Automated Kantian Ethics: A Faithful Implementation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.10152v1
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 19:09:15 GMT
- Title: Automated Kantian Ethics: A Faithful Implementation
- Authors: Lavanya Singh
- Abstract summary: I present an implementation of automated Kantian ethics that is faithful to the Kantian philosophical tradition.
I formalize Kant's categorical imperative in Dyadic Deontic Logic, implement this formalization in the Isabelle theorem prover, and develop a testing framework to evaluate how well my implementation coheres with expected properties of Kantian ethic.
My system is an early step towards philosophically mature ethical AI agents and it can make nuanced judgements in complex ethical dilemmas because it is grounded in philosophical literature.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: As we grant artificial intelligence increasing power and independence in
contexts like healthcare, policing, and driving, AI faces moral dilemmas but
lacks the tools to solve them. Warnings from regulators, philosophers, and
computer scientists about the dangers of unethical artificial intelligence have
spurred interest in automated ethics-i.e., the development of machines that can
perform ethical reasoning. However, prior work in automated ethics rarely
engages with philosophical literature. Philosophers have spent centuries
debating moral dilemmas so automated ethics will be most nuanced, consistent,
and reliable when it draws on philosophical literature. In this paper, I
present an implementation of automated Kantian ethics that is faithful to the
Kantian philosophical tradition. I formalize Kant's categorical imperative in
Dyadic Deontic Logic, implement this formalization in the Isabelle theorem
prover, and develop a testing framework to evaluate how well my implementation
coheres with expected properties of Kantian ethic. My system is an early step
towards philosophically mature ethical AI agents and it can make nuanced
judgements in complex ethical dilemmas because it is grounded in philosophical
literature. Because I use an interactive theorem prover, my system's judgements
are explainable.
Related papers
- Quelle {é}thique pour quelle IA ? [0.0]
This study proposes an analysis of the different types of ethical approaches involved in the ethics of AI.
The author introduces to the contemporary need for and meaning of ethics, distinguishes it from other registers of normativities and underlines its inadequacy to formalization.
The study concludes with a reflection on the reasons why a human ethics of AI based on a pragmatic practice of contextual ethics remains necessary and irreducible to any formalization or automated treatment of the ethical questions that arise for humans.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-21T08:13:02Z) - Towards a Feminist Metaethics of AI [0.0]
I argue that these insufficiencies could be mitigated by developing a research agenda for a feminist metaethics of AI.
Applying this perspective to the context of AI, I suggest that a feminist metaethics of AI would examine: (i) the continuity between theory and action in AI ethics; (ii) the real-life effects of AI ethics; (iii) the role and profile of those involved in AI ethics; and (iv) the effects of AI on power relations through methods that pay attention to context, emotions and narrative.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-10T13:26:45Z) - Rethinking Machine Ethics -- Can LLMs Perform Moral Reasoning through the Lens of Moral Theories? [78.3738172874685]
Making moral judgments is an essential step toward developing ethical AI systems.
Prevalent approaches are mostly implemented in a bottom-up manner, which uses a large set of annotated data to train models based on crowd-sourced opinions about morality.
This work proposes a flexible top-down framework to steer (Large) Language Models (LMs) to perform moral reasoning with well-established moral theories from interdisciplinary research.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-29T15:57:32Z) - Toward an Ethics of AI Belief [0.0]
We argue that we need to pursue a novel area of philosophical research in AI - the ethics of belief for AI.
We suggest four topics in extant work in the ethics of (human) belief that can be applied to an ethics of AI belief.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-28T00:35:57Z) - Beyond Bias and Compliance: Towards Individual Agency and Plurality of
Ethics in AI [0.0]
We argue that the way data is labeled plays an essential role in the way AI behaves.
We propose an alternative path that allows for the plurality of values and the freedom of individual expression.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-23T16:33:40Z) - When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human
Moral Judgment [96.77970239683475]
AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions.
A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind.
We present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-04T09:04:27Z) - AI Ethics Issues in Real World: Evidence from AI Incident Database [0.6091702876917279]
We identify 13 application areas which often see unethical use of AI, with intelligent service robots, language/vision models and autonomous driving taking the lead.
Ethical issues appear in 8 different forms, from inappropriate use and racial discrimination, to physical safety and unfair algorithm.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-15T16:25:57Z) - 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) - 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) - Aligning AI With Shared Human Values [85.2824609130584]
We introduce the ETHICS dataset, a new benchmark that spans concepts in justice, well-being, duties, virtues, and commonsense morality.
We find that current language models have a promising but incomplete ability to predict basic human ethical judgements.
Our work shows that progress can be made on machine ethics today, and it provides a steppingstone toward AI that is aligned with human values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-05T17:59:16Z)
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.