Confucius, Cyberpunk and Mr. Science: Comparing AI ethics between China and the EU

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.07555v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:38:33 GMT
• Title: Confucius, Cyberpunk and Mr. Science: Comparing AI ethics between China and the EU
• Authors: Pascale Fung and Hubert Etienne
• Abstract summary: A major concern is the large homogeneity and presumed consensualism around these principles. We propose to analyse and compare the ethical principles endorsed by the Chinese National New Generation Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional Committee and those elaborated by the European High-level Expert Group on AI (HLEGAI) In our analysis, we wish to highlight that principles that seem similar a priori may actually have different meanings, derived from different approaches and reflect distinct goals.
• Score: 41.19326726478421
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The exponential development and application of artificial intelligence triggered an unprecedented global concern for potential social and ethical issues. Stakeholders from different industries, international foundations, governmental organisations and standards institutions quickly improvised and created various codes of ethics attempting to regulate AI. A major concern is the large homogeneity and presumed consensualism around these principles. While it is true that some ethical doctrines, such as the famous Kantian deontology, aspire to universalism, they are however not universal in practice. In fact, ethical pluralism is more about differences in which relevant questions to ask rather than different answers to a common question. When people abide by different moral doctrines, they tend to disagree on the very approach to an issue. Even when people from different cultures happen to agree on a set of common principles, it does not necessarily mean that they share the same understanding of these concepts and what they entail. In order to better understand the philosophical roots and cultural context underlying ethical principles in AI, we propose to analyse and compare the ethical principles endorsed by the Chinese National New Generation Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional Committee (CNNGAIGPC) and those elaborated by the European High-level Expert Group on AI (HLEGAI). China and the EU have very different political systems and diverge in their cultural heritages. In our analysis, we wish to highlight that principles that seem similar a priori may actually have different meanings, derived from different approaches and reflect distinct goals.

Related papers

• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• AI Ethics and Ordoliberalism 2.0: Towards A 'Digital Bill of Rights' [0.0]
  This article analyzes AI ethics from a distinct business ethics perspective, i.e., 'ordoliberalism 2.0' It argues that the ongoing discourse on (generative) AI relies too much on corporate self-regulation and voluntary codes of conduct. The paper suggests merging already existing AI guidelines with an ordoliberal-inspired regulatory and competition policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T10:26:12Z)
• Macro Ethics Principles for Responsible AI Systems: Taxonomy and Future Directions [1.864621482724548]
  We develop a taxonomy of 21 normative ethical principles which can be operationalised in AI. We envision this taxonomy will facilitate the development of methodologies to incorporate normative ethical principles in reasoning capacities of responsible AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-12T08:48:16Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI [75.40051547428592]
  Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible AI technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-16T14:39:37Z)
• The Different Faces of AI Ethics Across the World: A Principle-Implementation Gap Analysis [12.031113181911627]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming our daily life with several applications in healthcare, space exploration, banking and finance. These rapid progresses in AI have brought increasing attention to the potential impacts of AI technologies on society. Several ethical principles have been released by governments, national and international organisations. These principles outline high-level precepts to guide the ethical development, deployment, and governance of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-12T22:41:08Z)
• AiSocrates: Towards Answering Ethical Quandary Questions [51.53350252548668]
  AiSocrates is a system for deliberative exchange of different perspectives to an ethical quandary. We show that AiSocrates generates promising answers to ethical quandary questions with multiple perspectives. We argue that AiSocrates is a promising step toward developing an NLP system that incorporates human values explicitly by prompt instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-12T09:52:59Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• Ethics of AI: A Systematic Literature Review of Principles and Challenges [3.7129018407842445]
  Transparency, privacy, accountability and fairness are identified as the most common AI ethics principles. Lack of ethical knowledge and vague principles are reported as the significant challenges for considering ethics in AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-12T15:33:43Z)
• AI-Ethics by Design. Evaluating Public Perception on the Importance of Ethical Design Principles of AI [0.0]
  We investigate how ethical principles are weighted in comparison to each other. We show that different preference models for ethically designed systems exist among the German population.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T09:01:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.