Overcoming Barriers to Cross-cultural Cooperation in AI Ethics and Governance

Abstract

Achieving the global benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) will require international cooperation on many areas of governance and ethical standards, while allowing for diverse cultural perspectives and priorities. There are many barriers to achieving this at present, including mistrust between cultures, and more practical challenges of coordinating across different locations. This paper focuses particularly on barriers to cooperation between Europe and North America on the one hand and East Asia on the other, as regions which currently have an outsized impact on the development of AI ethics and governance. We suggest that there is reason to be optimistic about achieving greater cross-cultural cooperation on AI ethics and governance. We argue that misunderstandings between cultures and regions play a more important role in undermining cross-cultural trust, relative to fundamental disagreements, than is often supposed. Even where fundamental differences exist, these may not necessarily prevent productive cross-cultural cooperation, for two reasons: (1) cooperation does not require achieving agreement on principles and standards for all areas of AI; and (2) it is sometimes possible to reach agreement on practical issues despite disagreement on more abstract values or principles. We believe that academia has a key role to play in promoting cross-cultural cooperation on AI ethics and governance, by building greater mutual understanding, and clarifying where different forms of agreement will be both necessary and possible. We make a number of recommendations for practical steps and initiatives, including translation and multilingual publication of key documents, researcher exchange programmes, and development of research agendas on cross-cultural topics.

Boundaries Between Research Ethics and Ethical Research Use in Artificial Intelligence Health Research

“…If we do want researchers to be reflexive about the ethical, social, and political impacts of their population health AI research (and one could hypothesize, data-driven research more generally), the current Ethics Ecosystem and HEI ethics governance framework need modification. Relying on researchers own perceived responsibilities is appropriate, but as we described above, only if these responsibilities are shared and supported across all other actors in the Ethics Ecosystem, including RECs, funding bodies, and journal editors—both locally as well as globally ( ÓhÉigeartaigh et al, 2020 ). We argue that best practice should require this shared and supported set of responsibilities.…”

Bridging the gap: the case for an ‘Incompletely Theorized Agreement’ on AI policy

“…It also already plays a role in the existing literature on computer ethics [80], as well as in the field of intercultural information ethics [81]. Indeed, overlapping consensus has been proposed as a mechanism on which to ground global cooperation on AI policy across cultural lines [82].…”

Foundations for the future: institution building for the purpose of artificial intelligence governance

“…This might lead to a competitive advantage for those nations within the institutions, who often are already comparably more powerful, effectively steamrolling efforts in individual nations that are not part of this (larger) group (cf. this phenomenon in AI Ethics Principles [ 26 , 35 , 41 ]). For example, a new institution that holds any of the roles sketched under Sect.…”