A (2018) Personal autonomy. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/personal-autonomy/

    Google Scholar 

  28. Christman J (2020) Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/autonomy-moral/

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dworkin G (1988) The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Kearns M, Roth A (2019) The ethical algorithm: the science of socially aware algorithm design. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sanderson D (2019) Google maps and satnavs are damaging our brains, says author David Barrie. The Times

    Google Scholar 

  32. TFL. Learn the knowledge of London. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing/learn-the-knowledge-of-london

  33. Maguire EA, Gadian DG, Johnsrude IS, Good CD, Ashburner J, Frackowiak RS, Frith CD (2000) Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proc Natl Acad Sci 97(8):4398–4403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Association for Computing Machinery statement on algorithm transparency and accountability. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/publicpolicy/2017_usacm_statement_algorithms.pdf

  35. Goodman B, Flaxman S (2017) European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a ‘right to explanation’. AI Mag 38(3):50–57. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Edwards L, Veale M (2017) Slave to the algorithm: why a right to an explanation is probably not the remedy you are looking for. Duke L Tech Rev 16:18

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mittelstadt B, Russell C, Wachter S (2019) Explaining explanations in AI. In: Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. Association for Computing Machinery, Atlanta, pp 279–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Stepin I, Alonso JM, Catala A, Pereira-Fariña M (2021) A survey of contrastive and counterfactual explanation generation methods for explainable artificial intelligence. IEEE Access 9:11974–12001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wachter S, Mittelstadt BD, Russell C (2017) Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR. CoRR, abs/1711.00399 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.00399.pdf

  40. Zerilli J, Knott A, Maclaurin J, Gavaghan C (2019) Transparency in algorithmic and human decision-making: is there a double standard? Philos Technol 32(4):661–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Weller A (2019) Transparency: motivations and challenges. In: Explainable AI: interpreting, explaining and visualizing deep learning. Springer, Cham, pp 23–40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Binns R (2018) Fairness in machine learning: lessons from political philosophy. In: Proceedings of the 1st conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, in proceedings of machine learning research, vol 81. PMLR, pp 149–159

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lamont J, Favor C (2017) Distributive justice. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/justice-distributive/

    Google Scholar 

  44. Chouldechova A, Roth A (2018) The frontiers of fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08810

    Google Scholar 

  45. Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L, Angwin J (2016) How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica 9(1):3

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dieterich W, Mendoza C, Brennan T (2016) COMPAS risk scales: demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive parity, vol 7(4). Northpointe Inc, Traverse City

    Google Scholar 

  47. Flores AW, Bechtel K, Lowenkamp CT (2016) False positives, false negatives, and false analyses: a rejoinder to machine bias: there’s software used across the country to predict future criminals and it’s biased against blacks. Fed Probat 80:38

    Google Scholar 

  48. Freeman K (2016) Algorithmic injustice: how the Wisconsin Supreme Court failed to protect due process rights in State v. Loomis. NC J Law Technol 18(5):75

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dressel J, Farid H (2018) The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Sci Adv 4(1):eaao5580. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Benthall S, Haynes BD (2019) Racial categories in machine learning. In: Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency - FAT*’19. ACM Press, Atlanta, GA, pp 289–298. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.11668.pdf

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Buolamwini J, Gebru T (2018) Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In: Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. PMLR, pp 77–91

    Google Scholar 

  52. Corbett-Davies S, Goel S (2018) The measure and mismeasure of fairness: a critical review of fair machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00023

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hoffmann AL (2019) Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Inf Commun Soc 22(7):900–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bazerman MH, Tenbrunsel AE (2011) Blind spots. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. Frey AL, Karran M, Jimenez RC, Baxter J, Adeogun M, Bose N, Chan D, Crawford J, Dagum P, Everson R, Hinds C (2019) Harnessing the potential of digital technologies for the early detection of neurodegenerative diseases (EDoN). OSF Preprints, Charlottesville, VA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Hakli R, Mäkelä P (2019) Moral responsibility of robots and hybrid agents. Monist 102(2):259–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onz009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Helberger N, Pierson J, Poell T (2018) Governing online platforms: from contested to cooperative responsibility. Inf Soc 34(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Jamjoom AAB, Jamjoom AMA, Marcus HJ (2020) Exploring public opinion about liability and responsibility in surgical robotics. Nat Mach Intell 2:194–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jirotka M, Grimpe B, Stahl B, Eden G, Hartswood M (2017) Responsible research and innovation in the digital age. Commun ACM 60(5):62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Taylor L, Purtova N (2019) What is responsible and sustainable data science? Big Data Soc 6(2):205395171985811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Dignum V (2019) Responsible artificial intelligence: how to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. Floridi L (2013) Distributed morality in an information society. Sci Eng Ethics 19(3):727–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Schwartz O (2019) In 2016, Microsoft’s racist chatbot revealed the dangers of online conversation. IEEE Spectr 11:2019

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wolf MJ, Miller KW, Grodzinsky FS (2017) Why we should have seen that coming: comments on Microsoft’s Tay “experiment,” and wider implications. ORBIT J 1(2):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nissenbaum H (2020) Privacy in context. Stanford University Press, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  66. Van den Hoven J, Blaauw M, Pieters W, Warnier M (2020) Privacy and information technology. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/it-privacy/

    Google Scholar 

  67. Véliz C (2020) Privacy is power: why and how you should take back control of your data. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  68. Agre PE (1994) Surveillance and capture: two models of privacy. Inf Soc 10(2):101–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism. Profile Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ng J, Kong H (2016) Not all who wander are lost: smart tracker for people with dementia. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 2241–2248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  71. Hine C, Barnaghi P (2021) Surveillance for independence: discursive frameworks in smart care for dementia. AoIR selected papers of Internet research

    Google Scholar 

  72. McLeod C (2021) Trust. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/trust/

    Google Scholar 

  73. Brundage M, Avin S, Wang J, Belfield H, Krueger G, Hadfield G, Khlaaf H, Yang J, Toner H, Fong R, Maharaj T (2020) Toward trustworthy AI development: mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07213

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ferrario A, Loi M, Viganò E (2019) In AI we trust incrementally: a multi-layer model of trust to analyze human-artificial intelligence interactions. Philos Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00378-3

  75. HLEG, High Level Expert Group in AI (2019) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, Brussels, p 39

    Google Scholar 

  76. Winfield AF, Jirotka M (2018) Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 376(2133):20180085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Song Y, Luximon Y (2020) Trust in AI agent: a systematic review of facial anthropomorphic trustworthiness for social robot design. Sensors 20(18):5087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Crawford K (2021) The atlas of AI. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Book  Google Scholar 

  79. Strubell E, Ganesh A, McCallum A (2020) Energy and policy considerations for modern deep learning research. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol 34, pp 13693–13696

    Google Scholar 

  80. Bender EM, Gebru T, McMillan-Major A, Shmitchell S (2021) On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 610–623

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  81. Macklin R (2003) Dignity is a useless concept. BMJ 327(7429):1419–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Smiley L (2017) What happens when we let tech care for our aging parents. Wired

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bayertz K (ed) (1999) Solidarity, vol 5. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  84. https://letsmindstep.com. Accessed 8 June 2022

  85. Rifkin-Zybutz R, Selim H, Johal M, Kuleindiren N, Palmon I, Lin A, Yu Y, Mahmud M (2021) Preliminary validation study of the Mindset4Dementia application: assessing remote collection of dementia risk factors and cognitive performance. BMJ Innovations 7(4):26–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Rangroo A (2020) New app urges Asian community to join in fight against dementia. Asian Sunday Online. https://www.asiansunday.co.uk/new-app-urges-asian-community-to-join-fight-against-dementia/

  87. Harris J (2005) Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 31(4):242–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Marrus MR (1999) The Nuremberg doctors’ trial in historical context. Bull Hist Med 73(1):106–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Dickson D (1988) Europe split on Embryo Research: deeply etched memories of Nazi atrocities are digging a gulf between West Germany and other European nations over whether human embryos should be used for research purposes. Science 242(4882):1117–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Feynman R (1986) Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident. Appendix F

    Google Scholar 

  91. Gehman HW (2003) Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol 2. Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Columbia

    Google Scholar 

  92. Cave S, Dihal K (2019) Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nat Mach Intell 1(2):74–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Mayor A (2018) Gods and robots. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  94. Mori M (2017) The uncanny valley: the original essay by Masahiro Mori. IEEE Robots, New York

    Google Scholar 

  95. Rappaport ZH (2006) Robotics and artificial intelligence: Jewish ethical perspectives. Acta Neurochir Suppl 98:9–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Pettegree A (2015) Brand Luther: how an unheralded monk turned his small town into a center of publishing, made himself the most famous man in Europe–and started the protestant reformation. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  97. Plato (1888) The Phaedrus. In: Plato, Hamilton E, Cairns H, Jowett B (eds) The collected dialogues of Plato. InteLex, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  98. Noble DF (1995) Progress without people: new technology, unemployment, and the message of resistance. Between the Lines, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  99. Galton F (1908) Memories of my life. Methuen, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  100. Holt J (2005) Measure for measure the strange science of Frances Galton. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/01/24/measure-for-measure-5

  101. Dickens C (1905) Hard times. Chapman & Hall, London. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/786/786-h/786-h.htm

  102. Bentham J (1825) The rationale of reward. John and HL Hunt Book, London. 3, Chapter 1

    Google Scholar 

  103. Mitchell WC (1918) Bentham’s felicific calculus. Political Sci Q 33(2):161–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Bentham J (1789) Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  105. Mill JS (1998) In: Crisp R (ed) Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  106. Roseboom T, de Rooij S, Painter R (2006) The Dutch famine and its long-term consequences for adult health. Early Hum Dev 82(8):485–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Müller-Hill B (1988) Murderous science: elimination by scientific selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others, Germany. J Med Genet 25:860–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Lepore J (2020) If then: how one data company invented the future. John Murray, Hachette

    Google Scholar 

  109. Mnookin S (2020) The bumbling 1960s data scientists who anticipated Facebook and Google. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/books/review/if-then-jill-lepore.html

  110. Turing A (2004) Can digital computers think? (1951). In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential Turing. Oxford Academic, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  111. Wiener N (1964) God and golem. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  112. Wiener N (1954) The human use of human beings. De Capo Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  113. Web Foundation (2017) Three challenges for the Web, according to its inventor. https://webfoundation.org/2017/03/web-turns-28-letter/

  114. Cellan-Jones R (2014) Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540

  115. Moyer JW (2014) Why Elon Musk is scared of artificial intelligence–and terminators. Washington Post

    Google Scholar 

  116. Medeiros J (2017) Stephen Hawking: ‘I fear AI may replace humans altogether’. Wired. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/stephen-hawking-interview-alien-life-climate-change-donald-trump

  117. Future of Life Open Letter ‘Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence’. https://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/

  118. Johnson DG (1985) Computer ethics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  119. Floridi L, Taddeo M (2016) What is data ethics? Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 374(2083):20160360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Zwitter A (2014) Big data ethics. Big Data Soc 1(2):2053951714559253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Morozov E (2013) To save everything, click here: the folly of technological solutionism. Public Affairs, New York

    Google Scholar 

  122. Weinberg AM (1966) Can technology replace social engineering? Bull At Sci 22(10):4–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Boddington P (2017) Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  124. Kwarteng K (2021) Our ten year plan to make Britain a global AI superpower’ in HM Government. National AI Strategy, London

    Google Scholar 

  125. Lewis JE, Abdilla A, Arista N, Baker K, Benesiinaabandan S, Brown M, Cheung M, Coleman M, Cordes A, Davison J, Duncan K (2020) Indigenous protocol and artificial intelligence position paper. Initiative for Indigenous Futures and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), Honolulu, Hawaiʻi

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Bentham J (1789) Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In: Works, vol 1. William Tait, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham J (1825) The rationale of reward. John and HL Hunt, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cave S, Dihal K (2019) Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nat Mach Intell 1(2):74–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cave S, Coughlan K, Dihal K (2019) Scary robots examining public responses to AI. In: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 331–337

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fjeld J, Achten N, Hilligoss H, Nagy A, Srikumar M (2020) Principled artificial intelligence: mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center, Cambridge (2020-1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell 1(9):389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DG (1985) Computer ethics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayor A (2018) Gods and robots. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1863) Utilitarianism. Parker, Son and Bourn, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato (1868) Phaedrus (trans: Jowett B)

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart JJC, Williams B (1973) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turing A (2004) Can digital computers think? (1951). In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential Turing, Oxford Academic, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener N (1954) The human use of human beings. De Capo Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener N (1964) God and golem. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge M (2020) The road to conscious machines: the story of AI. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

Freedom and Autonomy

  • Berlin I (1988) Two concepts of liberty. In: Dworkin G (ed) The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Transparency

  • Weller A (2019) Transparency: motivations and challenges. In: Samek W, Montavon G, Vedaldi A, Hansen LK, Müller KR (eds) Explainable AI: interpreting, explaining and visualizing deep learning, vol 11700. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

  • Glover J (1990) Causing death and saving lives: the moral problems of abortion, infanticide, suicide, euthanasia, capital punishment, war and other life-or-death choices. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

Fairness

  • Binns R (2018) Fairness in machine learning: lessons from political philosophy. In: Proceedings of the first conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, vol 81. Machine Learning Research, pp 149–159

    Google Scholar 

Responsibility

  • Dignum V (2019) Responsible artificial intelligence: how to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

Privacy

  • Véliz C (2020) Privacy is power: why and how you should take back control of your data. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

Trust

  • Winfield AF, Jirotka M (2018) Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 376(2133):20180085

    Article  Google Scholar 

Sustainability

Dignity

  • Latonero M (2018) Governing artificial intelligence: upholding human rights & dignity. Data Soc, New York, pp 1–37

    Google Scholar 

Solidarity

  • Luengo-Oroz M (2019) Solidarity should be a core ethical principle of AI. Nat Mach Intell 1(11):494–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This chapter was partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (project number 13/10/80). The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geller Institute of Aging and Memory, University of West London, London, UK

    Paula Boddington

Authors
  1. Paula Boddington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boddington, P. (2023). The Rise of AI Ethics. In: AI Ethics. Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9382-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9382-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-9381-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-9382-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation