Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems

Misselhorn, Catrin

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15515-9_1

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different approaches to AV responsibility have been proposed in the literature (Borenstein, Herkert, & Miller, 2017;Coeckelbergh, 2016;Misselhorn, 2015;Nyholm, 2018). The theory of Human Meaningful Control, which was introduced above, encompasses a tracing condition that requires the presence of at least one human agent who can bear the moral consequences of the actions of the AV (Santoni de Sio & Van den Hoven, 2018).…”

Section: Accountability In the Scientific Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical issues in focus by the autonomous vehicles industry

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The onset of autonomous driving has provided fertile ground for discussions about ethics in recent years. These discussions are heavily documented in the scientific literature and have mainly revolved around extreme traffic situations depicted as moral dilemmas, i.e. situations in which the autonomous vehicle (AV) is required to make a difficult moral choice. Quite surprisingly, little is known about the ethical issues in focus by the AV industry. General claims have been made about the struggles of companies regarding the ethical issues of AVs but these lack proper substantiation. As private companies are highly influential on the development and acceptance of AV technologies, a meaningful debate about the ethics of AVs should take into account the ethical issues prioritised by industry. In order to assess the awareness and engagement of industry on the ethics of AVs, we inspected the narratives in the official business and technical reports of companies with an AV testing permit in California. The findings of our literature and industry review suggest that: (i) given the plethora of ethical issues addressed in the reports, autonomous driving companies seem to be aware of and engaged in the ethics of autonomous driving technology; (ii) scientific literature and industry reports prioritise safety and cybersecurity; (iii) scientific and industry communities agree that AVs will not eliminate the risk of accidents; (iv) scientific literature on AV technology ethics is dominated by discussions about the trolley problem; (v) moral dilemmas resembling trolley cases are not addressed in industry reports but there are nuanced allusions that unravel underlying concerns about these extreme traffic situations; (vi) autonomous driving companies have different approaches with respect to the authority of remote operators; and (vii) companies seem invested in a lowest liability risk design strategy relying on rules and regulations, expedite investigations, and crash/collision avoidance algorithms.

show abstract

Section: Accountability In the Scientific Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical issues in focus by the autonomous vehicles industry

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the perspective of users, AI systems appear to be environments in which they cannot foresee what will take place or how to control the environment. The unpredictable nature of moves and countermoves is accentuated in systems where human and machine partners form a cooperative collective [18]. As AI systems and their functioning become more complex with interactive elements and learning capacities, the number of problematic issues related to human-computer interaction grows.…”

Section: Conditions Of Agencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Let us call this requirement the "rationality condition." [9] [18] Intentionality connects the aim and the action for achieving it, but this connection cannot be arbitrary. If there is no real possibility of reaching the goal or making its realization more probable, the activity is useless for furthering one's chosen end.…”

Section: Conditions Of Agencymentioning

confidence: 99%

How AI Systems Challenge the Conditions of Moral Agency?

Hallamaa

Kalliokoski

2020

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article explores the effects increasing automation has on our conceptions of human agency. We conceptualize the central features of human agency as ableness, intentionality, and rationality and define responsibility as a central feature of moral agency. We discuss suggestions in favor of holding AI systems moral agents for their functions but join those who refute this view. We consider the possibility of assigning moral agency to automated AI systems in settings of machine-human cooperation but come to the conclusion that AI systems are not genuine participants in joint action and cannot be held morally responsible. Philosophical issues notwithstanding, the functions of AI systems change human agency as they affect our goal setting and pursuing by influencing our conceptions of the attainable. Recommendation algorithms on news sites, social media platforms, and in search engines modify our possibilities to receive accurate and comprehensive information, hence influencing our decision making. Sophisticated AI systems replace human workforce even in such demanding fields as medical surgery, language translation, visual arts, and composing music. Being second to a machine in an increasing number of fields of expertise will affect how human beings regard their own abilities. We need a deeper understanding of how technological progress takes place and how it is intertwined with economic and political realities. Moral responsibility remains a human characteristic. It is our duty to develop AI to serve morally good ends and purposes. Protecting and strengthening the conditions of human agency in any AI environment is part of this task.

show abstract

“…A similar view is developed in work by Catrin Misselhorn and colleagues while discussing robots more generally. They analyze robotic agency in terms of human–robot collaborations as well (Misselhorn, ). This leads them to argue that we should think in terms of what they call “responsibility networks” (Loh & Loh, ; Neuhäuser, ).…”

Section: Part Ii: What Should Happen After a Crash?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They analyze robotic agency in terms of human-robot collaborations as well (Misselhorn, 2015). This leads them to argue that we should think in terms of what they call "responsibility networks" (Loh & Loh, 2017;Neuhäuser, 2015).…”

Section: Agency and Human-robot Collaborationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, II

Nyholm

2018

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-driving cars hold out the promise of being much safer than regular cars. Yet they cannot be 100% safe. Accordingly, we need to think about who should be held responsible when self-driving cars crash and people are injured or killed. | INTRODUCTIONSome major car manufacturers have recently promised that when the fully self-driving cars that they are developing are ready to go on the market, they will take responsibility in case any crashes occur. Volvo and Audi are among theThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems

Cited by 17 publications

References 36 publications

Ethical issues in focus by the autonomous vehicles industry

Ethical issues in focus by the autonomous vehicles industry

How AI Systems Challenge the Conditions of Moral Agency?

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, II

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About