The cyberspace and the development of new technologies, especially intelligent systems using artificial intelligence, present enormous challenges to computer professionals, data scientists, managers and policy makers. There is a need to address professional responsibility, ethical, legal, societal, and policy issues. This paper presents problems and issues relevant to computer professionals and decision makers and suggests a curriculum for a course on ethics, law and policy. Such a course will create awareness of the ethics issues involved in building and using software and artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology which is increasingly being utilised in society and the economy worldwide, and its implementation is planned to become more prevalent in coming years. AI is increasingly being embedded in our lives, supplementing our pervasive use of digital technologies. But this is being accompanied by disquiet over problematic and dangerous implementations of AI, or indeed, even AI itself deciding to do dangerous and problematic actions, especially in fields such as the military, medicine and criminal justice. These developments have led to concerns about whether and how AI systems adhere, and will adhere to ethical standards. These concerns have stimulated a global conversation on AI ethics, and have resulted in various actors from different countries and sectors issuing ethics and governance initiatives and guidelines for AI. Such developments form the basis for our research in this report, combining our international and interdisciplinary expertise to give an insight into what is happening in Australia, China, Europe, India and the US.
This paper aims to provide an overview of the ethical concerns in artificial intelligence (AI) and the framework that is needed to mitigate those risks, and to suggest a practical path to ensure the development and use of AI at the United Nations (UN) aligns with our ethical values. The overview discusses how AI is an increasingly powerful tool with potential for good, albeit one with a high risk of negative side-effects that go against fundamental human rights and UN values. It explains the need for ethical principles for AI aligned with principles for data governance, as data and AI are tightly interwoven. It explores different ethical frameworks that exist and tools such as assessment lists. It recommends that the UN develop a framework consisting of ethical principles, architectural standards, assessment methods, tools and methodologies, and a policy to govern the implementation and adherence to this framework, accompanied by an education program for staff.
AI Ethics is now a global topic of discussion in academic and policy circles. At least 63 public-private initiatives have produced statements describing high-level principles, values, and other tenets to guide the ethical development, deployment, and governance of AI. According to recent meta-analyses, AI Ethics has seemingly converged on a set of principles that closely resemble the four classic principles of medical ethics. Despite the initial credibility granted to a principled approach to AI Ethics by the connection to principles in medical ethics, there are reasons to be concerned about its future impact on AI development and governance. Significant differences exist between medicine and AI development that suggest a principled approach in the latter may not enjoy success comparable to the former. Compared to medicine, AI development lacks (1) common aims and fiduciary duties, (2) professional history and norms, (3) proven methods to translate principles into practice, and (4) robust legal and professional accountability mechanisms. These differences suggest we should not yet celebrate consensus around high-level principles that hide deep political and normative disagreement.
For the first time since 1992, the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (the Code) is being updated. The Code Update Task Force in conjunction with the Committee on Professional Ethics is seeking advice from ACM members on the update. We indicated many of the motivations for changing the Code when we shared Draft 1 of Code 2018 with the ACM membership in the December 2016 issue of CACMb and with others through email and the COPE website (ethics.acm.org). Since December, we have been collecting feedback and are vetting proposed changes. We have seen a broad range of concerns about responsible computing including bullying in social media, cyber security, and autonomous machines making ethically significant decisions. The Task Force appreciates the many serious and thoughtful comments it has received. In response, the Task Force has proposed changes that are reflected in Draft 2 of the Code. There are a number of substantial changes that require some explanation. In this article, we discuss these, and we explain why we did not include other requested changes in Draft 2. We look forward to receiving your comments on these suggested changes and your requests for additional changes as we work on Draft 3 of the Code. We have provided opportunities for your comments and an open discussion of Draft 2 at the ACM Code 2018 Discussion website [http://code2018.acm.org/discuss]. Comments can also be contributed at the COPE website https://ethics.acm.org, and by direct emails to firstname.lastname@example.org. ACM members are part of the computing profession and the ACM's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct should reflect the conscience of the computing profession.