@article{RN4630,

title = {The seven troubles with norm-compliant robots},

author = {Tom N. Coggins and Steffen Steinert},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09701-1},

doi = {10.1007/s10676-023-09701-1},

issn = {1572-8439},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-01-01},

urldate = {2023-01-01},

journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},

volume = {25},

number = {2},

pages = {29},

abstract = {Many researchers from robotics, machine ethics, and adjacent fields seem to assume that norms represent good behavior that social robots should learn to benefit their users and society. We would like to complicate this view and present seven key troubles with norm-compliant robots: (1) norm biases, (2) paternalism (3) tyrannies of the majority, (4) pluralistic ignorance, (5) paths of least resistance, (6) outdated norms, and (7) technologically-induced norm change. Because discussions of why norm-compliant robots can be problematic are noticeably absent from the robot and machine ethics literature, this paper fills an important research gap. We argue that it is critical for researchers to take these issues into account if they wish to make norm-compliant robots.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{RN4574,

title = {More work for Roomba? Domestic robots, housework and the production of privacy},

author = {Tom N. Coggins},

doi = {10.13169/prometheus.38.1.0098},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-01},

urldate = {2022-01-01},

journal = {Prometheus},

volume = {38},

number = {1},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{edfc535999d64e1ab291597a99c16003,

title = {Mapping value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles},

author = {Steven Umbrello and I R {van de Poel}},

doi = {10.1007/s43681-021-00038-3},

issn = {2730-5961},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-01-01},

journal = {AI and Ethics},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {Value sensitive design (VSD) is an established method for integrating values into technical design. It has been applied to different technologies and, more recently, to artificial intelligence (AI). We argue that AI poses a number of challenges specific to VSD that require a somewhat modified VSD approach. Machine learning (ML), in particular, poses two challenges. First, humans may not understand how an AI system learns certain things. This requires paying attention to values such as transparency, explicability, and accountability. Second, ML may lead to AI systems adapting in ways that textquoteleftdisembodytextquoteright the values embedded in them. To address this, we propose a threefold modified VSD approach: (1) integrating a known set of VSD principles (AI4SG) as design norms from which more specific design requirements can be derived; (2) distinguishing between values that are promoted and respected by the design to ensure outcomes that not only do no harm but also contribute to good, and (3) extending the VSD process to encompass the whole life cycle of an AI technology to monitor unintended value consequences and redesign as needed. We illustrate our VSD for AI approach with an example use case of a SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing app.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vandePoel2020,

title = {Embedding Values in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems},

author = {Ibo van de Poel},

url = {https://link-springer-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007/s11023-020-09537-4},

doi = {DOI: 10.1007/s11023-020-09537-4},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-09-01},

urldate = {2020-09-01},

journal = {Minds and Machines},

abstract = {Organizations such as the EU High-Level Expert Group on AI and the IEEE have recently formulated ethical principles and (moral) values that should be adhered to in the design and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). These include respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, fairness, transparency, explainability, and accountability. But how can we ensure and verify that an AI system actually respects these values? To help answer this question, I propose an account for determining when an AI system can be said to embody certain values. This account understands embodied values as the result of design activities intended to embed those values in such systems. AI systems are here understood as a special kind of sociotechnical system that, like traditional sociotechnical systems, are composed of technical artifacts, human agents, and institutions but—in addition—contain artificial agents and certain technical norms that regulate interactions between artificial agents and other elements of the system. The specific challenges and opportunities of embedding values in AI systems are discussed, and some lessons for better embedding values in AI systems are drawn.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2e06348e6d684a7ba0968ba9389647e1,

title = {Algorithms and Values in Justice and Security},

author = {Paul Hayes and Ibo van de Poel and Marc Steen},

doi = {10.1007/s00146-019-00932-9},

issn = {0951-5666},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

journal = {AI&Society: the journal of human-centered systems and machine intelligence},

volume = {35},

number = {3},

pages = {533--555},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {This article presents a conceptual investigation into the value impacts and relations of algorithms in the domain of justice and security. As a conceptual investigation, it represents one step in a value sensitive design based methodology (not incorporated here are empirical and technical investigations). Here, we explicate and analyse the expression of values of accuracy, privacy, fairness and equality, property and ownership, and accountability and transparency in this context. We find that values are sensitive to disvalue if algorithms are designed, implemented or deployed inappropriately or without sufficient consideration for their value impacts, potentially resulting in problems including discrimination and constrained autonomy. Furthermore, we outline a framework of conceptual relations of values indicated by our analysis, and potential value tensions in their implementation and deployment with a view towards supporting future research, and supporting the value sensitive design of algorithms in justice and security.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{RN3922,

title = {Three philosophical perspectives on the relation between technology and society, and how they affect the current debate about artificial intelligence},

author = {Ibo van de Poel},

url = {https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/humaff/30/4/article-p499.xml

http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:45f19fab-b952-4623-bdd4-ca28dc8b65c0},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2020-0042},

issn = {1210-3055},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

urldate = {2020-01-01},

journal = {Human Affairs},

volume = {30},

number = {4},

pages = {499},

abstract = {Three philosophical perspectives on the relation between technology and society are distinguished and discussed: 1) technology as an autonomous force that determines society; 2) technology as a human construct that can be shaped by human values, and 3) a co-evolutionary perspective on technology and society where neither of them determines the other. The historical evolution of the three perspectives is discussed and it is argued that all three are still present in current debates about technological change and how it may affect society. This is illustrated for the case of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is argued that each of the three perspectives contributes to the debate of AI but that the third has the strongest potential to uncover blind spots in the current debate.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}