Abstract
AbstractScholars, policymakers and organizations in the EU, especially at the level of the European Commission, have turned their attention to the ethics of (trustworthy and human-centric) Artificial Intelligence (AI). However, there has been little reflexivity on (1) the history of the ethics of AI as an institutionalized phenomenon and (2) the comparison to similar episodes of “ethification” in other fields, to highlight common (unresolved) challenges.Contrary to some mainstream narratives, which stress how the increasing attention to ethical aspects of AI is due to the fast pace and increasing risks of technological developments, Science and Technology Studies(STS)-informed perspectives highlight that the rise of institutionalized assessment methods indicates a need for governments to gain more control of scientific research and to bring EU institutions closer to the public on controversies related to emerging technologies.This article analyzes how different approaches of the recent past (i.e. bioethics, technology assessment (TA) and ethical, legal and social (ELS) research, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)) followed one another, often “in the name of ethics”, to address previous criticisms and/or to legitimate certain scientific and technological research programs. The focus is on how a brief history of the institutionalization of these approaches can provide insights into present challenges to the ethics of AI related to methodological issues, mobilization of expertise and public participation.
Funder
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications
Reference90 articles.
1. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
2. Benatar, D. (2006). Bioethics and health and human rights: A critical view. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(1), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.011775.
3. Bietti, E. (2020). From Ethics Washing to Ethics Bashing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’20), 210–219.
4. Bimber, B., & Guston, D. H. (1997). Introduction: The end of OTA and the future of technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-1625(97)81491-6.
5. Breyer, H. (1992). Committee on Energy, Research and Technology: Draft response to Bangemann report [CEC 1991]
Cited by
6 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