Robotic Nudges for Moral Improvement through Stoic Practice

Klincewicz, Michał

doi:10.5840/techne2019122109

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another potential target for procedural assistance would be affective perspective-taking-the ability to recognize or infer the emotional states of others (Klincewicz et al 2018). Via advice and training, the system could also help one develop dispositions for reflection (Giubilini and Savulescu 2018: 179) or for engaging in various stoic practices (Klincewicz 2019). The AEA could also help train one's own capacities for recognizing situations that (one believes) raise moral issues and for more quickly or reliably noticing deliberation over the course of which one's deliberation capacities could improve.)…”

Section: Preparatory Assistance: Advice and Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Issues with Artificial Ethics Assistants

O’Neill

Klincewicz

Kemmer

2022

Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter examines the possibility of using artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to improve human moral reasoning and decision-making. The authors characterize such technologies as artificial ethics assistants (AEAs). The authors focus on just one part of the AI-aided moral improvement question: the case of the individual who wants to improve their morality, where what constitutes an improvement is evaluated by the individual’s own values. The authors distinguish three broad areas in which an individual might think their own moral reasoning and decision-making could be improved: one’s actions, character, or other attributes fall short of one’s values and moral beliefs; one sometimes misjudges or is uncertain about what the right thing to do is, given one’s values; or one is uncertain about some fundamental moral questions or recognizes a possibility that some of one’s core moral beliefs and values are mistaken. The authors sketch why one might think AI tools could be used to support moral improvement in those areas and distinguish two types of assistance: preparatory assistance, including advice and training supplied in advance of moral deliberation, and on-the-spot assistance, including on-the-spot advice and facilitation of moral functioning over the course of moral deliberation. Then, the authors turn to ethical issues that AEAs might raise, looking in particular at three under-appreciated problems posed by the use of AI for moral self-improvement: namely, reliance on sensitive moral data, the inescapability of outside influences on AEAs, and AEA usage prompting the user to adopt beliefs and make decisions without adequate reasons.

show abstract

Section: Preparatory Assistance: Advice and Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Issues with Artificial Ethics Assistants

O’Neill

Klincewicz

Kemmer

2022

Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some authors have suggested that nudges could inspire the design of robots that promote the necessary attitudes and skills for humans to behave by following some ethical standards (Borenstein & Arkin, 2016;Klincewicz, 2019). Although these proposals would specifically target robots to take advantage of certain benefits of a 2 Dietrich (2001, p. 531) is so pessimistic about the moral nature of human beings, and so optimistic about the possibilities of AI, that he advocates an obligation to "usher in our own extinction" in order to create a better world inhabited solely by ethical robots.…”

Section: Ethics Machines Nudges and Ethical Advisorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It will not negatively affect autonomy, and may even improve it, if the proposal lends special importance to those nudges that, ultimately, aim to enhance the user's decision-making by encouraging them to be more reflective in certain situations. Such is the case, for example, of the proposal by Klincewicz (2019), who proposes designing social robots that enhance user morality by inclining them towards strategies in line with the practical advice of the ancient Stoic philosophers. The nudges would serve here to free the user from those emotional blocks that normally hinder our cold and efficient reflection, such as worrying about issues whose resolution is beyond our control, ruminating about past events or not realising the irrationality of many of our emotions (Klincewizc, 2019, pp.…”

Section: Ethics Machines Nudges and Ethical Advisorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why a Virtual Assistant for Moral Enhancement When We Could have a Socrates?

Lara

2021

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) be more effective than human instruction for the moral enhancement of people? The author argues that it only would be if the use of this technology were aimed at increasing the individual's capacity to reflectively decide for themselves, rather than at directly influencing behaviour. To support this, it is shown how a disregard for personal autonomy, in particular, invalidates the main proposals for applying new technologies, both biomedical and AI-based, to moral enhancement. As an alternative to these proposals, this article proposes a virtual assistant that, through dialogue, neutrality and virtual reality technologies, can teach users to make better moral decisions on their own. The author concludes that, as long as certain precautions are taken in its design, such an assistant could do this better than a human instructor adopting the same educational methodology.

show abstract

“…We show how a fctional conversation could help to raise awareness about a topic. It forms an addition to prior research that suggests how HCI interventions can "nudge" us towards ethical self-development with robots [36] or how to adopt prosocial behaviors, such as through a personalized recommender system for household energy conservation [72]. However, achieving true behavioral change is difcult for most adults: most of the employed technology and algorithms reinforce current habits and mimic the behavior of others [25,71].…”

Section: Structural Changes Beyond Anthropocentrismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversational Futures: Emancipating Conversational Interactions for Futures Worth Wanting

Lee

Noortman

Zaga

et al. 2021

Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a vision for conversational user interfaces (CUIs) as probes for speculating with, rather than as objects to speculate about. Popular CUIs, e.g., Alexa, are changing the way we converse, narrate, and imagine the world(s) to come. Yet, current conversational interactions normatively may promote non-desirable ends, delivering a restricted range of request-response interactions with sexist and digital colonialist tendencies. Our critical design approach envisions alternatives by considering how future voices can reside in CUIs as enabling probes. We present novel explorations that illustrate the potential of CUIs as critical design material, by critiquing present norms and conversing with imaginary species. As micro-level interventions, we show that conversations with diverse futures through CUIs can persuade us to critically shape our discourse on macro-scale concerns of the present, e.g., sustainability. We refect on how conversational interactions with pluralistic, imagined futures can contribute to how being human stands to change. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → HCI theory, concepts and models; Natural language interfaces.

show abstract

Robotic Nudges for Moral Improvement through Stoic Practice

Cited by 11 publications

References 73 publications

Ethical Issues with Artificial Ethics Assistants

Ethical Issues with Artificial Ethics Assistants

Why a Virtual Assistant for Moral Enhancement When We Could have a Socrates?

Conversational Futures: Emancipating Conversational Interactions for Futures Worth Wanting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About