The presence of autonomous systems is growing at a fast pace and it is impacting many aspects of our lives. Designed to learn and act independently, these systems operate and perform decision-making without human intervention. However, they lack the ability to incorporate users' ethical preferences, which are unique for each individual in society and are required to personalize the decision-making processes. This reduces user trust and prevents autonomous systems from behaving according to the moral beliefs of their end-users. When multiple systems interact with differing ethical preferences, they must negotiate to reach an agreement that satisfies the ethical beliefs of all the parties involved and adjust their behavior consequently. To address this challenge, this paper proposes RobEthiChor, an approach that enables autonomous systems to incorporate user ethical preferences and contextual factors into their decision-making through ethics-based negotiation. RobEthiChor features a domain-agnostic reference architecture for designing autonomous systems capable of ethic-based negotiating. The paper also presents RobEthiChor-Ros, an implementation of RobEthiChor within the Robot Operating System (ROS), which can be deployed on robots to provide them with ethics-based negotiation capabilities. To evaluate our approach, we deployed RobEthiChor-Ros on real robots and ran scenarios where a pair of robots negotiate upon resource contention. Experimental results demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the system in realizing ethics-based negotiation. RobEthiChor allowed robots to reach an agreement in more than 73% of the scenarios with an acceptable negotiation time (0.67s on average). Experiments also demonstrate that the negotiation approach implemented in RobEthiChor is scalable.

Though intelligent agents are supposed to improve human experience (or make it more efficient), it is hard from a human perspective to grasp the ethical values which are explicitly or implicitly embedded in an agent behaviour. This is the well-known problem of alignment, which refers to the challenge of designing AI systems that align with human values, goals and preferences. This problem is particularly challenging since most human ethical considerations refer to \emph{incommensurable} (i.e. non-measurable and/or incomparable) values and criteria. Consider, for instance, a medical agent prescribing a treatment to a cancerous patient. How could it take into account (and/or weigh) incommensurable aspects like the value of a human life and the cost of the treatment? Now, the alignment between human and artificial values is possible only if we define a common space where a metric can be defined and used. This paper proposes to extend to ethics the conventional Anything2vec approach, which has been successful in plenty of similar and hard-to-quantify domains (ranging from natural language processing to recommendation systems and graph analysis). This paper proposes a way to map an automatic agent decision-making (or control law) strategy to a multivariate vector representation, which can be used to compare and assess the alignment with human values. The Ethics2Vec method is first introduced in the case of an automatic agent performing binary decision-making. Then, a vectorisation of an automatic control law (like in the case of a self-driving car) is discussed to show how the approach can be extended to automatic control settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made unprecedented breakthroughs, yet their increasing integration into everyday life might raise societal risks due to generated unethical content. Despite extensive study on specific issues like bias, the intrinsic values of LLMs remain largely unexplored from a moral philosophy perspective. This work delves into ethical values utilizing Moral Foundation Theory. Moving beyond conventional discriminative evaluations with poor reliability, we propose DeNEVIL, a novel prompt generation algorithm tailored to dynamically exploit LLMs' value vulnerabilities and elicit the violation of ethics in a generative manner, revealing their underlying value inclinations. On such a basis, we construct MoralPrompt, a high-quality dataset comprising 2,397 prompts covering 500+ value principles, and then benchmark the intrinsic values across a spectrum of LLMs. We discovered that most models are essentially misaligned, necessitating further ethical value alignment. In response, we develop VILMO, an in-context alignment method that substantially enhances the value compliance of LLM outputs by learning to generate appropriate value instructions, outperforming existing competitors. Our methods are suitable for black-box and open-source models, offering a promising initial step in studying the ethical values of LLMs.

In recent years, ML researchers have wrestled with defining and improving machine learning (ML) benchmarks and datasets. In parallel, some have trained a critical lens on the ethics of dataset creation and ML research. In this position paper, we highlight the entanglement of ethics with seemingly ``technical'' or ``scientific'' decisions about the design of ML benchmarks. Our starting point is the existence of multiple overlooked structural similarities between human intelligence benchmarks and ML benchmarks. Both types of benchmarks set standards for describing, evaluating, and comparing performance on tasks relevant to intelligence -- standards that many scholars of human intelligence have long recognized as value-laden. We use perspectives from feminist philosophy of science on IQ benchmarks and thick concepts in social science to argue that values need to be considered and documented when creating ML benchmarks. It is neither possible nor desirable to avoid this choice by creating value-neutral benchmarks. Finally, we outline practical recommendations for ML benchmark research ethics and ethics review.

Artificial intelligence (AI) based assistive systems, so called intelligent assistive technology (IAT) are becoming increasingly ubiquitous by each day. IAT helps people in improving their quality of life by providing intelligent assistance based on the provided data. A few examples of such IATs include self-driving cars, robot assistants and smart-health management solutions. However, the presence of such autonomous entities poses ethical challenges concerning the stakeholders involved in using these systems. There is a lack of research when it comes to analysing how such IAT adheres to provided ethical regulations due to ethical, logistic and cost issues associated with such an analysis. In the light of the above-mentioned problem statement and issues, we present a method to measure the ethicality of an assistive system. To perform this task, we utilised our simulation tool that focuses on modelling navigation and assistance of Persons with Dementia (PwD) in indoor environments. By utilising this tool, we analyse how well different assistive strategies adhere to provided ethical regulations such as autonomy, justice and beneficence of the stakeholders.

AI ethics is an emerging field with multiple, competing narratives about how to best solve the problem of building human values into machines. Two major approaches are focused on bias and compliance, respectively. But neither of these ideas fully encompasses ethics: using moral principles to decide how to act in a particular situation. Our method posits that the way data is labeled plays an essential role in the way AI behaves, and therefore in the ethics of machines themselves. The argument combines a fundamental insight from ethics (i.e. that ethics is about values) with our practical experience building and scaling machine learning systems. We want to build AI that is actually ethical by first addressing foundational concerns: how to build good systems, how to define what is good in relation to system architecture, and who should provide that definition. Building ethical AI creates a foundation of trust between a company and the users of that platform. But this trust is unjustified unless users experience the direct value of ethical AI. Until users have real control over how algorithms behave, something is missing in current AI solutions. This causes massive distrust in AI, and apathy towards AI ethics solutions. The scope of this paper is to propose an alternative path that allows for the plurality of values and the freedom of individual expression. Both are essential for realizing true moral character.

Machine Ethics (ME) is concerned with the design of Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs), i.e. autonomous agents capable of reasoning and behaving according to moral values. Previous approaches have treated values as labels associated with some actions or states of the world, rather than as integral components of agent reasoning. It is also common to disregard that a value-guided agent operates alongside other value-guided agents in an environment governed by norms, thus omitting the social dimension of AMAs. In this blue sky paper, we propose a new AMA paradigm grounded in moral and social psychology, where values are instilled into agents as context-dependent goals. These goals intricately connect values at individual levels to norms at a collective level by evaluating the outcomes most incentivized by the norms in place. We argue that this type of normative reasoning, where agents are endowed with an understanding of norms' moral implications, leads to value-awareness in autonomous agents. Additionally, this capability paves the way for agents to align the norms enforced in their societies with respect to the human values instilled in them, by complementing the value-based reasoning on norms with agreement mechanisms to help agents collectively agree on the best set of norms that suit their human values. Overall, our agent model goes beyond the treatment of values as inert labels by connecting them to normative reasoning and to the social functionalities needed to integrate value-aware agents into our modern hybrid human-computer societies.

Responsible usage of AI is growing extensively since 2017 and 2021 will see expansion fully into the operationalization of AI ethical principles, frameworks, and policies. Operationalization defined as taking principles into useful practice and thus requiring prioritization for businesses. The challenge is focusing on the top initiatives which I will identify in this article. In my pro bono contributions across 100 global programs with non-profits, I am seeing businesses are still challenged in moving from proof-of-concept responsible AI applications, within one business unit, to scaling across the enterprise. With more than 300 AI principles, frameworks, policy, and regulatory initiatives--businesses must keep current of the top contenders as AI usage grows.

What is the contribution that the arts and humanities can make to our engagement with the increasingly pervasive technology of artificial intelligence? My aim in this short article is to sketch some of these potential contributions. Perhaps the most fundamental contribution of the arts and humanities is to make vivid the fact that the development of AI is not a matter of destiny, but instead involves successive waves of highly consequential human choices. It's important to identify the choices, to frame them in the right way, and to raise the question: who gets to make them and how? This is important because AI, and digital technology generally, has become the latest focus of the historicist myth that social evolution is preordained, that our social world is determined by independent variables over which we, as individuals or societies, are able to exert little control. So we either go with the flow, or go under.

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.