We introduce NAEL (Non-Anthropocentric Ethical Logic), a novel ethical framework for artificial agents grounded in active inference and symbolic reasoning. Departing from conventional, human-centred approaches to AI ethics, NAEL formalizes ethical behaviour as an emergent property of intelligent systems minimizing global expected free energy in dynamic, multi-agent environments. We propose a neuro-symbolic architecture to allow agents to evaluate the ethical consequences of their actions in uncertain settings. The proposed system addresses the limitations of existing ethical models by allowing agents to develop context-sensitive, adaptive, and relational ethical behaviour without presupposing anthropomorphic moral intuitions. A case study involving ethical resource distribution illustrates NAEL's dynamic balancing of self-preservation, epistemic learning, and collective welfare.

Large language model-based artificial conversational agents (like ChatGPT) give answers to all kinds of questions, and often enough these answers are correct. Just on the basis of that capacity alone, we may attribute knowledge to them. But do these models use this knowledge as a basis for their own conversational behaviour? I argue this is not the case, and I will refer to this failure as a `disconnect'. I further argue this disconnect is fundamental in the sense that with more data and more training of the LLM on which a conversational chatbot is based, it will not disappear. The reason is, as I will claim, that the core technique used to train LLMs does not allow for the establishment of the connection we are after. The disconnect reflects a fundamental limitation on the capacities of LLMs, and explains the source of hallucinations. I will furthermore consider the ethical version of the disconnect (ethical conversational knowledge not being aligned with ethical conversational behaviour), since in this domain researchers have come up with several additional techniques to influence a chatbot's behaviour. I will discuss how these techniques do nothing to solve the disconnect and can make it worse.

Machine ethics is the field that studies how ethical behaviour can be accomplished by autonomous systems. While there exist some systematic reviews aiming to consolidate the state of the art in machine ethics prior to 2020, these tend to not include work that uses reinforcement learning agents as entities whose ethical behaviour is to be achieved. The reason for this is that only in the last years we have witnessed an increase in machine ethics studies within reinforcement learning. We present here a systematic review of reinforcement learning for machine ethics and machine ethics within reinforcement learning. Additionally, we highlight trends in terms of ethics specifications, components and frameworks of reinforcement learning, and environments used to result in ethical behaviour. Our systematic review aims to consolidate the work in machine ethics and reinforcement learning thus completing the gap in the state of the art machine ethics landscape

Artificial intelligence offers a lot of advantages for organisations by creating better and more efficient organisations, improving customer services with conversational AI and reducing a wide variety of risks in different industries. Although we are only at the start of the AI revolution, we can already see that artificial intelligence will have a profound effect on our lives, both positively and negatively. The financial impact of AI on the global economy is estimated to reach US$15.7 trillion by 2030, with 40% of jobs expected to be lost due to artificial intelligence, and global venture capital investment in AI is growing to greater than US$27 billion in 2018. Such estimates of AI potential relate to a broad understanding of its nature and applicability. AI will eventually consist of entirely novel and unrecognisable forms of intelligence, and we can see the first signals of this in the rapid developments of AI. In 2017, Google's Deepmind developed AlphaGo Zero, an AI agent that learned the abstract strategy board game Go with a far more expansive range of moves than chess.

How we can make "good" artificial intelligence, what does it mean for a machine to be ethical, and how can we use AI ethically? Good in the Machine – 2019's SCINEMA International Science Film Festival entry – delves into these questions, the origins of our morality, and the interplay between artificial agency and our own moral compass. Read on to learn more about AI ethics. Given a swell of dire warnings about the future of artificial intelligence over the last few years, the field of AI ethics has become a hive of activity. These warnings come from a variety of experts such as Oxford University's Nick Bostrom, but also from more public figures such as Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking.

Ethical concerns regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology have fueled discussions around the ethics training received by AI designers. We claim that training designers for ethical behaviour, understood as habitual application of ethical principles in any situation, can make a significant difference in the practice of research, development, and application of AI systems. Building on interdisciplinary knowledge and practical experience from computer science, moral psychology and development, and pedagogy, we propose a functional way to provide this training. This article appears in the special track on AI & Society.

Abstract: This paper surveys the state-of-the-art in machine ethics, that is, considerations of how to implement ethical behaviour in robots, unmanned autonomous vehicles, or software systems. The emphasis is on covering the breadth of ethical theories being considered by implementors, as well as the implementation techniques being used. There is no consensus on which ethical theory is best suited for any particular domain, nor is there any agreement on which technique is best placed to implement a particular theory. Another unresolved problem in these implementations of ethical theories is how to objectively validate the implementations. The paper discusses the dilemmas being used as validating'whetstones' and whether any alternative validation mechanism exists. Finally, it speculates that an intermediate step of creating domain-specific ethics might be a possible stepping stone towards creating machines that exhibit ethical behaviour. Computers are increasingly a part of the socio-technical systems around us. Domains such as smartgrids, cloud computing, healthcare, and transport are but some examples where computers are deeply embedded. The speed and complexity of decision-making in these domains have meant that humans are ceding more and more autonomy to these computers (Nallur & Clarke 2018). Autonomy, in machines, can be defined as the effective decision-making power over goals, that influences some action in the real-world. For instance, smart traffic lights can autonomically change their timings, depending on the flow and density of traffic on the roads.

Artificial intelligence in autonomous systems (i.e., drones) can address human error and fatigue issues, but also, in the future, concerns over ethical behaviour on the battlefield. Installing an algorithmic "moral compass" in AI, however, will be challenging. A common theme among many discussions concerning the military uses of artificial intelligence (AI) is the "Skynet" trope: the fear that AI will be self-aware and decide to turn on its masters. Inherent in this argument is the contention that AI does not share the same ethical constraints that humans do. While almost certainly an over-exaggeration, the Skynet scenario does highlight the problem of ensuring that the ethical behaviour we believe is incumbent on humans in combat is not lost as we increasingly devolve battlefield decision-making to autonomous systems.

Given a swell of dire warnings about the future of Artificial Intelligence over the last few years, the field of AI ethics has become a hive of activity. These warnings come from a variety of experts such as Oxford University's Nick Bostrom, but also from more public figures such as Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking. The picture they paint is bleak. In response, many have dreamed up sets of principles to guide AI researchers and help them negotiate the maze of human morality and ethics. Now, a paper in Nature Machine Intelligence throws a spanner in the works by claiming that such high principles, while laudable, will not give us the ethical AI society we need.

Given a swell of dire warnings about the future of artificial intelligence over the last few years, the field of AI ethics has become a hive of activity. These warnings come from a variety of experts such as Oxford University's Nick Bostrom, but also from more public figures such as Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking. The picture they paint is bleak. In response, many have dreamed up sets of principles to guide AI researchers and help them negotiate the maze of human morality and ethics. Now, a paper in Nature Machine Intelligence throws a spanner in the works by claiming that such high principles, while laudable, will not give us the ethical AI society we need.