70,195 research outputs found
A Conceptual and Computational Model of Moral Decision Making in Human and Artificial Agents
Recently there has been a resurgence of interest in general, comprehensive models of human cognition. Such models aim to explain higher order cognitive faculties, such as deliberation and planning. Given a computational representation, the validity of these models can
be tested in computer simulations such as software agents or embodied robots. The push to
implement computational models of this kind has created the field of Artificial General
Intelligence, or AGI.
Moral decision making is arguably one of the most challenging tasks for computational
approaches to higher order cognition. The need for increasingly autonomous artificial agents to
factor moral considerations into their choices and actions has given rise to another new field of inquiry variously known as Machine Morality, Machine Ethics, Roboethics or Friendly AI. In
this paper we discuss how LIDA, an AGI model of human cognition, can be adapted to model
both affective and rational features of moral decision making. Using the LIDA model we will
demonstrate how moral decisions can be made in many domains using the same mechanisms that
enable general decision making.
Comprehensive models of human cognition typically aim for compatibility with recent
research in the cognitive and neural sciences. Global Workspace Theory (GWT), proposed by
the neuropsychologist Bernard Baars (1988), is a highly regarded model of human cognition that
is currently being computationally instantiated in several software implementations. LIDA
(Franklin et al. 2005) is one such computational implementation. LIDA is both a set of
computational tools and an underlying model of human cognition, which provides mechanisms
that are capable of explaining how an agent’s selection of its next action arises from bottom-up collection of sensory data and top-down processes for making sense of its current situation. We will describe how the LIDA model helps integrate emotions into the human decision making process, and elucidate a process whereby an agent can work through an ethical problem to reach a solution that takes account of ethically relevant factors
Artificial morality: Making of the artificial moral agents
Abstract:
Artificial Morality is a new, emerging interdisciplinary field that centres
around the idea of creating artificial moral agents, or AMAs, by implementing moral
competence in artificial systems. AMAs are ought to be autonomous agents capable of
socially correct judgements and ethically functional behaviour. This request for moral
machines comes from the changes in everyday practice, where artificial systems are being
frequently used in a variety of situations from home help and elderly care purposes to
banking and court algorithms. It is therefore important to create reliable and responsible
machines based on the same ethical principles that society demands from people. New
challenges in creating such agents appear. There are philosophical questions about a
machine’s potential to be an agent, or mora
l agent, in the first place. Then comes the
problem of social acceptance of such machines, regardless of their theoretic agency
status. As a result of efforts to resolve this problem, there are insinuations of needed
additional psychological (emotional and cogn
itive) competence in cold moral machines.
What makes this endeavour of developing AMAs even harder is the complexity of the
technical, engineering aspect of their creation. Implementation approaches such as top-
down, bottom-up and hybrid approach aim to find the best way of developing fully
moral agents, but they encounter their own problems throughout this effort
Taking Turing by Surprise? Designing Digital Computers for morally-loaded contexts
There is much to learn from what Turing hastily dismissed as Lady Lovelace s
objection. Digital computers can indeed surprise us. Just like a piece of art,
algorithms can be designed in such a way as to lead us to question our
understanding of the world, or our place within it. Some humans do lose the
capacity to be surprised in that way. It might be fear, or it might be the
comfort of ideological certainties. As lazy normative animals, we do need to be
able to rely on authorities to simplify our reasoning: that is ok. Yet the
growing sophistication of systems designed to free us from the constraints of
normative engagement may take us past a point of no-return. What if, through
lack of normative exercise, our moral muscles became so atrophied as to leave
us unable to question our social practices? This paper makes two distinct
normative claims:
1. Decision-support systems should be designed with a view to regularly
jolting us out of our moral torpor.
2. Without the depth of habit to somatically anchor model certainty, a
computer s experience of something new is very different from that which in
humans gives rise to non-trivial surprises. This asymmetry has key
repercussions when it comes to the shape of ethical agency in artificial moral
agents. The worry is not just that they would be likely to leap morally ahead
of us, unencumbered by habits. The main reason to doubt that the moral
trajectories of humans v. autonomous systems might remain compatible stems from
the asymmetry in the mechanisms underlying moral change. Whereas in humans
surprises will continue to play an important role in waking us to the need for
moral change, cognitive processes will rule when it comes to machines. This
asymmetry will translate into increasingly different moral outlooks, to the
point of likely unintelligibility. The latter prospect is enough to doubt the
desirability of autonomous moral agents
A Metacognitive Approach to Trust and a Case Study: Artificial Agency
Trust is defined as a belief of a human H (‘the trustor’) about the ability of an agent A (the ‘trustee’) to perform future action(s). We adopt here dispositionalism and internalism about trust: H trusts A iff A has some internal dispositions as competences. The dispositional competences of A are high-level metacognitive requirements, in the line of a naturalized virtue epistemology. (Sosa, Carter) We advance a Bayesian model of two (i) confidence in the decision and (ii) model uncertainty. To trust A, H demands A to be self-assertive about confidence and able to self-correct its own models. In the Bayesian approach trust can be applied not only to humans, but to artificial agents (e.g. Machine Learning algorithms). We explain the advantage the metacognitive trust when compared to mainstream approaches and how it relates to virtue epistemology. The metacognitive ethics of trust is swiftly discussed
A Case for Machine Ethics in Modeling Human-Level Intelligent Agents
This paper focuses on the research field of machine ethics and how it relates to a technological singularity—a hypothesized, futuristic event where artificial machines will have greater-than-human-level intelligence. One problem related to the singularity centers on the issue of whether human values and norms would survive such an event. To somehow ensure this, a number of artificial intelligence researchers have opted to focus on the development of artificial moral agents, which refers to machines capable of moral reasoning, judgment, and decision-making. To date, different frameworks on how to arrive at these agents have been put forward. However, there seems to be no hard consensus as to which framework would likely yield a positive result. With the body of work that they have contributed in the study of moral agency, philosophers may contribute to the growing literature on artificial moral agency. While doing so, they could also think about how the said concept could affect other important philosophical concepts
Mental Capacity and Decisional Autonomy: An Interdisciplinary Challenge
With the waves of reform occurring in mental health legislation in England and other jurisdictions, mental capacity is set to become a key medico-legal concept. The concept is central to the law of informed consent and is closely aligned to the philosophical concept of autonomy. It is also closely related to mental disorder. This paper explores the interdisciplinary terrain where mental capacity is located. Our aim is to identify core dilemmas and to suggest pathways for future interdisciplinary research. The terrain can be separated into three types of discussion: philosophical, legal and psychiatric. Each discussion approaches mental capacity and judgmental autonomy from a different perspective yet each discussion struggles over two key dilemmas: whether mental capacity and autonomy is/should be a moral or a psychological notion and whether rationality is the key constitutive factor. We suggest that further theoretical work will have to be interdisciplinary and that this work offers an opportunity for the law to enrich its interpretation of mental capacity, for psychiatry to clarify the normative elements latent in its concepts and for philosophy to advance understanding of autonomy through the study of decisional dysfunction. The new pressures on medical and legal practice to be more explicit about mental capacity make this work a priority
Recommended from our members
Double elevation: Autonomous weapons and the search for an irreducible law of war
What should be the role of law in response to the spread of artificial intelligence in war? Fuelled by both public and private investment, military technology is accelerating towards increasingly autonomous weapons, as well as the merging of humans and machines. Contrary to much of the contemporary debate, this is not a paradigm change; it is the intensification of a central feature in the relationship between technology and war: Double elevation, above one's enemy and above oneself. Elevation above one's enemy aspires to spatial, moral, and civilizational distance. Elevation above oneself reflects a belief in rational improvement that sees humanity as the cause of inhumanity and de-humanization as our best chance for humanization. The distance of double elevation is served by the mechanization of judgement. To the extent that judgement is seen as reducible to algorithm, law becomes the handmaiden of mechanization. In response, neither a focus on questions of compatibility nor a call for a 'ban on killer robots' help in articulating a meaningful role for law. Instead, I argue that we should turn to a long-standing philosophical critique of artificial intelligence, which highlights not the threat of omniscience, but that of impoverished intelligence. Therefore, if there is to be a meaningful role for law in resisting double elevation, it should be law encompassing subjectivity, emotion and imagination, law irreducible to algorithm, a law of war that appreciates situated judgement in the wielding of violence for the collective
- …