Cultural Differences as Excuses? Human Rights and Cultural Values in Global Ethics and Governance of AI

Author:

Wong Pak-HangORCID

Abstract

AbstractCultural differences pose a serious challenge to the ethics and governance of artificial intelligence (AI) from a global perspective. Cultural differences may enable malignant actors to disregard the demand of important ethical values or even to justify the violation of them through deference to the local culture, either by affirming the local culture lacks specific ethical values, e.g., privacy, or by asserting the local culture upholds conflicting values, e.g., state intervention is good. One response to this challenge is the human rights approach to AI governance, which is intended to be a universal and globally enforceable framework. The proponents of the approach, however, have so far neglected the challenge from cultural differences or left out the implications of cultural diversity in their works. This is surprising because human rights theorists have long recognized the significance of cultural pluralism for human rights. Accordingly, the approach may not be straightforwardly applicable in “non-Western” contexts because of cultural differences, and it may also be critiqued as philosophically incomplete insofar as the approach does not account for the (non-) role of culture. This commentary examines the human rights approach to AI governance with an emphasis on cultural values and the role of culture. Particularly, I show that the consideration of cultural values is essential to the human rights approach for both philosophical and instrumental reasons.

Funder

Universität Hamburg

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy

Reference37 articles.

1. Access Now. (2018). Human rights in the age of artificial intelligence. Available Online at: https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2018/11/AI-and-Human-Rights.pdf.

2. AI HLEG [High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence]. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Available Online at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai.

3. Angle, S. (2015). Virtue ethics, the rule of law, and the need for self-restriction. In B. Bruya (Ed.), The philosophical challenge from China (pp. 159–182). Cambridge: MIT Press.

4. ARTICLE 19. (2019). Governance with teeth: How human rights can strengthen FAT and ethics initiatives on artificial intelligence. Available Online at: https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Governance-with-teeth_A19_April_2019.pdf.

5. Ashesh, A. & Acharya, B. (2014). Locating constructs of privacy within classical Hindu law. The Centre for Internet and Society. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/loading-constructs-of-privacy-within-classical-hindu-law

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3