Abstract
AbstractThe recent proliferation of AI scandals led private and public organisations to implement new ethics guidelines, introduce AI ethics boards, and list ethical principles. Nevertheless, some of these efforts remained a façade not backed by any substantive action. Such behaviour made the public question the legitimacy of the AI industry and prompted scholars to accuse the sector of ethicswashing, machinewashing, and ethics trivialisation—criticisms that spilt over to institutional AI ethics boards. To counter this widespread issue, contributions in the literature have proposed fixes that do not consider its systemic character and are based on a top-down, expert-centric governance. To fill this gap, we propose to make use of qualified informed lotteries: a two-step model that transposes the documented benefits of the ancient practice of sortition into the selection of AI ethics boards’ members and combines them with the advantages of a stakeholder-driven, participative, and deliberative bottom-up process typical of Citizens’ Assemblies. The model permits increasing the public’s legitimacy and participation in the decision-making process and its deliverables, curbing the industry’s over-influence and lobbying, and diminishing the instrumentalisation of ethics boards. We suggest that this sortition-based approach may provide a sound base for both public and private organisations in smart societies for constructing a decentralised, bottom-up, participative digital democracy.
Funder
Università della Svizzera italiana
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications
Reference125 articles.
1. Adams, J. (1851). The Works of John Adams (C. F. Adams, A c. Di). Little, Brown and Co.
2. Ahlstrom-Vij, K. (2012). Why deliberative democracy is (Still) untenable. Public Affairs Quarterly, 26(3), 199–220.
3. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
4. Azizi, J. (2011). Unveiling the EU Courts’ internal decision-making process: A case for dissenting opinions? ERA Forum, 12(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-011-0209-9
5. Bank, M., Duffy, F., Leyendecker, V., & Silva, M. (2021). The Lobby Network: Big Tech’s Web of Influence in the EU. Corporate Europe Obervatory.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献