@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},
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 = {artificial agent, artificial intelligence, ethics, institution, multi-agent system, norms, sociotechnical system, value embedding, values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{RN3917,
title = {How Do Technological Artefacts Embody Moral Values?},
author = {Michael Klenk},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00401-y},
doi = {10.1007/s13347-020-00401-y},
issn = {2210-5441},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-01},
journal = {Philosophy & Technology},
abstract = {According to some philosophers of technology, technology embodies moral values in virtue of its functional properties and the intentions of its designers. But this paper shows that such an account makes the values supposedly embedded in technology epistemically opaque and that it does not allow for values to change. Therefore, to overcome these shortcomings, the paper introduces the novel Affordance Account of Value Embedding as a superior alternative. Accordingly, artefacts bear affordances, that is, artefacts make certain actions likelier given the circumstances. Based on an interdisciplinary perspective that invokes recent moral anthropology, I conceptualize affordances as response-dependent properties. That is, they depend on intrinsic as well as extrinsic properties of the artefact. We have reason to value these properties. Therefore, artefacts embody values and are not value-neutral, which has practical implications for the design of new technologies.},
keywords = {affordance, moral anthropology, technology, value embedding, values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{RN3918,
title = {Values in responsible research and innovation: from entities to practices},
author = {Marianne Boenink and Olya Kudina},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1806451},
doi = {10.1080/23299460.2020.1806451},
issn = {2329-9460},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-01},
journal = {Journal of Responsible Innovation},
pages = {1-21},
abstract = {This article explores the understanding of values in ResponsibleResearch and Innovation (RRI). First, it analyses how twomainstream RRI approaches, the largely substantial one by VonSchomberg and the procedural one by Stilgoe and colleagues,identify and conceptualize values. We argue that by treatingvalues as relatively stable entities, directly available for reflection,both fall into an‘entity trap’. As a result, the hermeneutic workrequired to identify values is overlooked. We therefore seek tobolster a practice-based take on values, which approaches valuesasthe evolving results of valuing processes. We highlight how thisapproach views values aslived realities,interactiveanddynamic,discuss methodological implications for RRI, and explore potentiallimitations. Overall, the strength of this approach is that it enablesRRI scholars and practitioners to better acknowledge thecomplexities involved in valuing.},
keywords = {entity trap, ethics of technology, pragmatism, responsible research and innovation, value change, values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{RN3686,
title = {Conflicted by decarbonisation: Five types of conflict at the nexus of capabilities and decentralised energy systems identified with an agent-based model},
author = {Tristan de Wildt and Emile Chappin and Geerten van de Kaa and Paulien Herder and Ibo van de Poel},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620300281},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101451},
issn = {2214-6296},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-01},
journal = {Energy Research & Social Science},
volume = {64},
pages = {101451},
abstract = {This paper explores capability conflicts in the deployment of decentralised energy systems and identifies the affected population. These systems have positive societal impacts in terms of sustainability and consumer empowerment, but they are not accessible to all and their deployment may increase socio-economic inequalities. The societal impacts of decentralised energy systems can be understood in terms of conflicting capabilities; for some citizens capabilities may increase, whereas for others they may decrease. While problematic, capability conflicts may not be inherent. They may only occur in certain neighbourhoods, for example, where both affluent and less affluent populations coexist. By understanding why these capability conflicts occur, we may be able to anticipate whether these decentralised energy projects could result in societal problems. We use agent-based modelling and the scenario discovery technique to identify capability conflicts and the populations that may be affected. We distinguish five classes of conflicts, which can be used to anticipate social acceptance issues. Affected populations can be involved in the decision-making process to foster acceptance of decentralised energy systems. This work contributes to the growing political and scientific debate on issues of energy justice and inclusiveness related to the energy transition. Additionally, we contribute to the operationalisation of such capabilities, as this is one of the first papers to formalise the Capability Approach using an agent-based model.},
keywords = {Agent-based modelling, Capability approach, Decentralised energy systems, Energy justice, energy systems, Exploratory modelling, value conflict},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{RN3920,
title = {Accounting for Values in the Development and Design of New Nuclear Reactors},
author = {Ibo van de Poel and Behnam Taebi and Tristan de Wildt},
url = {https://www.nae.edu/239186/Accounting-for-Values-in-the-Development-and-Design-of-New-Nuclear-Reactors},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-01},
journal = {The Bridge},
volume = {50},
number = {3},
pages = {59-65},
keywords = {nuclear energy, value change},
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},
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 = {artificial intelligence, co-evolution, philosophy, society, technological determinism, technology, values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{steinert_corona_2020,
title = {Corona and value change. The role of social media and emotional contagion},
author = {Steffen Steinert},
url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10676-020-09545-z},
doi = {10.1007/s10676-020-09545-z},
issn = {1388-1957, 1572-8439},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-01},
urldate = {2020-09-30},
journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},
abstract = {People share their emotions on social media and evidence suggests that in times of crisis people are especially motivated to post emotional content. The current Coronavirus pandemic is such a crisis. The online sharing of emotional content during the Coronavirus crisis may contribute to societal value change. Emotion sharing via social media could lead to emotional contagion which in turn could facilitate an emotional climate in a society. In turn, the emotional climate of a society can influence society’s value structure. The emotions that spread in the current Coronavirus crisis are predominantly negative, which could result in a negative emotional climate. Based on the dynamic relations of values to each other and the way that emotions relate to values, a negative emotional climate can contribute to societal value change towards values related to security preservation and threat avoidance. As a consequence, a negative emotional climate and the shift in values could lead to a change in political attitudes that has implications for rights, freedom, privacy and moral progress. Considering the impact of social media in terms of emotional contagion and a longer-lasting value change is an important perspective in thinking about the ethical long-term impact of social media technology.},
keywords = {emotions, social media, value change, values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{RN3931,
title = {Digital platforms and responsible innovation: expanding value sensitive design to overcome ontological uncertainty},
author = {Mark de Reuver and Aimee van Wynsberghe and Marijn Janssen and Ibo van de Poel},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09537-z},
doi = {10.1007/s10676-020-09537-z},
issn = {1572-8439},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-01},
journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},
abstract = {In this paper, we argue that the characteristics of digital platforms challenge the fundamental assumptions of value sensitive design (VSD). Traditionally, VSD methods assume that we can identify relevant values during the design phase of new technologies. The underlying assumption is that there is only epistemic uncertainty about which values will be impacted by a technology. VSD methods suggest that one can predict which values will be affected by new technologies by increasing knowledge about how values are interpreted or understood in context. In contrast, digital platforms exhibit a novel form of uncertainty, namely, ontological uncertainty: even with full information and overview, it cannot be foreseen what users or developers will do with digital platforms. Hence, predictions about which values are affected might not hold. In this paper, we suggest expanding VSD methods to account for value dynamism resulting from ontological uncertainty. Our expansions involve (1) extending VSD to the entire lifecycle of a platform, (2) broadening VSD through the addition of reflexivity, i.e. second-order learning about what values to aim at, and (3) adding specific tools of moral sandboxing and moral prototyping to enhance such reflexivity. While we illustrate our approach with a short case study about ride-sharing platforms such as Uber, our approach is relevant for other technologies exhibiting ontological uncertainty as well, such as machine learning, robotics and artificial intelligence.},
keywords = {design strategies, digital platforms, responsible research and innovation, uncertainty, value sensitive design, values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{vandePoel2018,
title = {Design for value change},
author = {Ibo van de Poel},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9461-9},
doi = {10.1007/s10676-018-9461-9},
issn = {1572-8439},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-06-26},
journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},
abstract = {In the value sensitive design (VSD) literature, there has been little attention for how values may change during the adoption and use of a sociotechnical system, and what that implies for design. A value change taxonomy is proposed, as well as a number of technical features that allow dealing with value change.},
keywords = {adaptability, design for values, flexibility, robustness, value change, value sensitive design, values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}