Setting the Stage for Responsible Design

Eggink, Wouter; Ozkaramanli, Deger; Zaga, Cristina; Liberati, Nicola

doi:10.21606/drs.2020.116

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Certainly, these risks may be compensated by the advantages of having systems trained, through the interaction with humans, which may anticipate when certain dangers arise like, for instance, algorithms to reduce self-harming behaviour from social media (Scherr et al 2020). The unavoidable uncertainties about how human-AI mutual exchange of information will work out in realworld pave the road to the idea of responsible agency (Akata et al 2020;Coeckelbergh 2020;Eggink et al 2020;van Riemsdijk 2020), in which responsibility during the interaction is not located solely in the human or machine but emerges through the interaction and interdependence of both.…”

Section: Extending the Perspective On Haii: Value Responsibility And ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Embedding artificial intelligence in society: looking beyond the EU AI master plan using the culture cycle

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Union (EU) Commission’s whitepaper on Artificial Intelligence (AI) proposes shaping the emerging AI market so that it better reflects common European values. It is a master plan that builds upon the EU AI High-Level Expert Group guidelines. This article reviews the masterplan, from a culture cycle perspective, to reflect on its potential clashes with current societal, technical, and methodological constraints. We identify two main obstacles in the implementation of this plan: (i) the lack of a coherent EU vision to drive future decision-making processes at state and local levels and (ii) the lack of methods to support a sustainable diffusion of AI in our society. The lack of a coherent vision stems from not considering societal differences across the EU member states. We suggest that these differences may lead to a fractured market and an AI crisis in which different members of the EU will adopt nation-centric strategies to exploit AI, thus preventing the development of a frictionless market as envisaged by the EU. Moreover, the Commission aims at changing the AI development culture proposing a human-centred and safety-first perspective that is not supported by methodological advancements, thus taking the risks of unforeseen social and societal impacts of AI. We discuss potential societal, technical, and methodological gaps that should be filled to avoid the risks of developing AI systems at the expense of society. Our analysis results in the recommendation that the EU regulators and policymakers consider how to complement the EC programme with rules and compensatory mechanisms to avoid market fragmentation due to local and global ambitions. Moreover, regulators should go beyond the human-centred approach establishing a research agenda seeking answers to the technical and methodological open questions regarding the development and assessment of human-AI co-action aiming for a sustainable AI diffusion in the society.

show abstract

Section: Extending the Perspective On Haii: Value Responsibility And ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Embedding artificial intelligence in society: looking beyond the EU AI master plan using the culture cycle

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Workhop Week 'Responsible Design'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The highest level is the societal level; where design can address issues like sustainability, healthiness, and inclusivity. In order to show how responsibility and responsible behaviour in this context should be understood we developed the framework of Responsible Design [3,4] where three different strands provide for practical tools and theories in; (1) designers acting responsibly, (2) enabling others in society to act responsibly, and (3) producing things that do not destroy the world. The first strand is mainly informed by human centred design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics in Design Education, but Different: Practicing the Practical Turn

Eggink

2021

DS 110: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (EPDE 2021)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design education has looked for different approaches to teaching ethics and ethical behaviour. In this paper I want to add an approach that is coming from the collaboration between design research and philosophy of technology. Philosophy of Technology has produced a substantive number of theories and reflections about the impacts of technology and innovations on our daily lives and social behaviours. To make the reflections from philosophy of technology more tangible for design engineering students we experimented over the years with different tools and practical approaches in order to integrate these perspectives directly in the design process. In analogy with the empirical turn before, we named this closer integration with design 'the Practical Turn in Philosophy of Technology'. My argument now is that by using these insights, one can cultivate ethical reflection with design engineering students by directly informing their design process in what I call 'practicing the practical turn'. In this paper I will show this approach alongside the results of a one week workshop with a group of students from the University of Antwerp in the context of responsible design for public space.

show abstract

“…Think of LEGO bricks versus a Barbie Doll. In theory, an open script will also delegate the responsibility from the designer to the user and therefore enable them to 'act responsibly' [4] Figure 1 shows the full program of the workshop. It started Monday morning with a sort of warming up round around the question of value of products and ended with the presentation of the workshop results in a physical exhibition at Friday afternoon.…”

Section: Workhop Week 'Responsible Design'mentioning

confidence: 99%

DS 110: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (EPDE 2021)

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design education has looked for different approaches to teaching ethics and ethical behaviour. In this paper I want to add an approach that is coming from the collaboration between design research and philosophy of technology. Philosophy of Technology has produced a substantive amount of theories and reflections about the impacts of technology and innovations on our daily lives and social behaviours. To make the reflections from philosophy of technology more tangible for design engineering students we experimented over the years with different tools and practical approaches in order to integrate these perspectives directly in the design process. In analogy with the empirical turn before, we named this closer integration with design 'the Practical Turn in Philosophy of Technology'. My argument now is that by using these insights, one can cultivate ethical reflection with design engineering students by directly informing their design process in what I call 'practicing the practical turn'. In this paper I will show this approach alongside the results of a one week workshop with a group of students from the University of Antwerp in the context of responsible design for public space.

show abstract

Setting the Stage for Responsible Design

Abstract: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

Embedding artificial intelligence in society: looking beyond the EU AI master plan using the culture cycle

Embedding artificial intelligence in society: looking beyond the EU AI master plan using the culture cycle

Ethics in Design Education, but Different: Practicing the Practical Turn

DS 110: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (EPDE 2021)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About