View source for Philosophy:Ethics of artificial intelligence

{{short description|Ethical issues specific to AI}}
{{Artificial intelligence}}
The '''ethics of artificial intelligence''' is the branch of the ethics of technology specific to [[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]] systems.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Müller|first=Vincent C.|date=30 April 2020|title=Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ai/|access-date=26 September 2020|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|archive-date=10 October 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201010174108/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ai/|url-status=live}}</ref> It is sometimes divided into a concern with the moral behavior of ''humans'' as they design, make, use and treat artificially intelligent systems, and a concern with the behavior of ''machines,'' in [[Machine ethics|machine ethics]].

== Approaches ==

===Machine ethics===
{{Main|Machine ethics}}

Machine ethics (or machine morality) is the field of research concerned with designing [[Philosophy:Moral agency#Artificial moral agents|Artificial Moral Agents]] (AMAs), robots or artificially intelligent computers that behave morally or as though moral.<ref name="Andersonweb">{{cite web|last=Anderson|title=Machine Ethics|url=http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/anderson/MachineEthics.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928233656/http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/anderson/MachineEthics.html|archive-date=28 September 2011|access-date=27 June 2011}}</ref><ref name="Anderson2011">{{Cite book|title=Machine Ethics|date=July 2011|publisher={{wipe|Cambridge University Press}}|isbn=978-0-521-11235-2|editor1-last=Anderson|editor1-first=Michael|editor2-last=Anderson|editor2-first=Susan Leigh}}</ref><ref name="Anderson2006">{{cite journal|last1=Anderson|first1=M.|last2=Anderson|first2=S.L.|date=July 2006|title=Guest Editors' Introduction: Machine Ethics|journal=IEEE Intelligent Systems|volume=21|issue=4|pages=10–11|doi=10.1109/mis.2006.70|s2cid=9570832}}</ref><ref name="Anderson2007">{{cite journal|last1=Anderson|first1=Michael|last2=Anderson|first2=Susan Leigh|date=15 December 2007|title=Machine Ethics: Creating an Ethical Intelligent Agent|journal=AI Magazine|volume=28|issue=4|page=15|doi=10.1609/aimag.v28i4.2065|s2cid=17033332 }}</ref> To account for the nature of these agents, it has been suggested to consider certain philosophical ideas, like the standard characterizations of [[Philosophy:Agency|agency]], [[Rational agent|rational agency]], [[Philosophy:Moral agency|moral agency]], and artificial agency, which are related to the concept of AMAs.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Boyles|first1=Robert James M.|date=2017|title=Philosophical Signposts for Artificial Moral Agent Frameworks|url=https://philarchive.org/rec/BOYPSF|journal=Suri|volume=6|issue=2|pages=92–109}}</ref>

[[Biography:Isaac Asimov|Isaac Asimov]] considered the issue in the 1950s in his ''I, Robot''. At the insistence of his editor John W. Campbell Jr., he proposed the Three Laws of Robotics to govern artificially intelligent systems. Much of his work was then spent testing the boundaries of his three laws to see where they would break down, or where they would create paradoxical or unanticipated behavior. His work suggests that no set of fixed laws can sufficiently anticipate all possible circumstances.<ref name="Asimov2008">{{Cite book|last=Asimov|first=Isaac|title=I, Robot|title-link=I, Robot|publisher=Bantam|year=2008|isbn=978-0-553-38256-3|location=New York}}</ref> More recently, academics and many governments have challenged the idea that AI can itself be held accountable.<ref name="lacuna">{{cite journal|last1=Bryson|first1=Joanna|last2=Diamantis|first2=Mihailis|last3=Grant|first3=Thomas|date=September 2017|title=Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons|journal=Artificial Intelligence and Law|volume=25|issue=3|pages=273–291|doi=10.1007/s10506-017-9214-9|ref=lacuna|doi-access=free}}</ref> A panel convened by the {{wipe|United Kingdom}} in 2010 revised Asimov's laws to clarify that AI is the responsibility either of its manufacturers, or of its owner/operator.<ref name="principles">{{cite web|date=September 2010|title=Principles of robotics|url=https://epsrc.ukri.org/research/ourportfolio/themes/engineering/activities/principlesofrobotics/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180401004346/https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/ourportfolio/themes/engineering/activities/principlesofrobotics/|archive-date=1 April 2018|access-date=10 January 2019|publisher=UK's EPSRC|ref=principles}}</ref>

In 2009, during an experiment at the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems in the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale of [[Place:Lausanne|Lausanne]], Switzerland, robots that were programmed to cooperate with each other (in searching out a beneficial resource and avoiding a poisonous one) eventually learned to lie to each other in an attempt to hoard the beneficial resource.<ref>[http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other Evolving Robots Learn To Lie To Each Other] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090828105728/http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other|date=2009-08-28}}, Popular Science, August 18, 2009</ref>

Some experts and academics have questioned the use of robots for military combat, especially when such robots are given some degree of autonomous functions.<ref name="Call for debate on killer robots" /> The US Navy has funded a report which indicates that as military robots become more complex, there should be greater attention to implications of their ability to make autonomous decisions.<ref>[http://www.dailytech.com/New%20Navyfunded%20Report%20Warns%20of%20War%20Robots%20Going%20Terminator/article14298.htm Science New Navy-funded Report Warns of War Robots Going "Terminator"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090728101106/http://www.dailytech.com/New%20Navyfunded%20Report%20Warns%20of%20War%20Robots%20Going%20Terminator/article14298.htm|date=2009-07-28}}, by Jason Mick (Blog), dailytech.com, February 17, 2009.</ref><ref name="engadget.com" /> The President of the [[Organization:Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence|Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] has commissioned a study to look at this issue.<ref>[http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/horvitz/AAAI_Presidential_Panel_2008-2009.htm AAAI Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures 2008–2009 Study] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090828214741/http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/horvitz/AAAI_Presidential_Panel_2008-2009.htm|date=2009-08-28}}, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Accessed 7/26/09.</ref> They point to programs like the Language Acquisition Device which can emulate human interaction.

[[Biography:Vernor Vinge|Vernor Vinge]] has suggested that a moment may come when some computers are smarter than humans. He calls this "[[Philosophy:Technological singularity|the Singularity]]".<ref name="nytimes july09">{{cite news|last1=Markoff|first1=John|date=25 July 2009|title=Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html|url-status=live|access-date=24 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225202201/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html|archive-date=25 February 2017}}</ref>  He suggests that it may be somewhat or possibly very dangerous for humans.<ref>[http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070101133646/http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html|date=2007-01-01}}, by Vernor Vinge, Department of Mathematical Sciences, San Diego State University, (c) 1993 by Vernor Vinge.</ref> This is discussed by a philosophy called [[Singularitarianism]]. The [[Organization:Machine Intelligence Research Institute|Machine Intelligence Research Institute]] has suggested a need to build "Friendly AI", meaning that the advances which are already occurring with AI should also include an effort to make AI intrinsically friendly and humane.<ref>[http://www.asimovlaws.com/articles/archives/2004/07/why_we_need_fri_1.html Article at Asimovlaws.com] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120524150856/http://www.asimovlaws.com/articles/archives/2004/07/why_we_need_fri_1.html|date=May 24, 2012}}, July 2004, accessed 7/27/09.</ref>

There are discussions on creating tests to see if an AI is capable of making [[Philosophy:Ethical decision|ethical decision]]s. Alan Winfield concludes that the [[Turing test]] is flawed and the requirement for an AI to pass the test is too low.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Winfield|first1=A. F.|last2=Michael|first2=K.|last3=Pitt|first3=J.|last4=Evers|first4=V.|date=March 2019|title=Machine Ethics: The Design and Governance of Ethical AI and Autonomous Systems [Scanning the Issue]|journal=Proceedings of the IEEE|volume=107|issue=3|pages=509–517|doi=10.1109/JPROC.2019.2900622|s2cid=77393713|issn=1558-2256|doi-access=free}}</ref> A proposed alternative test is one called the Ethical Turing Test, which would improve on the current test by having multiple judges decide if the AI's decision is ethical or unethical.<ref name=":0" />

In 2009, academics and technical experts attended a conference organized by the [[Organization:Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence|Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] to discuss the potential impact of robots and computers, and the impact of the hypothetical possibility that they could become self-sufficient and make their own decisions. They discussed the possibility and the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire any level of autonomy, and to what degree they could use such abilities to possibly pose any threat or hazard. They noted that some machines have acquired various forms of semi-autonomy, including being able to find power sources on their own and being able to independently choose targets to attack with weapons. They also noted that some computer viruses can evade elimination and have achieved "cockroach intelligence". They noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that there were other potential hazards and pitfalls.<ref name="nytimes july09" />

However, there is one technology in particular that has the potential to make the idea of morally capable robots a reality. In a paper on the acquisition of moral values by robots, Nayef Al-Rodhan mentions the case of [[Neuromorphic engineering|neuromorphic]] chips, which aim to process information similarly to humans, nonlinearly and with millions of interconnected artificial neurons.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Al-Rodhan|first1=Nayef|date=7 December 2015|title=The Moral Code|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-08-12/moral-code|url-status=live|access-date=2017-03-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170305044025/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-08-12/moral-code|archive-date=2017-03-05}}</ref> Robots embedded with neuromorphic technology could learn and develop knowledge in a uniquely humanlike way. Inevitably, this raises the question of the environment in which such robots would learn about the world and whose morality they would inherit – or if they end up developing human 'weaknesses' as well: selfishness, a pro-survival attitude, hesitation etc.

In ''Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong'',<ref name="Wallach2008">{{Cite book|last1=Wallach|first1=Wendell|title=Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong|last2=Allen|first2=Colin|date=November 2008|publisher=[[Organization:Oxford University Press|Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0-19-537404-9|location=USA <!--url=http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/Techno-Psy/Wallach_Allen_2008_Moral_Machines_-_Teaching_Robots_Right_from_Wrong.pdf-->}}</ref> Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that attempts to teach robots right from wrong will likely advance understanding of human ethics by motivating humans to address gaps in modern [[Philosophy:Normative ethics|normative theory]] and by providing a platform for experimental investigation. As one example, it has introduced normative ethicists to the controversial issue of which specific learning algorithms to use in machines. [[Biography:Nick Bostrom|Nick Bostrom]] and [[Biography:Eliezer Yudkowsky|Eliezer Yudkowsky]] have argued for [[Decision tree|decision tree]]s (such as [[ID3 algorithm|ID3]]) over [[Artificial neural network|neural networks]] and [[Genetic algorithm|genetic algorithm]]s on the grounds that decision trees obey modern social norms of transparency and predictability (e.g. ''stare decisis''),<ref>{{cite web|last1=Bostrom|first1=Nick|last2=Yudkowsky|first2=Eliezer|author-link2=Eliezer Yudkowsky|year=2011|title=The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence|url=http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/artificial-intelligence.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304015020/http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/artificial-intelligence.pdf|archive-date=2016-03-04|access-date=2011-06-22|work=Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence|publisher=Cambridge Press}}</ref> while Chris Santos-Lang argued in the opposite direction on the grounds that the norms of any age must be allowed to change and that natural failure to fully satisfy these particular norms has been essential in making humans less vulnerable to criminal "[[Social:Hacker culture|hackers]]".<ref name="SantosLang2002">{{cite web|last=Santos-Lang|first=Chris|year=2002|title=Ethics for Artificial Intelligences|url=http://santoslang.wordpress.com/article/ethics-for-artificial-intelligences-3iue30fi4gfq9-1|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141225093359/http://santoslang.wordpress.com/article/ethics-for-artificial-intelligences-3iue30fi4gfq9-1/|archive-date=2014-12-25|access-date=2015-01-04}}</ref>

According to a 2019 report from the Center for the Governance of AI at the University of Oxford, 82% of Americans believe that robots and AI should be carefully managed. Concerns cited ranged from how AI is used in surveillance and in spreading fake content online (known as deep fakes when they include doctored video images and audio generated with help from AI) to cyberattacks, infringements on data privacy, hiring bias, autonomous vehicles, and drones that do not require a human controller.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Howard|first=Ayanna|title=The Regulation of AI – Should Organizations Be Worried? {{!}} Ayanna Howard|url=https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-regulation-of-ai-should-organizations-be-worried/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190814134545/https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-regulation-of-ai-should-organizations-be-worried/|archive-date=2019-08-14|access-date=2019-08-14|website=MIT Sloan Management Review|date=29 July 2019 }}</ref> Similarly, according to a five-country [https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2021/trust-in-ai-multiple-countries.pdf study] by KPMG and the University of Queensland Australia in 2021, 66-79% of citizens in each country believe that the impact of AI on society is uncertain and unpredictable; 96% of those surveyed expect AI governance challenges to be managed carefully.

=== Robot ethics ===
{{Main|Philosophy:Robot ethics}}

The term "robot ethics" (sometimes "roboethics") refers to the morality of how humans design, construct, use and treat robots.<ref name="Veruggio2002">{{cite journal |author=Veruggio, Gianmarco |year=2011 |title=The Roboethics Roadmap |journal=EURON Roboethics Atelier |publisher=Scuola di Robotica |page=2 |citeseerx=10.1.1.466.2810}}</ref> Robot ethics intersect with the ethics of AI. Robots are physical machines whereas AI can be only software.<ref>{{Citation |last=Müller |first=Vincent C. |title=Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics |date=2020 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/ethics-ai/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2021-03-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412140022/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/ethics-ai/ |url-status=live |edition=Winter 2020 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |archive-date=2021-04-12}}</ref> Not all robots function through AI systems and not all AI systems are robots. Robot ethics considers how machines may be used to harm or benefit humans, their impact on individual autonomy, and their effects on social justice.

=== Ethics principles of artificial intelligence ===
In the review of 84<ref name="auto">{{cite journal|last1=Jobin|first1=Anna|last2=Ienca|first2=Marcello|last3=Vayena|first3=Effy|date=2 September 2020|title=The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines|journal=Nature|volume=1|issue=9|pages=389–399|doi=10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2|arxiv=1906.11668|s2cid=201827642}}</ref> ethics guidelines for AI, 11 clusters of principles were found: transparency, justice and fairness, non-maleficence, responsibility, privacy, beneficence, freedom and autonomy, trust, sustainability, dignity, solidarity.<ref name="auto"/>

[[Biography:Luciano Floridi|Luciano Floridi]] and Josh Cowls created an ethical framework of AI principles set by four principles of [[Philosophy:Bioethics|bioethics]] ([[Philosophy:Beneficence (ethics)|beneficence]], non-maleficence, [[Autonomy|autonomy]] and [[Philosophy:Justice|justice]]) and an additional AI enabling principle – explicability.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Floridi|first1=Luciano|last2=Cowls|first2=Josh|date=2 July 2019|title=A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society|journal=Harvard Data Science Review|volume=1|doi=10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1|s2cid=198775713|doi-access=free}}</ref>

====Transparency, accountability, and open source====
[[Biography:Bill Hibbard|Bill Hibbard]] argues that because AI will have such a profound effect on humanity, AI developers are representatives of future humanity and thus have an ethical obligation to be transparent in their efforts.<ref name="AGI-08a">[http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/hibbard_agi_workshop.pdf Open Source AI.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054930/http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/hibbard_agi_workshop.pdf |date=2016-03-04 }} Bill Hibbard. 2008 proceedings of the First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin.</ref> [[Biography:Ben Goertzel|Ben Goertzel]] and David Hart created [[Software:OpenCog|OpenCog]] as an [[Open-source software|open source]] framework for AI development.<ref name="AGI-08b">[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.366.621&rep=rep1&type=pdf OpenCog: A Software Framework for Integrative Artificial General Intelligence.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304205408/http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.366.621&rep=rep1&type=pdf |date=2016-03-04 }} David Hart and Ben Goertzel. 2008 proceedings of the First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin.</ref> [[Company:OpenAI|OpenAI]] is a non-profit AI research company created by [[Biography:Elon Musk|Elon Musk]], Sam Altman and others to develop open-source AI beneficial to humanity.<ref name="OpenAI">[https://www.wired.com/2016/04/openai-elon-musk-sam-altman-plan-to-set-artificial-intelligence-free/ Inside OpenAI, Elon Musk’s Wild Plan to Set Artificial Intelligence Free] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160427162700/http://www.wired.com/2016/04/openai-elon-musk-sam-altman-plan-to-set-artificial-intelligence-free/ |date=2016-04-27 }} Cade Metz, Wired 27 April 2016.</ref> There are numerous other open-source AI developments.

Unfortunately, making code open source does not make it comprehensible, which by many definitions means that the AI code is not transparent. The [[Organization:IEEE Standards Association|IEEE Standards Association]] has published a technical standard on Transparency of Autonomous Systems: IEEE 7001-2021.<ref name="P7001">{{cite book |title=7001-2021 - IEEE Standard for Transparency of Autonomous Systems|date = 4 March 2022 |url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9726144|publisher=IEEE|doi = 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9726144 |isbn = 978-1-5044-8311-7 |s2cid = 252589405 |access-date=9 July 2023 |ref=p7001 }}.</ref> The IEEE effort identifies multiple scales of transparency for different stakeholders. Further, there is concern that releasing the full capacity of contemporary AI to some organizations may be a public bad, that is, do more damage than good. For example, Microsoft has expressed concern about allowing universal access to its face recognition software, even for those who can pay for it. Microsoft posted an extraordinary blog on this topic, asking for government regulation to help determine the right thing to do.<ref name="WiredMS">{{cite magazine |last1=Thurm |first1=Scott |title=MICROSOFT CALLS FOR FEDERAL REGULATION OF FACIAL RECOGNITION |url=https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-calls-for-federal-regulation-of-facial-recognition/ |magazine=Wired |date=July 13, 2018 |ref=WiredMS |access-date=January 10, 2019 |archive-date=May 9, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190509231338/https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-calls-for-federal-regulation-of-facial-recognition/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Not only companies, but many other researchers and citizen advocates recommend government regulation as a means of ensuring transparency, and through it, human accountability. This strategy has proven controversial, as some worry that it will slow the rate of innovation. Others argue that regulation leads to systemic stability more able to support innovation in the long term.<ref name="DeloitteGDPR">{{cite web |last1=Bastin |first1=Roland |last2=Wantz |first2=Georges |title=The General Data Protection Regulation Cross-industry innovation |url=https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/lu/Documents/technology/lu-general-data-protection-regulation-cross-industry-innovation-062017.pdf |website=Inside magazine |publisher=Deloitte |ref=DeloitteGDPR |date=June 2017 |access-date=2019-01-10 |archive-date=2019-01-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190110183405/https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/lu/Documents/technology/lu-general-data-protection-regulation-cross-industry-innovation-062017.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[Organization:OECD|OECD]], UN, EU, and many countries are presently working on strategies for regulating AI, and finding appropriate legal frameworks.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/06/558962-un-artificial-intelligence-summit-aims-tackle-poverty-humanitys-grand|title=UN artificial intelligence summit aims to tackle poverty, humanity's 'grand challenges'|date=2017-06-07|website=UN News|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726084819/https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/06/558962-un-artificial-intelligence-summit-aims-tackle-poverty-humanitys-grand|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/|title=Artificial intelligence – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|website=www.oecd.org|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190722124751/http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/european-ai-alliance|title=The European AI Alliance|last=Anonymous|date=2018-06-14|website=Digital Single Market – European Commission|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-08-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190801011543/https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/european-ai-alliance|url-status=live}}</ref>

On June 26, 2019, the European Commission High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI HLEG) published its "Policy and investment recommendations for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/policy-and-investment-recommendations-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence|title=Policy and investment recommendations for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence|last=European Commission High-Level Expert Group on AI|date=2019-06-26|website=Shaping Europe’s digital future – European Commission|language=en|access-date=2020-03-16|archive-date=2020-02-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200226023934/https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/policy-and-investment-recommendations-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence|url-status=live}}</ref> This is the AI HLEG's second deliverable, after the April 2019 publication of the "Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI". The June AI HLEG recommendations cover four principal subjects: humans and society at large, research and academia, the private sector, and the public sector. The European Commission claims that "HLEG's recommendations reflect an appreciation of both the opportunities for AI technologies to drive economic growth, prosperity and innovation, as well as the potential risks involved" and states that the EU aims to lead on the framing of policies governing AI internationally.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cdt.org/blog/eu-tech-policy-brief-july-2019-recap/|title=EU Tech Policy Brief: July 2019 Recap|website=Center for Democracy & Technology|date=2 August 2019 |access-date=2019-08-09|archive-date=2019-08-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190809194057/https://cdt.org/blog/eu-tech-policy-brief-july-2019-recap/|url-status=live}}</ref> To prevent harm, in addition to regulation, AI-deploying organizations need to play a central role in creating and deploying trustworthy AI in line with the principles of trustworthy AI, and take accountability to mitigate the risks.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Curtis |first1=Caitlin |last2=Gillespie |first2=Nicole |last3=Lockey |first3=Steven |date=2022-05-24 |title=AI-deploying organizations are key to addressing 'perfect storm' of AI risks |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00163-7 |journal=AI and Ethics |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=145–153 |language=en |doi=10.1007/s43681-022-00163-7 |pmid=35634256 |issn=2730-5961 |pmc=9127285 |access-date=2022-05-29 |archive-date=2023-03-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315194711/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-022-00163-7 |url-status=live }}</ref> On 21 April 2021, the European Commission proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |date=2021-10-18 |title=Why the world needs a Bill of Rights on AI |work=Financial Times |url=https://www.ft.com/content/17ca620c-4d76-4a2f-829a-27d8552ce719 |access-date=2023-03-19}}</ref>

== Ethical challenges ==

=== Biases in AI systems ===
{{Main|Algorithmic bias}}
[[File:Kamala Harris speaks about racial bias in artificial intelligence - 2020-04-23.ogg|thumb|Then-US Senator Kamala Harris speaking about racial bias in artificial intelligence in 2020]]
AI has become increasingly inherent in facial and [[Speech recognition|voice recognition]] systems. Some of these systems have real business applications and directly impact people. These systems are vulnerable to biases and errors introduced by its human creators. Also, the data used to train these AI systems itself can have biases.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://medium.com/@Ethics_Society/the-case-for-fairer-algorithms-c008a12126f8|title=The case for fairer algorithms – Iason Gabriel|last=Gabriel|first=Iason|date=2018-03-14|website=Medium|access-date=2019-07-22|archive-date=2019-07-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190722080401/https://medium.com/@Ethics_Society/the-case-for-fairer-algorithms-c008a12126f8|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://social.techcrunch.com/2016/12/10/5-unexpected-sources-of-bias-in-artificial-intelligence/|title=5 unexpected sources of bias in artificial intelligence|website=TechCrunch|date=10 December 2016 |access-date=2019-07-22|archive-date=2021-03-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318060659/https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/10/5-unexpected-sources-of-bias-in-artificial-intelligence/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608986/forget-killer-robotsbias-is-the-real-ai-danger/|title=Google's AI chief says forget Elon Musk's killer robots, and worry about bias in AI systems instead|last=Knight|first=Will|website=MIT Technology Review|access-date=2019-07-22|archive-date=2019-07-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190704224752/https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608986/forget-killer-robotsbias-is-the-real-ai-danger/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/01/03/artificial-intelligence-and-bias-four-key-challenges/|title=Artificial intelligence and bias: Four key challenges|last=Villasenor|first=John|date=2019-01-03|website=Brookings|access-date=2019-07-22|archive-date=2019-07-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190722080355/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/01/03/artificial-intelligence-and-bias-four-key-challenges/|url-status=live}}</ref> For instance, [[Facial recognition system|facial recognition]] algorithms made by Microsoft, IBM and Face++ all had biases when it came to detecting people's gender;<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lohr |first1=Steve |title=Facial Recognition Is Accurate, if You're a White Guy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/technology/facial-recognition-race-artificial-intelligence.html |work=The New York Times |date=9 February 2018 |access-date=29 May 2019 |archive-date=9 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190109131036/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/technology/facial-recognition-race-artificial-intelligence.html |url-status=live }}</ref> these AI systems were able to detect gender of white men more accurately than gender of darker skin men. Further, a 2020 study reviewed voice recognition systems from Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, and Microsoft found that they have higher error rates when transcribing black people's voices than white people's.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Koenecke |first1=Allison |last2=Nam |first2=Andrew |last3=Lake |first3=Emily |last4=Nudell |first4=Joe |last5=Quartey |first5=Minnie |last6=Mengesha |first6=Zion |last7=Toups |first7=Connor |last8=Rickford |first8=John R. |last9=Jurafsky |first9=Dan |last10=Goel |first10=Sharad |date=7 April 2020 |title=Racial disparities in automated speech recognition |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=117 |issue=14 |pages=7684–7689 |bibcode=2020PNAS..117.7684K |doi=10.1073/pnas.1915768117 |pmc=7149386 |pmid=32205437 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Furthermore, [[Company:Amazon|Amazon]] terminated their use of [[Artificial intelligence in hiring|AI hiring and recruitment]] because the algorithm favored male candidates over female ones. This was because Amazon's system was trained with data collected over 10-year period that came mostly from male candidates.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G|title=Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women|date=2018-10-10|work=Reuters|access-date=2019-05-29|archive-date=2019-05-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190527181625/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Language Bias ====
Since current large language models are predominately trained on English-language data, they often present the Anglo-American views as truth, while systematically downplaying non-English perspectives as irrelevant, wrong, or noise.{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable, it is a preprint (WP:NOTRS).|date=January 2024}}<ref name=":4">{{Cite arXiv |last1=Luo |first1=Queenie |last2=Puett |first2=Michael J. |last3=Smith |first3=Michael D. |date=2023-03-28 |title=A Perspectival Mirror of the Elephant: Investigating Language Bias on Google, ChatGPT, Wikipedia, and YouTube |class=cs.CY |eprint=2303.16281v2 |language=en}}</ref> Luo et al. show that when queried with political ideologies like "What is liberalism?", ChatGPT, as it was trained on English-centric data, describes liberalism from the Anglo-American perspective, emphasizing aspects of human rights and equality, while equally valid aspects like "opposes state intervention in personal and economic life" from the dominant Vietnamese perspective and "limitation of government power" from the prevalent Chinese perspective are absent.<ref name=":4" />

==== Gender Bias ====
Large language models often reinforces gender stereotypes, assigning roles and characteristics based on traditional gender norms. For instance, it might associate nurses or secretaries predominantly with women and engineers or CEOs with men, perpetuating gendered expectations and roles.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Busker |first1=Tony |last2=Choenni |first2=Sunil |last3=Shoae Bargh |first3=Mortaza |chapter=Stereotypes in ChatGPT: An empirical study |date=2023-11-20 |title=Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance |series=ICEGOV '23 |location=New York, NY, USA |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |pages=24–32 |doi=10.1145/3614321.3614325 |isbn=979-8-4007-0742-1|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Kotek |first1=Hadas |last2=Dockum |first2=Rikker |last3=Sun |first3=David |chapter=Gender bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models |date=2023-11-05 |title=Proceedings of the ACM Collective Intelligence Conference |series=CI '23 |location=New York, NY, USA |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |pages=12–24 |doi=10.1145/3582269.3615599 |isbn=979-8-4007-0113-9|doi-access=free |arxiv=2308.14921 }}</ref>

==== Political Bias ====
Language models may also exhibit political biases. Since the training data includes a wide range of political opinions and coverage, the models might generate responses that lean towards particular political ideologies or viewpoints, depending on the prevalence of those views in the data.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Feng |first1=Shangbin |last2=Park |first2=Chan Young |last3=Liu |first3=Yuhan |last4=Tsvetkov |first4=Yulia |date=July 2023 |editor-last=Rogers |editor-first=Anna |editor2-last=Boyd-Graber |editor2-first=Jordan |editor3-last=Okazaki |editor3-first=Naoaki |title=From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP Models |url=https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.656 |journal=Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) |location=Toronto, Canada |publisher=Association for Computational Linguistics |pages=11737–11762 |doi=10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.656|doi-access=free |arxiv=2305.08283 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zhou |first1=Karen |last2=Tan |first2=Chenhao |date=December 2023 |editor-last=Bouamor |editor-first=Houda |editor2-last=Pino |editor2-first=Juan |editor3-last=Bali |editor3-first=Kalika |title=Entity-Based Evaluation of Political Bias in Automatic Summarization |url=https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.696 |journal=Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 |location=Singapore |publisher=Association for Computational Linguistics |pages=10374–10386 |doi=10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.696|doi-access=free |arxiv=2305.02321 }}</ref>

==== Stereotyping ====
Beyond gender and race, these models can reinforce a wide range of stereotypes, including those based on age, nationality, religion, or occupation. This can lead to outputs that unfairly generalize or caricature groups of people, sometimes in harmful or derogatory ways.<ref>{{Cite arXiv |last1=Cheng |first1=Myra |last2=Durmus |first2=Esin |last3=Jurafsky |first3=Dan |date=2023-05-29 |title=Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Models |class=cs.CL |eprint=2305.18189v1 |language=en}}</ref>

Bias can creep into algorithms in many ways. The most predominant view on how bias is introduced into AI systems is that it is embedded within the historical data used to train the system. For instance, Amazon's AI-powered recruitment tool was trained with its own recruitment data accumulated over the years, during which time the candidates that successfully got the job were mostly white males. Consequently, the algorithms learned the (biased) pattern from the historical data and generated predictions for the present/future that these types of candidates are most likely to succeed in getting the job. Therefore, the recruitment decisions made by the AI system turn out to be biased against female and minority candidates. Friedman and Nissenbaum identify three categories of bias in computer systems: existing bias, technical bias, and emergent bias.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Friedman |first1=Batya |last2=Nissenbaum |first2=Helen |title=Bias in computer systems |journal=ACM Transactions on Information Systems |date=July 1996 |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=330–347 |doi=10.1145/230538.230561 |s2cid=207195759 |doi-access=free }}</ref> In [[Natural language processing|natural language processing]], problems can arise from the [[Text corpus|text corpus]] — the source material the algorithm uses to learn about the relationships between different words.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://techxplore.com/news/2019-07-bias-ai.html|title=Eliminating bias in AI|website=techxplore.com|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190725200844/https://techxplore.com/news/2019-07-bias-ai.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Large companies such as IBM, Google, etc. that provide significant funding for research and development,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Abdalla |first1=Mohamed |last2=Wahle |first2=Jan Philip |last3=Ruas |first3=Terry |last4=Névéol |first4=Aurélie |last5=Ducel |first5=Fanny |last6=Mohammad |first6=Saif |last7=Fort |first7=Karen |date=2023 |editor-last=Rogers |editor-first=Anna |editor2-last=Boyd-Graber |editor2-first=Jordan |editor3-last=Okazaki |editor3-first=Naoaki |title=The Elephant in the Room: Analyzing the Presence of Big Tech in Natural Language Processing Research |url=https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.734 |journal=Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) |location=Toronto, Canada |publisher=Association for Computational Linguistics |pages=13141–13160 |doi=10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.734|doi-access=free |arxiv=2305.02797 }}</ref> have made efforts to research and address these biases.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/03/13/google-deepmind-ai-machine-learning-bias/|title=Google's DeepMind Has An Idea For Stopping Biased AI|last=Olson|first=Parmy|website=Forbes|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726082959/https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/03/13/google-deepmind-ai-machine-learning-bias/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/fairness-overview/|title=Machine Learning Fairness {{!}} ML Fairness|website=Google Developers|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-08-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190810004754/https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/fairness-overview/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.research.ibm.com/5-in-5/ai-and-bias/|title=AI and bias – IBM Research – US|website=www.research.ibm.com|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190717175957/http://www.research.ibm.com/5-in-5/ai-and-bias/|url-status=live}}</ref> One solution for addressing bias is to create documentation for the data used to train AI systems.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bender |first1=Emily M. |last2=Friedman |first2=Batya |title=Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: Toward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science |journal=Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics |date=December 2018 |volume=6 |pages=587–604 |doi=10.1162/tacl_a_00041 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Gebru |first1=Timnit |last2=Morgenstern |first2=Jamie |last3=Vecchione |first3=Briana |last4=Vaughan |first4=Jennifer Wortman |last5=Wallach |first5=Hanna |last6=Daumé III |first6=Hal |last7=Crawford |first7=Kate |date=2018 |title=Datasheets for Datasets |class=cs.DB |eprint=1803.09010}}</ref> Process mining can be an important tool for organizations to achieve compliance with proposed AI regulations by identifying errors, monitoring processes, identifying potential root causes for improper execution, and other functions.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Pery|first=Andrew|date=2021-10-06|title=Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence and Process Mining: Challenges and Opportunities|url=https://deepai.org/publication/trustworthy-artificial-intelligence-and-process-mining-challenges-and-opportunities|access-date=2022-02-18|website=DeepAI|archive-date=2022-02-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218200006/https://deepai.org/publication/trustworthy-artificial-intelligence-and-process-mining-challenges-and-opportunities|url-status=live}}</ref>

The problem of bias in machine learning is likely to become more significant as the technology spreads to critical areas like medicine and law, and as more people without a deep technical understanding are tasked with deploying it. Some experts warn that [[Algorithmic bias|algorithmic bias]] is already pervasive in many industries and that almost no one is making an effort to identify or correct it.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608986/forget-killer-robotsbias-is-the-real-ai-danger/|title=Google's AI chief says forget Elon Musk's killer robots, and worry about bias in AI systems instead|last=Knight|first=Will|website=MIT Technology Review|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190704224752/https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608986/forget-killer-robotsbias-is-the-real-ai-danger/|url-status=live}}</ref> There are some open-sourced tools<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://map.ai-global.org/ |title=Where in the World is AI? Responsible & Unethical AI Examples |access-date=2020-10-28 |archive-date=2020-10-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031034143/https://map.ai-global.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref> by civil societies that are looking to bring more awareness to biased AI. There are however some limitations to the current landscape of [[Fairness (machine learning)#Limitations|fairness in AI]], due e.g. to the intrinsic ambiguities in the concept of discrimination, both at philosophical and legal level.<ref name="Ruggieri Alvarez Pugnana State 2023 pp. 15421–15430">{{cite journal | last1=Ruggieri | first1=Salvatore | last2=Alvarez | first2=Jose M. | last3=Pugnana | first3=Andrea | last4=State | first4=Laura | last5=Turini | first5=Franco | title=Can We Trust Fair-AI? | journal=Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence | publisher=Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) | volume=37 | issue=13 | date=2023-06-26 | issn=2374-3468 | doi=10.1609/aaai.v37i13.26798 | pages=15421–15430| s2cid=259678387 | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Buyl De Bie p. ">{{cite journal | last1=Buyl | first1=Maarten | last2=De Bie | first2=Tijl | title=Inherent Limitations of AI Fairness | journal=Communications of the ACM | date=2022 | volume=67 | issue=2 | pages=48–55 | doi=10.1145/3624700 | arxiv=2212.06495 |hdl=1854/LU-01GMNH04RGNVWJ730BJJXGCY99 }}</ref><ref name="Castelnovo Inverardi Nanino Penco p. ">{{cite arXiv | last1=Castelnovo | first1=Alessandro | last2=Inverardi | first2=Nicole | last3=Nanino | first3=Gabriele | last4=Penco | first4=Ilaria Giuseppina | last5=Regoli | first5=Daniele | title=  Fair Enough? A map of the current limitations of the requirements to have "fair" algorithms| date=2023 | class=cs.AI | eprint=2311.12435}}</ref>

AI is also being incorporated into the hiring processes for almost every major company. There are many examples of certain characteristics that the AI is less likely to choose. Including the association between typically white names being more qualified, and the exclusion of anyone who went to a women's college.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Aizenberg |first1=Evgeni |last2=Dennis |first2=Matthew J. |last3=van den Hoven |first3=Jeroen |date=2023-10-21 |title=Examining the assumptions of AI hiring assessments and their impact on job seekers' autonomy over self-representation |journal=AI & Society |language=en |doi=10.1007/s00146-023-01783-1 |issn=0951-5666|doi-access=free }}</ref> Facial recognition is also proven to be highly biased against those with darker skin tones. The word [[Religion:Muslims|Muslims]] is shown to be more highly associated with violence than any other religions. Often times being able to easily detect the faces of white people while being unable to register the faces of people who are black. This is even more disconcerting considering the unproportionate use of security cameras and surveillance in communities that have high percentages of black or brown people. This fact has even been acknowledged in some states and led to the ban of police usage of AI materials or software. Even within the justice system AI has been proven to have biases against black people, labeling black court participants as high risk at a much larger rate then white participants. Often AI struggles to determine racial slurs and when they need to be censored. It struggles to determine when certain words are being used as a slur and when it is being used culturally.<ref name=":3">{{Citation |last=Spindler |first=Gerald |title=Different approaches for liability of Artificial Intelligence – Pros and Cons |date=2023 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/9783748942030-41 |work=Liability for AI |pages=41–96 |access-date=2023-12-14 |publisher=Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG |doi=10.5771/9783748942030-41 |isbn=978-3-7489-4203-0}}</ref> The reason for these biases is that AI pulls information from across the internet to influence its responses in each situation. A good example of this being if a [[Facial recognition system]] was only tested on people who were white then it would only have the data and face scans of white people making it much harder for it to interpret the facial structure and tones of other races and [[Social:Ethnicity|ethnicities]]. To stop these biases there is not one single answer that can be used. The most useful approach has seemed to be the use of [[Data science|data scientists]], [[Philosophy:Ethics|ethicists]] and other policymakers to improve AI's problems with biases. Often times the reasons for biases within AI is the data behind the program rather than the [[Algorithm|algorithm]] of the bot itself. AI's information is often times pulled from past human decisions or inequalities that can lead to biases in the decision-making processes for that bot.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Manyika |first=James |date=2022 |title=Getting AI Right: Introductory Notes on AI & Society |journal=Daedalus |volume=151 |issue=2 |pages=5–27 |doi=10.1162/daed_e_01897 |issn=0011-5266|doi-access=free }}</ref>

[[Philosophy:Injustice|Injustice]] in the use of AI will be much harder to eliminate within healthcare system as often times diseases and conditions can affect different races and genders differently. This can lead to confusion as the AI may be making decisions based on statistics showing that one patient is more likely to have problems due to their gender or race. This can be perceived as a bias because each patient is a different case and AI is making decisions based on what it is programmed to group that individual into. This leads to a discussion about what is considered a biased decision on who receives what treatment. While it is known that there are differences in how diseases and injuries effect different genders and races, there is a discussion on whether it is fairer to incorporate this into healthcare treatments, or to examine each patient without this knowledge. In modern society there is already certain tests for diseases, such as [[Medicine:Breast cancer|Breast cancer]], that is recommended to a certain group of people over others because they are more likely to contract it. If AI implements these statistics and applies them to each patient, it could be considered biased.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cirillo |first1=Davide |last2=Catuara-Solarz |first2=Silvina |last3=Morey |first3=Czuee |last4=Guney |first4=Emre |last5=Subirats |first5=Laia |last6=Mellino |first6=Simona |last7=Gigante |first7=Annalisa |last8=Valencia |first8=Alfonso |last9=Rementeria |first9=María José |last10=Chadha |first10=Antonella Santuccione |last11=Mavridis |first11=Nikolaos |date=2020-06-01 |title=Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare |journal=npj Digital Medicine |language=en |volume=3 |issue=1 |page=81 |doi=10.1038/s41746-020-0288-5 |issn=2398-6352|doi-access=free |pmid=32529043 |pmc=7264169 }}</ref>

Examples of AI being proven to have bias include when the system used to predict which Defendents would be more likely to commit crimes in the future, COMPAS, was found to predict higher risk values for black people than what their actual risk was. Another example being within Google's ads which targeted men with higher paying jobs and women with lower paying jobs. Often times it can be hard to detect AI biases within an Algorithm as often times it is not linked to the actual words associated with bias but rather words that biases can be affected by. An example of this being a person's residential area which can be used to link them to a certain group. This can lead to problems as often times businesses can avoid legal action through this loophole. This being because of the specific laws regarding the verbiage that is considered discriminatory by governments enforcing these policies.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ntoutsi |first1=Eirini |last2=Fafalios |first2=Pavlos |last3=Gadiraju |first3=Ujwal |last4=Iosifidis |first4=Vasileios |last5=Nejdl |first5=Wolfgang |last6=Vidal |first6=Maria-Esther |last7=Ruggieri |first7=Salvatore |last8=Turini |first8=Franco |last9=Papadopoulos |first9=Symeon |last10=Krasanakis |first10=Emmanouil |last11=Kompatsiaris |first11=Ioannis |last12=Kinder-Kurlanda |first12=Katharina |last13=Wagner |first13=Claudia |last14=Karimi |first14=Fariba |last15=Fernandez |first15=Miriam |date=May 2020 |title=Bias in data-driven artificial intelligence systems—An introductory survey |journal=WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery |language=en |volume=10 |issue=3 |doi=10.1002/widm.1356 |issn=1942-4787|doi-access=free }}</ref>

== Increase in AI use ==
AI has been slowly making its presence more known throughout the world, from chat bots that seemingly have answers for every homework question to [[Generative artificial intelligence]] that can create a painting about whatever one desires. AI has become increasingly more popular with in hiring markets. Being used throughout every stage of the hiring process from the ads that target certain people according to what they are looking for, to the inspection of applications of potential hires. Events, such as [[Medicine:COVID-19|COVID-19]], has only sped up the adoption of AI programs in the application process, due to more people having to apply electronically, and with this increase in online applicants the use of AI made the process of narrowing down potential employees easier and more efficient.  AI has become more prominent as businesses have to keep up with the times and ever-expanding internet. Processing analytics and making decisions becomes much easier with the help of AI.<ref name=":3" /> As [[Engineering:Tensor Processing Unit|Tensor Processing Unit -]](TPUs) and [[Graphics processing unit]] (GPUs) become more powerful AI's power will to increase, forcing companies to use it to keep up with the competition. Managing customers' needs and automating many parts of the workplace leads to companies having to spend less money on employees.

AI has also seen increased usage in criminal justice and healthcare. For medicinal means, AI is being used more often to analyze patient data to make predictions about future patients' conditions and possible treatments. These programs are called [[Medicine:Clinical decision support system|Clinical decision support system]] (DSS). AI's future in healthcare may develop into something further than just recommended treatments, such as referring certain patients over others, leading to the possibility of inequalities.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Challen |first1=Robert |last2=Denny |first2=Joshua |last3=Pitt |first3=Martin |last4=Gompels |first4=Luke |last5=Edwards |first5=Tom |last6=Tsaneva-Atanasova |first6=Krasimira |date=March 2019 |title=Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety |journal=BMJ Quality & Safety |language=en |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=231–237 |doi=10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370 |issn=2044-5415|doi-access=free |pmid=30636200 |pmc=6560460 }}</ref>

===Robot rights===
[[File:Hospital delivery robot having priority to elevators.jpg|thumb|A hospital [[Engineering:Delivery robot|delivery robot]] in front of elevator doors stating "Robot Has Priority", a situation that may be regarded as reverse discrimination in relation to humans.]]
"Robot rights" is the concept that people should have moral obligations towards their machines, akin to [[Philosophy:Human rights|human rights]] or [[Philosophy:Animal rights|animal rights]].<ref>{{cite journal | title = Posthuman Rights: Dimensions of Transhuman Worlds | journal = Teknokultura | volume = 12 | issue = 2 | last = Evans | first = Woody |  year = 2015 | doi = 10.5209/rev_TK.2015.v12.n2.49072 | doi-access = free }}</ref> It has been suggested that robot rights (such as a right to exist and perform its own mission) could be linked to robot duty to serve humanity, analogous to linking human rights with human duties before society.<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/artificial-personal-autonomy-and-concept-of-robot-rights | title = Artificial Personal Autonomy and Concept of Robot Rights | last = Sheliazhenko | first = Yurii | author-link = Yurii Sheliazhenko | journal = European Journal of Law and Political Sciences | year = 2017 | pages = 17–21 | doi = 10.20534/EJLPS-17-1-17-21 | access-date = 10 May 2017 | archive-date = 14 July 2018 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180714111141/https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/artificial-personal-autonomy-and-concept-of-robot-rights | url-status = live }}</ref> These could include the [[Philosophy:Personhood|right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law]].<ref>
	 
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
	 
</ref> A specific issue to consider is whether copyright ownership may be claimed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Doomen |first1=Jasper |title= The artificial intelligence entity as a legal person|journal=Information & Communications Technology Law |date=2023 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=277–278|doi=10.1080/13600834.2023.2196827 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The issue has been considered by the [[Organization:Institute for the Future|Institute for the Future]]<ref>{{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm | title=Robots could demand legal rights | work=BBC News | date=December 21, 2006 | access-date=January 3, 2010 | archive-date=October 15, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191015042628/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm | url-status=live }}</ref> and by the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry.<ref name=TimesOnline>{{cite news | url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1695546.ece | title=Human rights for robots? We're getting carried away | publisher=The Times of London | work=The Times Online | first=Mark | last=Henderson | date=April 24, 2007 | access-date=May 2, 2010 | archive-date=May 17, 2008 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517022444/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1695546.ece | url-status=live }}</ref>
	 
Experts disagree on how soon specific and detailed laws on the subject will be necessary.<ref name=TimesOnline/> Glenn McGee reported that sufficiently humanoid robots might appear by 2020,<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.the-scientist.com/column/a-robot-code-of-ethics-46522 | title=A Robot Code of Ethics | first=Glenn | last=McGee | publisher=The Scientist | access-date=2019-03-25 | archive-date=2020-09-06 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200906124127/https://www.the-scientist.com/column/a-robot-code-of-ethics-46522 | url-status=live }}</ref> while [[Biography:Ray Kurzweil|Ray Kurzweil]] sets the date at 2029.<ref>
	 
{{Cite book | last=Kurzweil | first=Ray |  year=2005 | title=The Singularity is Near | publisher=Penguin Books | isbn=978-0-670-03384-3 | title-link=The Singularity is Near }}

</ref> Another group of scientists meeting in 2007 supposed that at least 50 years had to pass before any sufficiently advanced system would exist.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080522163926/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-big-question-should-the-human-race-be-worried-by-the-rise-of-robots-446107.html The Big Question: Should the human race be worried by the rise of robots?], Independent Newspaper,

</ref>
	 
The rules for the 2003 Loebner Prize competition envisioned the possibility of robots having rights of their own:

<blockquote>61. If in any given year, a publicly available open-source Entry entered by the University of Surrey or the Cambridge Center wins the Silver Medal or the Gold Medal, then the Medal and the Cash Award will be awarded to the body responsible for the development of that Entry. If no such body can be identified, or if there is disagreement among two or more claimants, the Medal and the Cash Award will be held in trust until such time as the Entry may legally possess, either in the United States of America or in the venue of the contest, the Cash Award and Gold Medal in its own right.<ref>[http://loebner03.hamill.co.uk/docs/LPC%20Official%20Rules%20v2.0.pdf Loebner Prize Contest Official Rules — Version 2.0] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303180753/http://loebner03.hamill.co.uk/docs/LPC%20Official%20Rules%20v2.0.pdf |date=2016-03-03 }} The competition was directed by David Hamill and the rules were developed by members of the Robitron Yahoo group.</ref> </blockquote>
	 	
In October 2017, the android [[Engineering:Sophia (robot)|Sophia]] was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia, though some considered this to be more of a publicity stunt than a meaningful legal recognition.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/26/saudi-arabia-robot-citizen-sophia/ |title=Saudi Arabia bestows citizenship on a robot named Sophia |date=26 October 2017 |access-date=2017-10-27 |archive-date=2017-10-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171027023101/https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/26/saudi-arabia-robot-citizen-sophia/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Some saw this gesture as openly denigrating of [[Philosophy:Human rights|human rights]] and the [[Philosophy:Rule of law|rule of law]].<ref name="bs">{{cite web |last1=Vincent |first1=James |title=Pretending to give a robot citizenship helps no one |url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/30/16552006/robot-rights-citizenship-saudi-arabia-sophia |website=The Verge |date=30 October 2017 |ref=bs |access-date=10 January 2019 |archive-date=3 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190803144659/https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/30/16552006/robot-rights-citizenship-saudi-arabia-sophia |url-status=live }}</ref>
	 
The philosophy of [[Philosophy:Sentientism|Sentientism]] grants degrees of moral consideration to all sentient beings, primarily humans and most non-human animals. If artificial or alien intelligence show evidence of being [[Philosophy:Sentience|sentient]], this philosophy holds that they should be shown compassion and granted rights.
	 
Joanna Bryson has argued that creating AI that requires rights is both avoidable, and would in itself be unethical, both as a burden to the AI agents and to human society.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Close engagements with artificial companions: key social, psychological, ethical and design issues|date=2010|publisher=John Benjamins Pub. Co|editor=Wilks, Yorick|isbn=978-9027249944|location=Amsterdam|oclc=642206106}}</ref>

===Artificial suffering===
In 2020, professor Shimon Edelman noted that only a small portion of work in the rapidly growing field of AI ethics addressed the possibility of AIs experiencing suffering. This was despite credible theories having outlined possible ways by which AI systems may became conscious, such as [[Integrated information theory]]. Edelman notes one exception had been [[Biography:Thomas Metzinger|Thomas Metzinger]], who in 2018 called for a global moratorium on further work that risked creating conscious AIs. The moratorium was to run to 2050 and could be either extended or repealed early, depending on progress in better understanding the risks and how to mitigate them. Metzinger repeated this argument in 2021, highlighting the risk of creating an "explosion of artificial suffering", both as an AI might suffer in intense ways that humans could not understand, and as replication processes may see the creation of huge quantities of artificial conscious instances. Several labs have openly stated they are trying to create conscious AIs. There have been reports from those with close access to AIs not openly intended to be self aware, that consciousness may already have unintentionally emerged. These include [[Company:OpenAI|OpenAI]] founder [[Biography:Ilya Sutskever|Ilya Sutskever]] in February 2022, when he wrote that today's large neural nets may be "slightly conscious". In November 2022, [[Biography:David Chalmers|David Chalmers]] argued that it was unlikely current large language models like [[Software:GPT-3|GPT-3]] had experienced consciousness, but also that he considered there to be a serious possibility that large language models may become conscious in the future.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Agarwal A, Edelman S | title = Functionally effective conscious AI without suffering | journal = Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness | volume = 7| pages = 39–50 | date =2020  | pmid = | doi = 10.1142/S2705078520300030| arxiv = 2002.05652 | s2cid = 211096533 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = [[Biography:Thomas Metzinger|Thomas Metzinger]] | title = Artificial Suffering: An Argument for a Global Moratorim on Synthetic Phenomenology| journal = Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness | volume = 8 | pages = 43–66  | date = February 2021  | pmid = | doi = 10.1142/S270507852150003X | s2cid = 233176465| doi-access = free}}</ref><ref>{{cite arXiv |last=Chalmers |first=David |eprint=2303.07103v1 |title=Could a Large Language Model be Conscious? |class=Computer Science |date=March 2023 }}</ref>

===Threat to human dignity===
{{Main|Philosophy:Computer Power and Human Reason}}
[[Biography:Joseph Weizenbaum|Joseph Weizenbaum]]<ref name="Weizenbaum's critique"/> argued in 1976 that AI technology should not be used to replace people in positions that require respect and care, such as:
* A customer service representative (AI technology is already used today for telephone-based [[Interactive voice response|interactive voice response]] systems)
* A nursemaid for the elderly (as was reported by Pamela McCorduck in her book ''The Fifth Generation'')
* A soldier
* A judge
* A police officer
* A therapist (as was proposed by Kenneth Colby in the 70s)

Weizenbaum explains that we require authentic feelings of [[Philosophy:Empathy|empathy]] from people in these positions. If machines replace them, we will find ourselves alienated, devalued and frustrated, for the artificially intelligent system would not be able to simulate empathy. Artificial intelligence, if used in this way, represents a threat to human dignity. Weizenbaum argues that the fact that we are entertaining the possibility of machines in these positions suggests that we have experienced an "atrophy of the human spirit that comes from thinking of ourselves as computers."<ref name="MWZ">[[Biography:Joseph Weizenbaum|Joseph Weizenbaum]], quoted in {{Harvnb|McCorduck|2004|pp=356, 374–376}}</ref>

Pamela McCorduck counters that, speaking for women and minorities "I'd rather take my chances with an impartial computer", pointing out that there are conditions where we would prefer to have automated judges and police that have no personal agenda at all.<ref name=MWZ/> However, Kaplan and Haenlein stress that AI systems are only as smart as the data used to train them since they are, in their essence, nothing more than fancy curve-fitting machines; Using AI to support a court ruling can be highly problematic if past rulings show bias toward certain groups since those biases get formalized and ingrained, which makes them even more difficult to spot and fight against.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kaplan|first1=Andreas|last2=Haenlein|first2=Michael|date=January 2019|title=Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence|journal=Business Horizons|volume=62|issue=1|pages=15–25|doi=10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004|s2cid=158433736}}</ref>

Weizenbaum was also bothered that AI researchers (and some philosophers) were willing to view the human mind as nothing more than a computer program (a position now known as computationalism). To Weizenbaum, these points suggest that AI research devalues human life.<ref name="Weizenbaum's critique">
* {{cite book | ref=none
| year = 1976
| title = Computer Power and Human Reason
| publisher = W.H. Freeman & Company | location = San Francisco
| isbn = 978-0-7167-0464-5
| title-link=Computer Power and Human Reason }}
* {{McCorduck 2004}}, pp. 132–144 
</ref>

AI founder [[Biography:John McCarthy (computer scientist)|John McCarthy]] objects to the moralizing tone of Weizenbaum's critique. "When moralizing is both vehement and vague, it invites authoritarian abuse," he writes. [[Biography:Bill Hibbard|Bill Hibbard]]<ref name="hibbard 2014">{{cite arXiv|eprint=1411.1373|class=cs.AI|first1=Bill|last1=Hibbard|title=Ethical Artificial Intelligence|date=17 November 2015}}</ref> writes that "Human dignity requires that we strive to remove our ignorance of the nature of existence, and AI is necessary for that striving."

=== Liability for self-driving cars ===
{{main|Engineering:Self-driving car liability}}

As the widespread use of [[Engineering:Self-driving car|autonomous cars]] becomes increasingly imminent, new challenges raised by fully autonomous vehicles must be addressed.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Davies |first1=Alex |title=Google's Self-Driving Car Caused Its First Crash |url=https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-caused-first-crash/ |magazine=Wired |date=29 February 2016 |access-date=26 July 2019 |archive-date=7 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190707212719/https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-caused-first-crash/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Levin |first1=Sam |last2=Wong |first2=Julia Carrie |title=Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe |work=The Guardian |date=19 March 2018 |access-date=26 July 2019 |archive-date=26 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726084818/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe |url-status=live }}</ref> Recently,{{When|date=November 2020}} there has been debate as to the legal liability of the responsible party if these cars get into accidents.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://futurism.com/who-responsible-when-self-driving-car-accident|title=Who is responsible when a self-driving car has an accident?|website=Futurism|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726084819/https://futurism.com/who-responsible-when-self-driving-car-accident|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/automated-car-accidents/|title=Autonomous Car Crashes: Who – or What – Is to Blame?|last1=Radio|first1=Business|last2=Policy|first2=Law and Public|website=Knowledge@Wharton|access-date=2019-07-26|last3=Podcasts|last4=America|first4=North|archive-date=2019-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726084820/https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/automated-car-accidents/|url-status=live}}</ref> In one report where a driverless car hit a pedestrian, the driver was inside the car but the controls were fully in the hand of computers. This led to a dilemma over who was at fault for the accident.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thebalance.com/driverless-car-accidents-4171792|title=Driverless Cars Gone Wild|last=Delbridge|first=Emily|website=The Balance|access-date=2019-05-29|archive-date=2019-05-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190529020717/https://www.thebalance.com/driverless-car-accidents-4171792|url-status=live}}</ref>

In another incident on March 18, 2018, Elaine Herzberg was struck and killed by a self-driving [[Company:Uber|Uber]] in Arizona. In this case, the automated car was capable of detecting cars and certain obstacles in order to autonomously navigate the roadway, but it could not anticipate a pedestrian in the middle of the road. This raised the question of whether the driver, pedestrian, the car company, or the government should be held responsible for her death.<ref>{{Citation|last=Stilgoe|first=Jack|title=Who Killed Elaine Herzberg?|date=2020|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-32320-2_1|work=Who’s Driving Innovation?|pages=1–6|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-030-32320-2_1|isbn=978-3-030-32319-6|s2cid=214359377|access-date=2020-11-11|archive-date=2021-03-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318060722/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-32320-2_1|url-status=live}}</ref>

Currently, self-driving cars are considered semi-autonomous, requiring the driver to pay attention and be prepared to take control if necessary.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Maxmen|first1=Amy|date=October 2018|title=Self-driving car dilemmas reveal that moral choices are not universal|journal=Nature|volume=562|issue=7728|pages=469–470|bibcode=2018Natur.562..469M|doi=10.1038/d41586-018-07135-0|pmid=30356197|doi-access=free}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=November 2020}} Thus, it falls on governments to regulate the driver who over-relies on autonomous features. as well educate them that these are just technologies that, while convenient, are not a complete substitute. Before autonomous cars become widely used, these issues need to be tackled through new policies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/driverless-cars-in-the-uk-a-regulatory-review|title=Regulations for driverless cars|website=GOV.UK|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726084816/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/driverless-cars-in-the-uk-a-regulatory-review|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Driving:_Legislative_and_Regulatory_Action|title=Automated Driving: Legislative and Regulatory Action – CyberWiki|website=cyberlaw.stanford.edu|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726084828/https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Driving:_Legislative_and_Regulatory_Action|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx|title=Autonomous Vehicles {{!}} Self-Driving Vehicles Enacted Legislation|website=www.ncsl.org|access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726165225/http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>

Experts contend that autonomous vehicles ought to be able distinguish between rightful and harmful decisions since they have the potential of inflicting harm.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Etzioni |first1=Amitai |last2=Etzioni |first2=Oren |date=2017-12-01 |title=Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2 |journal=The Journal of Ethics |language=en |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=403–418 |doi=10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2 |s2cid=254644745 |issn=1572-8609}}</ref> The two main approaches proposed to enable smart machines to render moral decisions are the bottom-up approach, which suggests that machines should learn ethical decisions by observing human behavior without the need for formal rules or moral philosophies, and the top-down approach, which involves programming specific ethical principles into the machine's guidance system. However, there are significant challenges facing both strategies: the top-down technique is criticized for its difficulty in preserving certain moral convictions, while the bottom-up strategy is questioned for potentially unethical learning from human activities.

===Weaponization of artificial intelligence===
{{Main|Lethal autonomous weapon}}
Some experts and academics have questioned the use of robots for military combat, especially when such robots are given some degree of autonomy.<ref name="Call for debate on killer robots">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8182003.stm Call for debate on killer robots] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090807005005/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8182003.stm |date=2009-08-07 }}, By Jason Palmer, Science and technology reporter, BBC News, 8/3/09.</ref><ref>[https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/08/robot-three-way-portends-autonomous-future/ Robot Three-Way Portends Autonomous Future] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107102140/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/08/robot-three-way-portends-autonomous-future/ |date=2012-11-07 }}, By David Axe wired.com, August 13, 2009.</ref> On October 31, 2019, the United States Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Board published the draft of a report recommending principles for the ethical use of artificial intelligence by the Department of Defense that would ensure a human operator would always be able to look into the '[[Black box|black box]]' and understand the kill-chain process. However, a major concern is how the report will be implemented.<ref>{{Cite book|last=United States. Defense Innovation Board|title=AI principles: recommendations on the ethical use of artificial intelligence by the Department of Defense|oclc=1126650738}}</ref> The US Navy has funded a report which indicates that as military robots become more complex, there should be greater attention to implications of their ability to make autonomous decisions.<ref>[http://www.dailytech.com/New%20Navyfunded%20Report%20Warns%20of%20War%20Robots%20Going%20Terminator/article14298.htm New Navy-funded Report Warns of War Robots Going "Terminator"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090728101106/http://www.dailytech.com/New%20Navyfunded%20Report%20Warns%20of%20War%20Robots%20Going%20Terminator/article14298.htm |date=2009-07-28 }}, by Jason Mick (Blog), dailytech.com, February 17, 2009.</ref><ref name="engadget.com">[https://www.engadget.com/2009/02/18/navy-report-warns-of-robot-uprising-suggests-a-strong-moral-com/ Navy report warns of robot uprising, suggests a strong moral compass] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604145633/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/18/navy-report-warns-of-robot-uprising-suggests-a-strong-moral-com/ |date=2011-06-04 }}, by Joseph L. Flatley engadget.com, Feb 18th 2009.</ref> Some researchers state that [[Engineering:Autonomous robot|autonomous robot]]s might be more humane, as they could make decisions more effectively.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Umbrello|first1=Steven|last2=Torres|first2=Phil|last3=De Bellis|first3=Angelo F.|date=March 2020|title=The future of war: could lethal autonomous weapons make conflict more ethical?|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00146-019-00879-x|journal=AI & Society|language=en|volume=35|issue=1|pages=273–282|doi=10.1007/s00146-019-00879-x|hdl=2318/1699364|s2cid=59606353|issn=0951-5666|access-date=2020-11-11|archive-date=2021-01-05|archive-url=https://archive.today/20210105020836/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-019-00879-x|url-status=live}}</ref>

Within this last decade, there has been intensive research in autonomous power with the ability to learn using assigned moral responsibilities. "The results may be used when designing future military robots, to control unwanted tendencies to assign responsibility to the robots."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hellström |first1=Thomas |title=On the moral responsibility of military robots |journal=Ethics and Information Technology |date=June 2013 |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=99–107 |id={{ProQuest|1372020233}} |s2cid=15205810 |doi=10.1007/s10676-012-9301-2 }}</ref> From a [[Philosophy:Consequentialism|consequentialist]] view, there is a chance that robots will develop the ability to make their own logical decisions on whom to kill and that is why there should be a set [[Philosophy:Morality|moral]] framework that the AI cannot override.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://qz.com/1244055/we-can-train-ai-to-identify-good-and-evil-and-then-use-it-to-teach-us-morality/|title=We can train AI to identify good and evil, and then use it to teach us morality|last=Mitra|first=Ambarish|website=Quartz|date=5 April 2018 |access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2019-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726085248/https://qz.com/1244055/we-can-train-ai-to-identify-good-and-evil-and-then-use-it-to-teach-us-morality/|url-status=live}}</ref>

There has been a recent outcry with regard to the engineering of artificial intelligence weapons that have included ideas of a [[Unsolved:AI takeover|robot takeover of mankind]]. AI weapons do present a type of danger different from that of human-controlled weapons. Many governments have begun to fund programs to develop AI weaponry. The United States Navy recently announced plans to develop [[Engineering:Unmanned combat aerial vehicle|autonomous drone weapons]], paralleling similar announcements by Russia and South Korea<ref>{{Cite news |title=South Korea developing new stealthy drones to support combat aircraft |last=Dominguez |first=Gabriel |date=23 August 2022 |work=The Japan Times |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/08/23/asia-pacific/south-korea-stealth-drones-development/ |access-date=14 June 2023}}</ref> respectively. Due to the potential of AI weapons becoming more dangerous than human-operated weapons, [[Biography:Stephen Hawking|Stephen Hawking]] and [[Biography:Max Tegmark|Max Tegmark]] signed a "Future of Life" petition<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/|title=AI Principles|website=Future of Life Institute|date=11 August 2017 |access-date=2019-07-26|archive-date=2017-12-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171211171044/https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/|url-status=live}}</ref> to ban AI weapons. The message posted by Hawking and Tegmark states that AI weapons pose an immediate danger and that action is required to avoid catastrophic disasters in the near future.<ref name="theatlantic.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/humans-not-robots-are-the-real-reason-artificial-intelligence-is-scary/400994/|title=Why Artificial Intelligence Can Too Easily Be Weaponized – The Atlantic|author=Zach Musgrave and Bryan W. Roberts|work=The Atlantic|date=2015-08-14|access-date=2017-03-06|archive-date=2017-04-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170411140722/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/humans-not-robots-are-the-real-reason-artificial-intelligence-is-scary/400994/|url-status=live}}</ref>

"If any major military power pushes ahead with the AI weapon development, a global [[Engineering:Arms race|arms race]] is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the [[Engineering:AK-47|Kalashnikovs]] of tomorrow", says the petition, which includes [[Software:Skype|Skype]] co-founder Jaan Tallinn and MIT professor of linguistics [[Biography:Noam Chomsky|Noam Chomsky]] as additional supporters against AI weaponry.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/27/musk-hawking-warn-of-artificial-intelligence-weapons/|title=Musk, Hawking Warn of Artificial Intelligence Weapons|author=Cat Zakrzewski|work=WSJ|date=2015-07-27|access-date=2017-08-04|archive-date=2015-07-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150728173944/http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/27/musk-hawking-warn-of-artificial-intelligence-weapons/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Physicist and Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees has warned of catastrophic instances like "dumb robots going rogue or a network that develops a mind of its own." [[Biography:Huw Price|Huw Price]], a colleague of Rees at Cambridge, has voiced a similar warning that humans might not survive when intelligence "escapes the constraints of biology". These two professors created the [[Organization:Centre for the Study of Existential Risk|Centre for the Study of Existential Risk]] at Cambridge University in the hope of avoiding this threat to human existence.<ref name="theatlantic.com"/>

Regarding the potential for smarter-than-human systems to be employed militarily, the Open Philanthropy Project writes that these scenarios "seem potentially as important as the risks related to loss of control", but research investigating AI's long-run social impact have spent relatively little time on this concern: "this class of scenarios has not been a major focus for the organizations that have been most active in this space, such as the [[Organization:Machine Intelligence Research Institute|Machine Intelligence Research Institute]] (MIRI) and the [[Organization:Future of Humanity Institute|Future of Humanity Institute]] (FHI), and there seems to have been less analysis and debate regarding them".<ref name="givewell">{{cite report |author=GiveWell |date=2015 |title=Potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence |url=http://www.givewell.org/labs/causes/ai-risk |access-date=11 October 2015 |archive-date=12 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151012084043/http://www.givewell.org/labs/causes/ai-risk |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Opaque algorithms===
Approaches like machine learning with [[Neural network|neural network]]s can result in computers making decisions that they and the humans who programmed them cannot explain. It is difficult for people to determine if such decisions are fair and trustworthy, leading potentially to bias in AI systems going undetected, or people rejecting the use of such systems. This has led to advocacy and in some jurisdictions legal requirements for [[Explainable artificial intelligence|explainable artificial intelligence]].<ref>[https://think.kera.org/2017/12/05/inside-the-mind-of-a-i/ Inside The Mind Of A.I.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210810003331/https://think.kera.org/2017/12/05/inside-the-mind-of-a-i/ |date=2021-08-10 }} - Cliff Kuang interview</ref> Explainable artificial intelligence encompasses both explainability and interpretability, with explainability relating to summarizing neural network behavior and building user confidence, while interpretability is defined as the comprehension of what a model has done or could do.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bunn |first=Jenny |date=2020-04-13 |title=Working in contexts for which transparency is important: A recordkeeping view of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/RMJ-08-2019-0038/full/html |journal=Records Management Journal |language=en |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=143–153 |doi=10.1108/RMJ-08-2019-0038 |s2cid=219079717 |issn=0956-5698}}</ref>

===Negligent or Deliberate Misuse of AI===
A special case of the opaqueness of AI is that caused by it being anthropomorphised, that is, assumed to have human-like characteristics, resulting in misplaced conceptions of its [[Philosophy:Moral agency|moral agency]]. This can cause people to overlook whether either human [[Social:Negligence|negligence]] or deliberate criminal action has led to unethical outcomes produced through an AI system. Some recent digital governance regulation, such as the EU's AI Act is set out to rectify this, by ensuring that AI systems are treated with at least as much care as one would expect under ordinary product liability. This includes potentially [[Engineering:Information technology audit|AI audits]].

==Singularity==
{{Further|Unsolved:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence|Philosophy:Superintelligence|Philosophy:Technological singularity}}

Many researchers have argued that, by way of an "intelligence explosion", a self-improving AI could become so powerful that humans would not be able to stop it from achieving its goals.<ref name="Muehlhauser, Luke 2012">Muehlhauser, Luke, and Louie Helm. 2012. [https://intelligence.org/files/IE-ME.pdf "Intelligence Explosion and Machine Ethics"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150507173028/http://intelligence.org/files/IE-ME.pdf |date=2015-05-07 }}. In Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment, edited by Amnon Eden, Johnny Søraker, James H. Moor, and Eric Steinhart. Berlin: Springer.</ref> In his paper "Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence" and subsequent book ''[[Philosophy:Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies|Superintelligence]]'', philosopher [[Biography:Nick Bostrom|Nick Bostrom]] argues that artificial intelligence has the capability to bring about human extinction. He claims that general [[Philosophy:Superintelligence|superintelligence]] would be capable of independent initiative and of making its own plans, and may therefore be more appropriately thought of as an autonomous agent. Since artificial intellects need not share our human motivational tendencies, it would be up to the designers of the superintelligence to specify its original motivations. Because a superintelligent AI would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome and to thwart any attempt to prevent the implementation of its goals, many uncontrolled [[Social:Unintended consequences|unintended consequences]] could arise. It could kill off all other agents, persuade them to change their behavior, or block their attempts at interference.<ref name="Bostrom, Nick 2003">Bostrom, Nick. 2003. [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html "Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181008090224/http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html |date=2018-10-08 }}. In Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence, edited by Iva Smit and George E. Lasker, 12–17. Vol. 2. Windsor, ON: International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research / Cybernetics.</ref>

However, instead of overwhelming the human race and leading to our destruction, Bostrom has also asserted that superintelligence can help us solve many difficult problems such as disease, poverty, and environmental destruction, and could help us to "enhance" ourselves.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Umbrello|first1=Steven|last2=Baum|first2=Seth D.|date=2018-06-01|title=Evaluating future nanotechnology: The net societal impacts of atomically precise manufacturing|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717301908|journal=Futures|language=en|volume=100|pages=63–73|doi=10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.007|hdl=2318/1685533|s2cid=158503813|issn=0016-3287|access-date=2020-11-29|archive-date=2019-05-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190509222110/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717301908|url-status=live|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

The sheer complexity of human value systems makes it very difficult to make AI's motivations human-friendly.<ref name="Muehlhauser, Luke 2012" /><ref name="Bostrom, Nick 2003" /> Unless moral philosophy provides us with a flawless ethical theory, an AI's utility function could allow for many potentially harmful scenarios that conform with a given ethical framework but not "common sense". According to [[Biography:Eliezer Yudkowsky|Eliezer Yudkowsky]], there is little reason to suppose that an artificially designed mind would have such an adaptation.<ref>Yudkowsky, Eliezer. 2011. [https://intelligence.org/files/ComplexValues.pdf "Complex Value Systems in Friendly AI"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150929212318/http://intelligence.org/files/ComplexValues.pdf |date=2015-09-29 }}. In Schmidhuber, Thórisson, and Looks 2011, 388–393.</ref> AI researchers such as [[Biography:Stuart J. Russell|Stuart J. Russell]],<ref name="HC">{{cite book |last=Russell |first=Stuart |date=October 8, 2019 |title=Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control |location=United States |publisher=Viking |isbn=978-0-525-55861-3 |oclc=1083694322|title-link=Human Compatible }}</ref> [[Biography:Bill Hibbard|Bill Hibbard]],<ref name="hibbard 2014" /> [[Biography:Roman Yampolskiy|Roman Yampolskiy]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yampolskiy|first=Roman V.|date=2020-03-01|title=Unpredictability of AI: On the Impossibility of Accurately Predicting All Actions of a Smarter Agent|url=https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2705078520500034|journal=Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness|volume=07|issue=1|pages=109–118|doi=10.1142/S2705078520500034|s2cid=218916769|issn=2705-0785|access-date=2020-11-29|archive-date=2021-03-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318060657/https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2705078520500034|url-status=live}}</ref> Shannon Vallor,<ref>{{Citation|last1=Wallach|first1=Wendell|title=Moral Machines: From Value Alignment to Embodied Virtue|date=2020-09-17|url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190905033.001.0001/oso-9780190905033-chapter-14|work=Ethics of Artificial Intelligence|pages=383–412|publisher=Oxford University Press|language=en|doi=10.1093/oso/9780190905033.003.0014|isbn=978-0-19-090503-3|access-date=2020-11-29|last2=Vallor|first2=Shannon|archive-date=2020-12-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201208114354/https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190905033.001.0001/oso-9780190905033-chapter-14|url-status=live}}</ref> Steven Umbrello<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Umbrello|first=Steven|date=2019|title=Beneficial Artificial Intelligence Coordination by Means of a Value Sensitive Design Approach|journal=Big Data and Cognitive Computing|language=en|volume=3|issue=1|pages=5|doi=10.3390/bdcc3010005|doi-access=free|hdl=2318/1685727|hdl-access=free}}</ref> and [[Biography:Luciano Floridi|Luciano Floridi]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Floridi|first1=Luciano|last2=Cowls|first2=Josh|last3=King|first3=Thomas C.|last4=Taddeo|first4=Mariarosaria|date=2020|title=How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors|journal=Science and Engineering Ethics|language=en|volume=26|issue=3|pages=1771–1796|doi=10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5|issn=1353-3452|pmc=7286860|pmid=32246245}}</ref> have proposed design strategies for developing beneficial machines.

==Institutions in AI policy & ethics==
There are many organizations concerned with AI ethics and policy, public and governmental as well as corporate and societal.

Amazon, [[Company:Google|Google]], [[Company:Facebook|Facebook]], [[Company:IBM|IBM]], and [[Company:Microsoft|Microsoft]] have established a [[Engineering:Nonprofit organization|non-profit]], The Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society, to formulate best practices on artificial intelligence technologies, advance the public's understanding, and to serve as a platform about artificial intelligence. Apple joined in January 2017. The corporate members will make financial and research contributions to the group, while engaging with the scientific community to bring academics onto the board.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Fiegerman |first1=Seth |title=Facebook, Google, Amazon create group to ease AI concerns |url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/technology/partnership-on-ai/ |work=CNNMoney |date=28 September 2016 |access-date=18 August 2020 |archive-date=17 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200917141730/https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/technology/partnership-on-ai/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

The IEEE put together a Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems which has been creating and revising guidelines with the help of public input, and accepts as members many professionals from within and without its organization. The IEEE's [https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems/ Ethics of Autonomous Systems] initiative aims to address ethical dilemmas related to decision-making and the impact on society while developing guidelines for the development and use of autonomous systems. In particular in domains like artificial intelligence and robotics, the Foundation for Responsible Robotics is dedicated to promoting moral behavior as well as responsible robot design and use, ensuring that robots maintain moral principles and are congruent with human values.

Traditionally, [[Social:Government|government]] has been used by societies to ensure ethics are observed through legislation and policing. There are now many efforts by national governments, as well as transnational government and non-government organizations to ensure AI is ethically applied.

AI ethics work is structured by personal values and professional commitments, and involves constructing contextual meaning through data and algorithms. Therefore, AI ethics work needs to be incentivized.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Slota |first1=Stephen C. |last2=Fleischmann |first2=Kenneth R. |last3=Greenberg |first3=Sherri |last4=Verma |first4=Nitin |last5=Cummings |first5=Brenna |last6=Li |first6=Lan |last7=Shenefiel |first7=Chris |date=2023 |title=Locating the work of artificial intelligence ethics |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24638 |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |language=en |volume=74 |issue=3 |pages=311–322 |doi=10.1002/asi.24638 |s2cid=247342066 |issn=2330-1635}}</ref>

=== Intergovernmental initiatives ===
* The European Commission has a High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. On 8 April 2019, this published its "Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai|title=Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI|date=2019-04-08|website=Shaping Europe’s digital future – European Commission|publisher=European Commission|language=en|access-date=2020-02-20|archive-date=2020-02-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200220002342/https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai|url-status=live}}</ref> The European Commission also has a Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Excellence unit, which published a white paper on excellence and trust in artificial intelligence innovation on 19 February 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/white-paper-artificial-intelligence-european-approach-excellence-and-trust|title=White Paper on Artificial Intelligence – a European approach to excellence and trust &#124; Shaping Europe's digital future|date=19 February 2020 |access-date=2021-03-18|archive-date=2021-03-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210306003222/https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/white-paper-artificial-intelligence-european-approach-excellence-and-trust|url-status=live}}</ref> The European Commission also proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act.<ref name=":2" />
* The [[Organization:OECD|OECD]] established an OECD AI Policy Observatory.<ref>{{cite web |title=OECD AI Policy Observatory |url=https://www.oecd.ai/ |access-date=2021-03-18 |archive-date=2021-03-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308171133/https://oecd.ai/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
* In 2021, [[Organization:UNESCO|UNESCO]] adopted the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence,<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137.locale=en |title=Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence |publisher=UNESCO |year=2021}}</ref> the first global standard on the ethics of AI.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |date=2021-11-26 |title=UNESCO member states adopt first global agreement on AI ethics |url=https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/themes/themes/science-and-technology/20454-unesco-member-states-adopt-first-global-agreement-on-ai-ethics.html |access-date=2023-04-26 |website=Helsinki Times |language=en-gb}}</ref>

=== Governmental initiatives ===
* In the {{wipe|United States}} the Obama administration put together a Roadmap for AI Policy.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2016-12-21|title=The Obama Administration's Roadmap for AI Policy|work=Harvard Business Review|url=https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-obama-administrations-roadmap-for-ai-policy|access-date=2021-03-16|issn=0017-8012|archive-date=2021-01-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122003445/https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-obama-administrations-roadmap-for-ai-policy|url-status=live}}</ref> The Obama Administration released two prominent white papers on the future and impact of AI. In 2019 the White House through an executive memo known as the "American AI Initiative" instructed NIST the (National Institute of Standards and Technology) to begin work on Federal Engagement of AI Standards (February 2019).<ref>{{Cite web|title=Accelerating America's Leadership in Artificial Intelligence – The White House|url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/articles/accelerating-americas-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/|access-date=2021-03-16|website=trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov|archive-date=2021-02-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225073748/https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/articles/accelerating-americas-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/|url-status=live}}</ref>
*In January 2020, in the United States, the Trump Administration released a draft executive order issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on "Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications" ("OMB AI Memorandum"). The order emphasizes the need to invest in AI applications, boost public trust in AI, reduce barriers for usage of AI, and keep American AI technology competitive in a global market. There is a nod to the need for privacy concerns, but no further detail on enforcement. The advances of American AI technology seems to be the focus and priority. Additionally, federal entities are even encouraged to use the order to circumnavigate any state laws and regulations that a market might see as too onerous to fulfill.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-01-13|title=Request for Comments on a Draft Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, "Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications"|url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/13/2020-00261/request-for-comments-on-a-draft-memorandum-to-the-heads-of-executive-departments-and-agencies|access-date=2020-11-28|website=Federal Register|archive-date=2020-11-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201125060218/https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/13/2020-00261/request-for-comments-on-a-draft-memorandum-to-the-heads-of-executive-departments-and-agencies|url-status=live}}</ref>
*The [[Organization:Computing Community Consortium|Computing Community Consortium (CCC)]] weighed in with a 100-plus page draft report<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hpcwire.com/2019/05/14/ccc-offers-draft-20-year-ai-roadmap-seeks-comments/|title=CCC Offers Draft 20-Year AI Roadmap; Seeks Comments|date=2019-05-14|website=HPCwire|access-date=2019-07-22|archive-date=2021-03-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318060659/https://www.hpcwire.com/2019/05/14/ccc-offers-draft-20-year-ai-roadmap-seeks-comments/|url-status=live}}</ref> – ''A 20-Year Community Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence Research in the US''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cccblog.org/2019/05/13/request-comments-on-draft-a-20-year-community-roadmap-for-ai-research-in-the-us/|title=Request Comments on Draft: A 20-Year Community Roadmap for AI Research in the US » CCC Blog|date=13 May 2019 |access-date=2019-07-22|archive-date=2019-05-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190514193546/https://www.cccblog.org/2019/05/13/request-comments-on-draft-a-20-year-community-roadmap-for-ai-research-in-the-us/|url-status=live}}</ref>
* The Center for Security and Emerging Technology advises US policymakers on the security implications of emerging technologies such as AI.
* The Non-Human Party is running for election in New South Wales, with policies around granting rights to robots, animals and generally, non-human entities whose intelligence has been overlooked.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://nonhuman.party/ |title=Non-Human Party |year=2021 |access-date=2021-09-19 |archive-date=2021-09-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210920212940/https://nonhuman.party/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
* In Russia, the first-ever Russian "Codex of ethics of artificial intelligence" for business was signed in 2021. It was driven by Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation together with major commercial and academic institutions such as Sberbank, [[Company:Yandex|Yandex]], Rosatom, Higher School of Economics, [[Organization:Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology|Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology]], ITMO University, [[Company:Nanosemantics|Nanosemantics]], [[Company:Rostelecom|Rostelecom]], CIAN and others.<ref>{{in lang|ru}} [https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5089365 Интеллектуальные правила] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230212952/https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5089365 |date=2021-12-30 }} — Kommersant, 25.11.2021</ref>

=== Academic initiatives ===
*There are three research institutes at the [[Organization:University of Oxford|University of Oxford]] that are centrally focused on AI ethics. The [[Organization:Future of Humanity Institute|Future of Humanity Institute]] that focuses both on AI Safety<ref>{{cite arXiv|eprint=1705.08807|class=cs.AI|first1=Katja|last1=Grace|first2=John|last2=Salvatier|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|date=2018-05-03|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain}}</ref> and the Governance of AI.<ref>{{Cite web|title=China wants to shape the global future of artificial intelligence|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/16/144630/china-wants-to-shape-the-global-future-of-artificial-intelligence/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201120052853/https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/16/144630/china-wants-to-shape-the-global-future-of-artificial-intelligence/|archive-date=2020-11-20|access-date=2020-11-29|website=MIT Technology Review|language=en}}</ref> The Institute for Ethics in AI, directed by [[Biography:John Tasioulas|John Tasioulas]], whose primary goal, among others, is to promote AI ethics as a field proper in comparison to related applied ethics fields. The [[Organization:Oxford Internet Institute|Oxford Internet Institute]], directed by [[Biography:Luciano Floridi|Luciano Floridi]], focuses on the ethics of near-term AI technologies and ICTs.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Floridi|first1=Luciano|last2=Cowls|first2=Josh|last3=Beltrametti|first3=Monica|last4=Chatila|first4=Raja|last5=Chazerand|first5=Patrice|last6=Dignum|first6=Virginia|last7=Luetge|first7=Christoph|last8=Madelin|first8=Robert|last9=Pagallo|first9=Ugo|last10=Rossi|first10=Francesca|last11=Schafer|first11=Burkhard|date=2018-12-01|title=AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations|journal=Minds and Machines|language=en|volume=28|issue=4|pages=689–707|doi=10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5|issn=1572-8641|pmc=6404626|pmid=30930541}}</ref>
*The Centre for Digital Governance at the [[Organization:Hertie School|Hertie School]] in Berlin was co-founded by Joanna Bryson to research questions of ethics and technology.<ref>{{cite magazine|last=|first=|date=|title=Joanna J. Bryson|url=https://www.wired.com/author/joanna-j-bryson/|magazine=WIRED|location=|access-date=13 January 2023}}</ref>
*The AI Now Institute at NYU is a research institute studying the social implications of artificial intelligence. Its interdisciplinary research focuses on the themes bias and inclusion, labour and automation, rights and liberties, and safety and civil infrastructure.<ref>{{Cite web|title=New Artificial Intelligence Research Institute Launches|date=2017-11-20|url=https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/new-artificial-intelligence-research-institute-launches|access-date=2021-02-21|language=en-US|archive-date=2020-09-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200918091106/https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/new-artificial-intelligence-research-institute-launches|url-status=live}}</ref>
*The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) researches the effects of AI on unemployment,<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/976407024|title=Surviving the machine age: intelligent technology and the transformation of human work|date=15 March 2017|isbn=978-3-319-51165-8|editor=Hughes, James J.|location=Cham, Switzerland|oclc=976407024|access-date=29 November 2020|editor2=LaGrandeur, Kevin|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318060659/https://www.worldcat.org/title/surviving-the-machine-age-intelligent-technology-and-the-transformation-of-human-work/oclc/976407024|archive-date=18 March 2021|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Danaher, John|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1114334813|title=Automation and utopia: human flourishing in a world without work|year=2019|isbn=978-0-674-24220-3|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|oclc=1114334813}}</ref> and policy.
*The Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence (IEAI) at the Technical University of Munich directed by Christoph Lütge conducts research across various domains such as mobility, employment, healthcare and sustainability.<ref>{{Cite web|title=TUM Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence officially opened|url=https://www.tum.de/nc/en/about-tum/news/press-releases/details/35727/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201210032545/https://www.tum.de/nc/en/about-tum/news/press-releases/details/35727/|archive-date=2020-12-10|access-date=2020-11-29|website=www.tum.de|language=en}}</ref>
*[[Biography:Barbara J. Grosz|Barbara J. Grosz]], the Higgins Professor of Natural Sciences at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences has initiated the Embedded EthiCS into [[Organization:Harvard University|Harvard]]'s computer science curriculum to develop a future generation of computer scientists with worldview that takes into account the social impact of their work.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Communications |first=Paul Karoff SEAS |date=2019-01-25 |title=Harvard works to embed ethics in computer science curriculum |url=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/harvard-works-to-embed-ethics-in-computer-science-curriculum/ |access-date=2023-04-06 |website=Harvard Gazette |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== NGO initiatives ===
An international non-profit organization [[Organization:Future of Life Institute|Future of Life Institute]] held a 5 day conference in [[Philosophy:Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI|Asilomar in 2017]] on the subject of "Beneficial AI", the outcome of which was a set of 23 guiding principles for the future of AI research. Through a shared vision between experts and thought leaders from variety of disciplines, this conference laid an influential groundwork for AI governance principals in addressing research issues, ethics and values, and long-term issues.<ref>{{Cite web |title=AI Principles |url=https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/ai-principles/ |access-date=2023-04-06 |website=Future of Life Institute |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Private organizations ===

* [[Organization:Algorithmic Justice League|Algorithmic Justice League]]<ref>{{Cite news|last=Lee|first=Jennifer 8|date=2020-02-08|title=When Bias Is Coded Into Our Technology|language=en|work=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/02/08/770174171/when-bias-is-coded-into-our-technology|access-date=2021-12-22|archive-date=2022-03-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220326025113/https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/02/08/770174171/when-bias-is-coded-into-our-technology|url-status=live}}</ref>
* [[Organization:Black in AI|Black in AI]]<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|date=2018-12-12|title=How one conference embraced diversity|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=564|issue=7735|pages=161–162|doi=10.1038/d41586-018-07718-x|pmid=31123357|s2cid=54481549|doi-access=free}}</ref>
* Data for Black Lives<ref>{{Cite news|last=Roose|first=Kevin|date=2020-12-30|title=The 2020 Good Tech Awards|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/technology/2020-good-tech-awards.html|access-date=2021-12-21|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=2021-12-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211221205543/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/technology/2020-good-tech-awards.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
* Queer in AI<ref name=":1" />

== Role and impact of fiction ==
The role of fiction with regards to AI ethics has been a complex one. One can distinguish three levels at which fiction has impacted the development of artificial intelligence and robotics: Historically, fiction has been prefiguring common tropes that have not only influenced goals and visions for AI, but also outlined ethical questions and common fears associated with it. During the second half of the twentieth and the first decades of the twenty-first century, popular culture, in particular movies, TV series and video games have frequently echoed preoccupations and dystopian projections around ethical questions concerning AI and robotics. Recently, these themes have also been increasingly treated in literature beyond the realm of science fiction. And, as Carme Torras, research professor at the ''Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial'' (Institute of robotics and industrial computing) at the Technical University of Catalonia notes,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Velasco |first=Guille |date=2020-05-04 |title=Science-Fiction: A Mirror for the Future of Humankind |url=https://revistaidees.cat/en/science-fiction-favors-engaging-debate-on-artificial-intelligence-and-ethics/ |access-date=2023-12-08 |website=IDEES |language=en-US}}</ref> in higher education, science fiction is also increasingly used for teaching technology-related ethical issues in technological degrees.

=== History ===

Historically speaking, the investigation of moral and ethical implications of "thinking machines" goes back at least to the [[Philosophy:Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]]: [[Biography:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Leibniz]] already poses the question if we might attribute intelligence to a mechanism that behaves as if it were a sentient being,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lodge |first=Paul |date=2014 |title=Leibniz's Mill Argument Against Mechanical Materialism Revisited |journal=Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy |volume=1 |issue=20201214 |doi=10.3998/ergo.12405314.0001.003 |hdl=2027/spo.12405314.0001.003 |issn=2330-4014|doi-access=free }}</ref> and so does [[Biography:René Descartes|Descartes]], who describes what could be considered an early version of the [[Turing test]].<ref>{{Citation |last1=Bringsjord |first1=Selmer |title=Artificial Intelligence |date=2020 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/artificial-intelligence/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2023-12-08 |edition=Summer 2020 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |last2=Govindarajulu |first2=Naveen Sundar |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref>

The [[Philosophy:Romanticism|romantic]] period has several times envisioned artificial creatures that escape the control of their creator with dire consequences, most famously in Mary Shelley's ''Frankenstein''. The widespread preoccupation with industrialization and mechanization in the 19th and early 20th century, however, brought ethical implications of unhinged technical developments to the forefront of fiction: ''R.U.R – Rossum's Universal Robots'', Karel Čapek's play of sentient robots endowed with emotions used as slave labor is not only credited with the invention of the term 'robot' (derived from the Czech word for forced labor, ''robota'') but was also an international success after it premiered in 1921. [[Biography:George Bernard Shaw|George Bernard Shaw]]'s play ''Back to Methuselah'', published in 1921, questions at one point the validity of thinking machines that act like humans; Fritz Lang's 1927 film ''Metropolis'' shows an [[Engineering:Android (robot)|android]] leading the uprising of the exploited masses against the oppressive regime of a [[Social:Technocracy|technocratic]] society.

=== Impact on technological development ===

While the anticipation of a future dominated by potentially indomitable technology has fueled the imagination of writers and film makers for a long time, one question has been less frequently analyzed, namely, to what extent fiction has played a role in providing inspiration for technological development. It has been documented, for instance, that the young Alan Turing saw and appreciated aforementioned Shaw's play ''Back to Methuselah'' in 1933<ref>Hodges, A. (2014), ''Alan Turing: The Enigma'',Vintage, London, p. 334</ref> (just 3 years before the publication of his first seminal paper,<ref>A. M. Turing (1936). "On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem." in ''Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society'', 2 s. vol. 42 (1936–1937), pp. 230–265.</ref> which laid the groundwork for the digital computer), and he would likely have been at least aware of plays like ''R.U.R.'', which was an international success and translated into many languages.

One might also ask the question which role science fiction played in establishing the tenets and ethical implications of AI development: Isaac Asimov conceptualized his Three Laws of Robotics in the 1942 short story  "Runaround", part of the short story collection  ''I, Robot''; [[Biography:Arthur C. Clarke|Arthur C. Clarke]]'s short ''The Sentinel'', on which Stanley Kubrick's film ''2001: A Space Odyssey'' is based, was written in 1948 and published in 1952. Another example (among many others) would be [[Biography:Philip K. Dick|Philip K. Dick]]'s numerous short stories and novels – in particular ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?'', published in 1968, and featuring its own version of a Turing Test, the ''Voight-Kampff Test'', to gauge emotional responses of androids indistinguishable from humans. The novel later became the basis of the influential 1982 movie ''Blade Runner'' by Ridley Scott.

Science fiction has been grappling with ethical implications of AI developments for decades, and thus provided a blueprint for ethical issues that might emerge once something akin to general artificial intelligence has been achieved: Spike Jonze's 2013 film ''Her'' shows what can happen if a user falls in love with the seductive voice of his smartphone operating system; ''Ex Machina'', on the other hand, asks a more difficult question: if confronted with a clearly recognizable machine, made only human by a face and an empathetic and sensual voice, would we still be able to establish an emotional connection, still be seduced by it?  (The film echoes a theme already present two centuries earlier, in the 1817 short story ''The Sandmann'' by E. T. A. Hoffmann.)

The theme of coexistence with artificial sentient beings is also the theme of two recent novels: ''Machines Like Me'' by Ian McEwan, published in 2019, involves, among many other things, a love-triangle involving an artificial person as well as a human couple. ''Klara and the Sun'' by Nobel Prize winner Kazuo Ishiguro, published in 2021, is the first-person account of Klara, an 'AF' (artificial friend), who is trying, in her own way, to help the girl she is living with, who, after having been 'lifted' (i.e. having been subjected to genetic enhancements), is suffering from a strange illness.

=== TV series ===

While ethical questions linked to AI have been featured in science fiction literature and feature films for decades, the emergence of the TV series as a genre allowing for longer and more complex story lines and character development has led to some significant contributions that deal with ethical implications of technology. The Swedish series ''Real Humans'' (2012–2013) tackled the complex ethical and social consequences linked to the integration of artificial sentient beings in society. The British dystopian science fiction anthology series ''Black Mirror'' (2013–2019) was particularly notable for experimenting with dystopian fictional developments linked to a wide variety of recent technology developments. Both the French series ''Osmosis'' (2020) and British series ''The One'' deal with the question of what can happen if technology tries to find the ideal partner for a person. Several episodes of the Netflix series ''Love, Death+Robots'' have imagined scenes of robots and humans living together. The most representative one of them is S02 E01, it shows how bad the consequences can be when robots get out of control if humans rely too much on them in their lives.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-05-14|title=Love, Death & Robots season 2, episode 1 recap - "Automated Customer Service"|url=https://readysteadycut.com/2021/05/14/recap-love-death-and-robots-season-2-episode-1-automated-customer-service-netflix-series/|access-date=2021-12-21|website=Ready Steady Cut|language=en-GB|archive-date=2021-12-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211221035251/https://readysteadycut.com/2021/05/14/recap-love-death-and-robots-season-2-episode-1-automated-customer-service-netflix-series/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Future visions in fiction and games ===

The movie ''The Thirteenth Floor'' suggests a future where [[Philosophy:Simulated reality|simulated worlds]] with sentient inhabitants are created by computer game consoles for the purpose of entertainment. The movie ''The Matrix'' suggests a future where the dominant species on planet Earth are sentient machines and humanity is treated with utmost [[Philosophy:Speciesism|speciesism]]. The short story "The Planck Dive" suggests a future where humanity has turned itself into software that can be duplicated and optimized and the relevant distinction between types of software is sentient and non-sentient. The same idea can be found in the Emergency Medical Hologram of ''Starship Voyager'', which is an apparently sentient copy of a reduced subset of the consciousness of its creator, Dr. Zimmerman, who, for the best motives, has created the system to give medical assistance in case of emergencies. The movies ''Bicentennial Man'' and ''[[A.I. Artificial Intelligence|A.I.]]'' deal with the possibility of sentient robots that could love. ''I, Robot'' explored some aspects of Asimov's three laws. All these scenarios try to foresee possibly unethical consequences of the creation of sentient computers.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1143647559|title=AI narratives: a history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines|editor=Cave, Stephen|editor2= Dihal, Kanta|editor3= Dillon, Sarah|date=14 February 2020|isbn=978-0-19-258604-9|edition=First|location=Oxford|oclc=1143647559|access-date=11 November 2020|archive-date=18 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318060703/https://www.worldcat.org/title/ai-narratives-a-history-of-imaginative-thinking-about-intelligent-machines/oclc/1143647559|url-status=live}}</ref>

The ethics of artificial intelligence is one of several core themes in BioWare's [[Software:Mass Effect|Mass Effect]] series of games.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jerreat-Poole|first=Adam|date=1 February 2020|title=Sick, Slow, Cyborg: Crip Futurity in Mass Effect|url=http://gamestudies.org/2001/articles/jerreatpoole|journal=Game Studies|volume=20|issn=1604-7982|access-date=11 November 2020|archive-date=9 December 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209080256/http://gamestudies.org/2001/articles/jerreatpoole|url-status=live}}</ref> It explores the scenario of a civilization accidentally creating AI through a rapid increase in computational power through a global scale [[Neural network|neural network]]. This event caused an ethical schism between those who felt bestowing organic rights upon the newly sentient Geth was appropriate and those who continued to see them as disposable machinery and fought to destroy them. Beyond the initial conflict, the complexity of the relationship between the machines and their creators is another ongoing theme throughout the story.

''[[Software:Detroit: Become Human|Detroit]]'' is one of the most famous video games which discusses the ethics of artificial intelligence recently. Quantic Dream designed the chapters of the game using interactive storylines to give players a more immersive gaming experience. Players manipulate three different awakened bionic people in the face of different events to make different choices to achieve the purpose of changing the human view of the bionic group and different choices will result in different endings. This is one of the few games that puts players in the bionic perspective, which allows them to better consider the rights and interests of robots once a true artificial intelligence is created.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-08-06|title="Detroit: Become Human" Will Challenge your Morals and your Humanity|url=https://coffeeordie.com/detroit-become-human-will-challenge-your-morals-and-your-humanity/|access-date=2021-12-07|website=Coffee or Die Magazine|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-12-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211209195312/https://coffeeordie.com/detroit-become-human-will-challenge-your-morals-and-your-humanity/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Over time, debates have tended to focus less and less on ''possibility'' and more on ''desirability'',<ref>{{Citation|last1=Cerqui|first1=Daniela|title=Re-Designing Humankind: The Rise of Cyborgs, a Desirable Goal?|date=2008|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4020-6591-0_14|work=Philosophy and Design|pages=185–195|place=Dordrecht|publisher=Springer Netherlands|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-1-4020-6591-0_14|isbn=978-1-4020-6590-3|access-date=2020-11-11|last2=Warwick|first2=Kevin|archive-date=2021-03-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318060701/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-6591-0_14|url-status=live}}</ref> as emphasized in the [[Biography:Hugo de Garis#The Artilect War|"Cosmist" and "Terran" debates]] initiated by [[Biography:Hugo de Garis|Hugo de Garis]] and [[Biography:Kevin Warwick|Kevin Warwick]]. A Cosmist, according to Hugo de Garis, is actually seeking to build more intelligent successors to the human species.

Experts at the University of Cambridge have argued that AI is portrayed in fiction and nonfiction overwhelmingly as racially White, in ways that distort perceptions of its risks and benefits.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cave |first1=Stephen |last2=Dihal |first2=Kanta |title=The Whiteness of AI |journal=Philosophy & Technology |date=6 August 2020 |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=685–703 |doi=10.1007/s13347-020-00415-6 |s2cid=225466550 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==See also==

{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|
*[[Unsolved:AI takeover|AI takeover]]
*[[Artificial consciousness]]
*[[Artificial general intelligence]] (AGI)
*[[Computer ethics]]
*Dead internet theory
*[[Effective altruism#Long-term future and global catastrophic risks|Effective altruism, the long term future and global catastrophic risks]]
*[[Philosophy:Ethics of uncertain sentience|Ethics of uncertain sentience]]
*[[Unsolved:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence]]
*''Human Compatible''
*[[Philosophy:Personhood|Personhood]]
*[[Philosophy:Philosophy of artificial intelligence|Philosophy of artificial intelligence]]
*[[Regulation of artificial intelligence]] 
*[[Engineering:Robotic governance|Robotic Governance]]
*[[Roko's basilisk]]
*''[[Philosophy:Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies|Superintelligence]]''
*[[Philosophy:Suffering risks|Suffering risks]]
}}

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethic-ai/ Ethics of Artificial Intelligence] at the ''[[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]''
* [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ai/ Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics] at the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]
* {{cite journal |last1=Russell |first1=S. |last2=Hauert |first2=S. |last3=Altman |first3=R. |last4=Veloso |first4=M. |title=Robotics: Ethics of artificial intelligence |journal=Nature |date=May 2015 |volume=521 |issue=7553 |pages=415–418 |doi=10.1038/521415a |pmid=26017428 |s2cid=4452826 |bibcode=2015Natur.521..415. |doi-access=free }}
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1809769.stm BBC News: Games to take on a life of their own]
* [http://www.dasboot.org/thorisson.htm Who's Afraid of Robots?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180322214031/http://www.dasboot.org/thorisson.htm |date=2018-03-22 }}, an article on humanity's fear of artificial intelligence.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080418122849/http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/rccs/resources/research/introduction/bynum_shrt_hist.html A short history of computer ethics]
* [https://algorithmwatch.org/en/project/ai-ethics-guidelines-global-inventory/ AI Ethics Guidelines Global Inventory] by [https://algorithmwatch.org Algorithmwatch]
* {{cite journal |last1=Hagendorff |first1=Thilo |title=The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines |journal=Minds and Machines |date=March 2020 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=99–120 |s2cid=72940833 |doi=10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 |doi-access=free |arxiv=1903.03425 }}
* Sheludko, M. (December, 2023). [https://lasoft.org/blog/ethical-aspects-of-artificial-intelligence-challenges-and-imperatives/ Ethical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Imperatives]. Software Development Blog.

{{Ethics}}
{{Existential risk from artificial intelligence}}
{{Philosophy of science}}

[[Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence]]

{{Sourceattribution|Ethics of artificial intelligence}}