Bad, mad, and cooked: Moral responsibility for civilian harms in human-AI military teams

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06326v3
• Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 11:13:14 GMT
• Title: Bad, mad, and cooked: Moral responsibility for civilian harms in human-AI military teams
• Authors: Susannah Kate Devitt
• Abstract summary: This chapter explores moral responsibility for civilian harms by human-artificial intelligence (AI) teams. increasingly militaries may 'cook' their good apples by putting them in untenable decision-making environments. This chapter offers new mechanisms to map out conditions for moral responsibility in human-AI teams.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This chapter explores moral responsibility for civilian harms by human-artificial intelligence (AI) teams. Although militaries may have some bad apples responsible for war crimes and some mad apples unable to be responsible for their actions during a conflict, increasingly militaries may 'cook' their good apples by putting them in untenable decision-making environments through the processes of replacing human decision-making with AI determinations in war making. Responsibility for civilian harm in human-AI military teams may be contested, risking operators becoming detached, being extreme moral witnesses, becoming moral crumple zones or suffering moral injury from being part of larger human-AI systems authorised by the state. Acknowledging military ethics, human factors and AI work to date as well as critical case studies, this chapter offers new mechanisms to map out conditions for moral responsibility in human-AI teams. These include: 1) new decision responsibility prompts for critical decision method in a cognitive task analysis, and 2) applying an AI workplace health and safety framework for identifying cognitive and psychological risks relevant to attributions of moral responsibility in targeting decisions. Mechanisms such as these enable militaries to design human-centred AI systems for responsible deployment.

Related papers

• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Commercial AI, Conflict, and Moral Responsibility: A theoretical analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities associated with dual-use AI technology [2.050345881732981]
  We argue that stakeholders involved in the AI system lifecycle are morally responsible for uses of their systems that are reasonably foreseeable. We present three technically feasible actions that developers of civilian AIs can take to potentially mitigate their moral responsibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T18:09:45Z)
• What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical systems [1.0549609328807565]
  It is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS. A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating. This paper considers different senses of responsibility (role, moral, legal and causal), and how they apply in the context of AI-SCS safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T13:45:36Z)
• Moral Responsibility for AI Systems [8.919993498343159]
  Moral responsibility for an outcome of an agent who performs some action is commonly taken to involve both a causal condition and an epistemic condition. This paper presents a formal definition of both conditions within the framework of causal models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T10:37:47Z)
• The Promise and Peril of Artificial Intelligence -- Violet Teaming Offers a Balanced Path Forward [56.16884466478886]
  This paper reviews emerging issues with opaque and uncontrollable AI systems. It proposes an integrative framework called violet teaming to develop reliable and responsible AI. It emerged from AI safety research to manage risks proactively by design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T02:10:38Z)
• 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)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)
• Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making [8.688778020322758]
  We measure people's perceptions of eight different notions of moral responsibility concerning AI and human agents. We show that AI agents are held causally responsible and blamed similarly to human agents for an identical task. We find that people expect both AI and human decision-makers and advisors to justify their decisions regardless of their nature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-01T04:07:38Z)
• Hiding Behind Machines: When Blame Is Shifted to Artificial Agents [0.0]
  This article focuses on the responsibility of agents who decide on our behalf. We investigate whether the production of moral outcomes by an agent is systematically judged differently when the agent is artificial and not human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-27T14:50:02Z)

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.