Looking into the future is always a risky endeavour, but one way to anticipate the possible future shape of AI-driven societies is to examine the visionary works of some sci-fi writers. Not all sci-fi works have such visionary quality, of course, but some of Stanisław Lem’s works certainly do. We refer here to Lem’s works that explore the frontiers of science and technology and those that describe imaginary societies of robots. We therefore examine Lem’s prose, with a focus on the (...) Cyberiad stories, to see what challenges our future technological societies may face when they entrust their lives to AI technology. For example, what questions should we ask, and what questions do we forget to ask, when developing AI systems and allowing these systems to control our lives. The technologically honed minds of our current technocrats are perhaps too limited to guide us into this future, because AI-based technology is relatively unchartered territory, as any new, complex technology is by nature. Lem’s visions of future societies oriented around AI and robotics portray AI technology in a deeper and more nuanced way than the current technological visions offered by our leading technological prophets. Based on Lem’s visions, what is to come may not turn out to be an AI-driven nirvana. (shrink)

An AI winter may be defined as the stage when technology, business, and the media come to terms with what AI can or cannot really do as a technology without exaggeration. Through discussion of previous AI winters, this paper examines the hype cycle (which by turn characterises AI as a social panacea or a nightmare of apocalyptic proportions) and argues that AI should be treated as a normal technology, neither as a miracle nor as a plague, but rather as of (...) the many solutions that human ingenuity has managed to devise. (shrink)

The increasing demand for transparency in AI has recently come under scrutiny. The question is often posted in terms of “epistemic double standards”, and whether the standards for transparency in AI ought to be higher than, or equivalent to, our standards for ordinary human reasoners. I agree that the push for increased transparency in AI deserves closer examination, and that comparing these standards to our standards of transparency for other opaque systems is an appropriate starting point. I suggest that a (...) more fruitful exploration of this question will involve a different comparison class. We routinely treat judgments made by highly trained experts in specialized fields as fair or well-grounded even though—by the nature of expert/layperson division of epistemic labor—an expert will not be able to provide an explanation of the reasoning behind these judgments that makes sense to most other people. Regardless, laypeople are thought to be acting reasonably—and ethically—in deferring to the judgments of experts that concern their areas of specialization. I suggest that we reframe our question regarding the appropriate standards of transparency in AI as one that asks when, why, and to what degree it would be ethical to accept opacity in AI. I argue that our epistemic relation to certain opaque AI technology may be relevantly similar to the layperson’s epistemic relation to the expert in certain respects, such that the successful expert/layperson division of epistemic labor can serve as a blueprint for the ethical use of opaque AI. (shrink)

Abstract; As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies become increasingly integrated into various facets of society, their impact on human rights has garnered significant attention. This paper examines the intersection of AI and human rights, focusing on key issues such as privacy, bias, surveillance, access, and accountability. AI systems, while offering remarkable advancements in efficiency and capability, also pose risks to individual privacy and can perpetuate existing biases, leading to potential discrimination. The use of AI in surveillance raises ethical concerns about (...) the balance between security and civil liberties. Additionally, disparities in access to AI technologies can exacerbate inequalities, affecting human rights across different populations. This paper explores these challenges and proposes frameworks for ensuring that AI development and deployment adhere to human rights principles. By analyzing current practices and policies, the study aims to provide actionable recommendations for creating a more equitable and responsible AI landscape. (shrink)

This chapter argues for a structural injustice approach to the governance of AI. Structural injustice has an analytical and an evaluative component. The analytical component consists of structural explanations that are well-known in the social sciences. The evaluative component is a theory of justice. Structural injustice is a powerful conceptual tool that allows researchers and practitioners to identify, articulate, and perhaps even anticipate, AI biases. The chapter begins with an example of racial bias in AI that arises from structural injustice. (...) The chapter then presents the concept of structural injustice as introduced by the philosopher Iris Marion Young. The chapter moreover argues that structural injustice is well suited as an approach to the governance of AI and compares this approach to alternative approaches that start from analyses of harms and benefits or from value statements. The chapter suggests that structural injustice provides methodological and normative foundations for the values and concerns of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The chapter closes with an outlook onto the idea of “structure” and on responsibility. The idea of a structure is central to justice. An open theoretical research question is to what extent AI is itself part of the structure of society. Finally, the practice of responsibility is central to structural injustice. Even if they cannot be held responsible for the existence of structural injustice, every individual and every organization has some responsibility to address structural injustice going forward. (shrink)

There is a history of thinking that photographs provide a special kind of access to the objects depicted in them, beyond the access that would be provided by a painting or drawing. What is included in the photograph does not depend on the photographer’s beliefs about what is in front of the camera. This feature leads Kendall Walton to argue that photographs literally allow us to see the objects which appear in them. Current generative algorithms produce images in response to (...) users’ text prompts. Depending on the parameters, the output can resemble specific people or things which are named in the prompt. This resemblance does not depend on the user’s beliefs, so generated images are in this sense like photographs. Given this parallel, how should we think about AI-generated images? (shrink)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already having a major impact on society. As a result, many organizations have launched a wide range of initiatives to establish ethical principles for the adoption of socially beneficial AI. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of proposed principles threatens to overwhelm and confuse. How might this problem of ‘principle proliferation’ be solved? In this paper, we report the results of a fine-grained analysis of several of the highest-profile sets of ethical principles for AI. We assess whether (...) these principles converge upon a set of agreed-upon principles, or diverge, with significant disagreement over what constitutes ‘ethical AI.’ Our analysis finds a high degree of overlap among the sets of principles we analyze. We then identify an overarching framework consisting of five core principles for ethical AI. Four of them are core principles commonly used in bioethics: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. On the basis of our comparative analysis, we argue that a new principle is needed in addition: explicability, understood as incorporating both the epistemological sense of intelligibility (as an answer to the question ‘how does it work?’) and in the ethical sense of accountability (as an answer to the question: ‘who is responsible for the way it works?’). In the ensuing discussion, we note the limitations and assess the implications of this ethical framework for future efforts to create laws, rules, technical standards, and best practices for ethical AI in a wide range of contexts. (shrink)

This paper critically examines Japan's approach toward the adoption of Generative AI such as ChatGPT in education via studying media discourse and guidelines at both the national as well as local levels. It highlights the lack of consideration for socio-cultural characteristics inherent in the Japanese educational systems, such as the notion of self, teachers’ work ethics, community-centric activities for the successful adoption of the technology. We reveal ChatGPT’s infusion is likely to further accelerate the shift away from traditional notion of (...) self, which has been ongoing during past educational reforms, towards active and self-directed learning. The current discourse on Generative AI’s infusion in education is driven by neoliberal agendas aimed at increasing employability and individualism. Moreover, the introduction of ChatGPT in the context of Japan's educator culture offers potential solutions to address issues of overwork but also necessitates considerations regarding increased responsibilities for teachers and the preservation of their central role in student education. Finally, the irreplicable social growth fostered by community-centric activities in the Japanese educational system highlights the limitations of ChatGPT in replicating dynamic social interactions, emphasizing the importance of holistic approaches to education beyond technological integration. (shrink)

Societies of the East are often contrasted with those of the West in their stances toward technology. This paper explores these perceived differences in the context of international ethics guidance for artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. Japan serves as an example of the East, while Europe and North America serve as examples of the West. The paper’s principal aim is to demonstrate that Western values predominate in international ethics guidance and that Japanese values serve as a much-needed corrective. We recommend (...) a hybrid approach that is more inclusive and truly ‘international’. Following an introduction, the paper examines distinct stances toward robots that emerged in the West and Japan, respectively, during the aftermath of the Second World War, reflecting history and popular culture, socio-economic conditions, and religious worldviews. It shows how international ethics guidelines reflect these disparate stances, drawing on a 2019 scoping review that examined 84 international AI ethics documents. These documents are heavily skewed toward precautionary values associated with the West and cite the optimistic values associated with Japan less frequently. Drawing insights from Japan’s so-called ‘moonshot goals’, the paper fleshes out Japanese values in greater detail and shows how to incorporate them more effectively in international ethics guidelines for AI and robotics. (shrink)

This article reports the findings of AI4People, an Atomium—EISMD initiative designed to lay the foundations for a “Good AI Society”. We introduce the core opportunities and risks of AI for society; present a synthesis of five ethical principles that should undergird its development and adoption; and offer 20 concrete recommendations—to assess, to develop, to incentivise, and to support good AI—which in some cases may be undertaken directly by national or supranational policy makers, while in others may be led (...) by other stakeholders. If adopted, these recommendations would serve as a firm foundation for the establishment of a Good AI Society. (shrink)

This paper delves into the significance and challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics and justice in terms of Common Good and Well-being, fairness and non-discrimination, rational public deliberation, and autonomy and control. Initially, the paper establishes the groundwork for subsequent discussions using the Academia Sinica LLM incident and the AI Technology R&D Guidelines of the National Science and Technology Council(NSTC) as a starting point. In terms of justice and ethics in AI, this research investigates whether AI can fulfill human common (...) interests and welfare. Taking AI injustice as an example, I analyze the practical assessment of AI regarding regional, industrial, and social impacts. Further, this paper discusses the challenges of fairness and non-discrimination in AI, specifically addressing the issue of training on biased data, discussing the acquisition of bias by AI and post-processing supervision issues, and emphasizing the importance of rational public deliberation in this process. Then, this research examines the challenges and countermeasures the rational public faces in public deliberation, such as the importance of education in STEM scientific literacy and technological capabilities. Finally, in discussing AI and autonomy, I propose a 'Human-Centered Approach’ rather than relying solely on the 'Technological Utility Maximization' brought by AI to achieve substantial AI justice. -/- Keywords: AI Ethics and Justice, Fairness and Non-Discrimination, Biased Data Training, Public Deliberation, Autonomy, Human-Centered Approach . (shrink)

New AI technologies have the potential to cause unintended harms in diverse domains including warfare, judicial sentencing, biomedicine and governance. One strategy for realising the benefits of AI whilst avoiding its potential dangers is to ensure that new AIs are properly ‘aligned’ with some form of ‘alignment target.’ One danger of this strategy is that – dependent on the alignment target chosen – our AIs might optimise for objectives that reflect the values only of a certain subset of society, (...) and that do not take into account alternative views about what constitutes desirable and safe behaviour for AI agents. In response to this problem, several AI ethicists have suggested alignment targets that are designed to be sensitive to widespread normative disagreement amongst the relevant stakeholders. Authors inspired by voting theory have suggested that AIs should be aligned with the verdicts of actual or simulated ‘moral parliaments’ whose members represent the normative views of the relevant stakeholders. Other authors inspired by decision theory and the philosophical literature on moral uncertainty have suggested that AIs should maximise socially expected choiceworthiness. In this paper, I argue that both of these proposals face several important problems. In particular, they fail to select attractive ‘compromise options’ in cases where such options are available. I go on to propose and defend an alternative, bargaining-theoretic alignment target, which avoids the problems associated with the voting- and decision-theoretic approaches. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, virtual and augmented reality, (semi-)autonomous ve- hicles, autoregulatory weapon systems, enhancement, reproductive technologies and human- oid robotics – these technologies (and many others) are no longer speculative visions of the future; they have already found their way into our lives or are on the verge of a breakthrough. These rapid technological developments awaken a need for orientation: what distinguishes hu- man from machine and human intelligence from artificial intelligence, how far should the body be allowed to (...) be changed and what are the dangers and opportunities presented by these technologies? Many of these questions are also addressed to theology. For example, questions about the image of humanity, the understanding of creation, the ethics of technological body interventions or the moral status of robots. What does theology have to say about these technological developments? It is the right time for theology to scientifically explore tech- nologization and AI and to formulate answers. As technology changes the various areas of human life, society and the world around us, the places and topics of theology are also undergoing transformation. Puzio, Anna: Theology Meets AI: Examining Perspectives, Tasks, and Theses on the Intersection of Technology and Religion. In: Puzio, Anna/Kunkel, Nicole/Klinge, Hendrik (Hg.): Alexa, How Do You Feel About Religion? Theological Approaches to Technology and Artificial Intelligence (Theology and AI 1). Darmstadt: wbg 2023, S. 29–41. DOI: 10.53186/1030373. (shrink)

This paper examines how professionals (N = 32) working on artificial intelligence (AI) view structural AI ethics challenges like injustices and inequalities beyond individual agents' direct intention and control. This paper answers the research question: What are professionals’ perceptions of the structural challenges of AI (in the agri-food sector)? This empirical paper shows that it is essential to broaden the scope of ethics of AI beyond micro- and meso-levels. While ethics guidelines and AI ethics often focus on the responsibility of (...) designers and the competencies and skills of designers to take this responsibility, our results show that many structural challenges are beyond their reach. This result means that while ethics guidelines and AI ethics frameworks are helpful, there is a risk that they overlook more complicated, nuanced, and intersected structural challenges. In addition, it highlights the need to include diverse stakeholders, such as quadruple helix (QH) participants, in discussions around AI ethics rather than solely focusing on the obligations of AI developers and companies. Overall, this paper demonstrates that addressing structural challenges in AI is challenging and requires an approach that considers four requirements: (1) multi-level, (2) multi-faceted, (3) interdisciplinary, and (4) polycentric governance. (shrink)

ABSTRACT. Consider this scenario: you discover that an artwork you greatly admire, or a captivating novel that deeply moved you, is in fact the product of artificial intelligence, not a human’s work. Would your aesthetic judgment shift? Would you perceive the work differently? If so, why? The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in the realm of art has sparked numerous philosophical questions related to the authorship and artistic intent behind AI-generated works. This paper explores the debate between viewing AI as (...) a tool employed by human artists and perceiving AI as a new form of artistic expression with minimal human involvement. While we often seek a human mind behind certain artwork, we may still appreciate and engage with works that lack this element but have aesthetic value nonetheless. The paper also considers the traditional concept of “implied author”, suggesting that readers or artwork viewers might construct an authorial presence from the work itself, regardless of its actual origin. It will be finally suggested how AI-generated art might change our perceptions of human authorship itself. (shrink)

This paper introduces the concept of AI-inclusive epistemology, suggesting that artificial intelligence (AI) may develop its own epistemological perspectives, function as an epistemic agent, and assume the role of a quasi-member of society. We explore the unique capabilities of advanced AI systems and their potential to provide distinct insights within knowledge systems traditionally dominated by human cognition. Additionally, the paper proposes a framework for a sustainable symbiotic society where AI and human intelligences collaborate to enhance the breadth and (...) depth of epistemological pursuits. Through this exploration, we aim to redefine conventional knowledge paradigms by integrating the AI perspective, thereby fostering a more comprehensive and dynamic epistemological landscape. (shrink)

That AI will have a major impact on society is no longer in question. Current debate turns instead on how far this impact will be positive or negative, for whom, in which ways, in which places, and on what timescale. In order to frame these questions in a more substantive way, in this prolegomena we introduce what we consider the four core opportunities for society offered by the use of AI, four associated risks which could emerge from its (...) overuse or misuse, and the opportunity costs associated with its under use. We then offer a high-level view of the emerging advantages for organisations of taking an ethical approach to developing and deploying AI. Finally, we introduce a set of five principles which should guide the development and deployment of AI technologies. The development of laws, policies and best practices for seizing the opportunities and minimizing the risks posed by AI technologies would benefit from building on ethical frameworks such as the one offered here. (shrink)

This paper examines an insoluble Cartesian problem for classical AI, namely, how linguistic understanding involves knowledge and awareness of u’s meaning, a cognitive process that is irreducible to algorithms. As analyzed, Descartes’ view about reason and intelligence has paradoxically encouraged certain classical AI researchers to suppose that linguistic understanding suffices for machine intelligence. Several advocates of the Turing Test, for example, assume that linguistic understanding only comprises computational processes which can be recursively decomposed into algorithmic mechanisms. Against this background, in (...) the first section, I explain Descartes’ view about language and mind. To show that Turing bites the bullet with his imitation game, in the second section I analyze this method to assess intelligence. Then, in the third section, I elaborate on Schank and Abelsons’ Script Applier Mechanism (SAM, hereby), which supposedly casts doubt on Descartes’ denial that machines can think. Finally, in the fourth section, I explore a challenge that any algorithmic decomposition of linguistic understanding faces. This challenge, I argue, is the core of the Cartesian problem: knowledge and awareness of meaning require a first-person viewpoint which is irreducible to the decomposition of algorithmic mechanisms. (shrink)

Through the lens of feminist speech act theory, this paper argues that artificial intelligence romance systems objectify and subordinate nonvirtual women. AI romance systems treat their users as consumers, offering them relational invulnerability and control over their (usually feminized) digital romantic partner. This paper argues that, though the output of AI chatbots may not generally constitute speech, the framework offered by an AI romance system communicates an unjust perspective on intimate relationships. Through normalizing controlling one’s intimate partner, these systems operate (...) as speakers that rank women as non-player characters and license their oppression, which is unjust even in the absence of empirical harms. Understanding AI romance systems as speakers has implications for policymakers. First, this account helps close the so-called responsibility gap in the operation of an AI system. Second, it places these systems under the purview of institutions’ policies regarding hate speech, suggesting one avenue for arguing that these systems may violate extant policies. Finally, it provides support for the pursuit of empirical research into AI romance systems’ effects on users. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is to show how the functionalist standards assumed in the AI debate are, in fact, the assumptions of a capitalist, ableist society writ large. The already established argument against the proposed humanity of AI systems implies a wider critique of the entire ideology of functionalism under which the notion of intelligent machines has taken root.

This paper reframes the issue of appropriation, extraction, and dispossession through AI—an assemblage of machine learning models trained on big data—in terms of enclosure and foreclosure. While enclosures are the product of a well-studied set of operations pertaining to both the constitution of the sovereign State and the primitive accumulation of capital, here, I want to recover an older form of the enclosure operation to then contrast it with foreclosure to better understand the effects of current algorithmic rationality. I argue (...) that the act of enclosing is to be understood as a set of fundamental operations that consist in producing structural distinctions between inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion—whether by drawing lines on a map, constructing border walls, or by algorithmically categorizing and (mis)recognizing people and things. Tracking the transformation of an enclosure-logic into one of foreclosure, I show how current AI perpetuates and at the same time expends forms of extraction, exclusion, and dispossession toward a totalizing horizon. For, while the outside is essential and constitutive to the logic of enclosure, foreclosure, by contrast, is characterized by the “totalizing desire” to not leave anything out of it. The totalizing desire to move beyond the logic of the enclosure forecloses that the enclosure has just gotten bigger and that the operations of exclusion have been masked and displaced, making them harder to contest. (shrink)

In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of artificial intelligence. In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a ‘good AI society’. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: the development of (...) a ‘good AI society’; the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community in pursuing such a development; and where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a ‘good AI society’. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach. (shrink)

This paper proposes a formal account of AI trustworthiness, connecting both intrinsic and perceived trustworthiness in an operational schematization. We argue that trustworthiness extends beyond the inherent capabilities of an AI system to include significant influences from observers' perceptions, such as perceived transparency, agency locus, and human oversight. While the concept of perceived trustworthiness is discussed in the literature, few attempts have been made to connect it with the intrinsic trustworthiness of AI systems. Our analysis introduces a novel schematization to (...) quantify trustworthiness by assessing the discrepancies between expected and observed behaviors and how these affect perceived uncertainty and trust. The paper provides a formalization for measuring trustworthiness, taking into account both perceived and intrinsic characteristics. By detailing the factors that influence trust, this study aims to foster more ethical and widely accepted AI technologies, ensuring they meet both functional and ethical criteria. (shrink)

The main aim of this article is to reflect on the impact of biases related to artificial intelligence (AI) systems developed to tackle issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, with special focus on those developed for triage and risk prediction. A secondary aim is to review assessment tools that have been developed to prevent biases in AI systems. In addition, we provide a conceptual clarification for some terms related to biases in this particular context. We focus mainly on nonracial biases (...) that may be less considered when addressing biases in AI systems in the existing literature. In the manuscript, we found that the existence of bias in AI systems used for COVID-19 can result in algorithmic justice and that the legal frameworks and strategies developed to prevent the apparition of bias have failed to adequately consider social determinants of health. Finally, we make some recommendations on how to include more diverse professional profiles in order to develop AI systems that increase the epistemic diversity needed to tackle AI biases during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. (shrink)

This paper proposes that existing computational modeling research programs may be combined into platforms for the information of public policy. The main idea is that computational models at select levels of organization may be integrated in natural terms describing biological cognition, thereby normalizing a platform for predictive simulations able to account for both human and environmental costs associated with different action plans and institutional arrangements over short and long time spans while minimizing computational requirements. Building from established research programs, the (...) proposal aims to take advantage of current momentum in the direction of the integration of the cognitive with social and natural sciences, reduce start-up costs and increase speed of development. These are all important upshots given rising unease over the potential for AI and related technologies to shape the world going forward. (shrink)

-/- The Universal Formula as a Perfect Information Field: A Guiding Framework for Nature, Society, and AI -/- Introduction -/- Throughout history, human beings have sought to understand the fundamental laws governing nature, society, and consciousness. The discovery of these laws is a result of conscious intelligence, which refines knowledge over time. Some speculative theories, such as Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance, suggest that nature has a kind of memory field that guides the behavior of organisms and systems. However, (...) without empirical validation, such ideas remain hypothetical. -/- A more concrete and rational approach to understanding the structure of natural laws is through a universal formula—a framework that captures the principles governing decision-making and systemic balance in all aspects of life. If such a formula exists, it would function as a “perfect information field,” ensuring that human behavior, governance, and artificial intelligence operate in harmony with nature’s fundamental laws. This essay explores how a universal formula based on the law of balance in nature could serve as a perfect guide for all intelligent systems. -/- The Nature of a Perfect Information Field -/- A “perfect information field” would contain all necessary knowledge to guide decision-making and ensure the proper functioning of all systems, whether they are biological, societal, or technological. In contrast to speculative fields like morphic resonance, a perfect information field must be based on universal principles that are observable, testable, and applicable across different domains. -/- If decision-making and all human behavior follow natural laws, then a universal formula governing this process would act as a foundational guide. This means that any individual, society, or artificial system that aligns with this formula would be operating in accordance with the natural order, avoiding destructive imbalances. -/- The Universal Formula and the Law of Balance in Nature -/- The key principle behind a universal formula is the law of balance in nature. This law asserts that all decision-making, whether on an individual or collective level, must maintain equilibrium to prevent dysfunction and suffering. Any deviation from this balance—whether through ignorance, false beliefs, or misguided actions—results in systemic breakdowns, much like defects in a machine cause it to malfunction. -/- This perspective aligns with the first law of the universal formula: the law of karma as a system-based principle, where every action and decision creates consequences within a larger interconnected system. If a system, such as a government, an economy, or even an AI, does not adhere to error-free functioning, it leads to unintended negative effects. Therefore, for a system to be self-sustaining and effective, it must operate in accordance with the law of balance. -/- Education as the Key to Implementing the Universal Formula -/- For the universal formula to function as a guiding framework for human society, it must be deeply embedded in the education system. This means that students at all levels should be taught how to think critically, recognize natural balance, and make decisions that align with these principles. By integrating this knowledge into the foundational structure of education, individuals will develop a rational and scientific understanding of how to navigate their lives without relying on superstitions or dogmatic beliefs. -/- A holistic education system would also serve to neutralize misinformation, prevent societal conflicts, and promote ethical leadership. Leaders who understand the universal formula would make policies that reflect the natural balance of population growth, resource distribution, and environmental sustainability, rather than following flawed economic and political ideologies. -/- The R”le of AI in Implementing the Universal Formula -/- Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) has the potential to become a key tool in maintaining natural balance—if it is programmed according to the universal formula. Unlike human minds, which are susceptible to biases, errors, and irrational beliefs, AGI could be designed to follow pure rationality and objective decision-making based on the laws of nature. -/- For AGI to function properly, it must have a complete sensor system that allows it to perceive and analyze all relevant factors in real time. This ensures that it does not operate on incomplete or flawed data, which could lead to errors in decision-making. If AGI adheres to the principles of the universal formula, it could assist in solving major societal problems such as economic instability, political corruption, and environmental destruction. -/- However, for AGI to be successful, humans must first fully understand and accept the universal formula themselves. Without widespread human comprehension of the natural laws guiding decision-making, AI could be misused or misinterpreted, leading to unintended consequences. -/- Conclusion -/- The search for a perfect information field has long been a goal of human intelligence. While speculative theories like morphic resonance attempt to explain systemic memory in nature, they lack empirical validation. Instead, a more concrete approach is to recognize that the universal formula—grounded in the law of balance in nature—already provides a guiding framework for all decision-making and systemic functions. -/- By embedding this understanding into education and programming AI according to its principles, humanity can align itself with the fundamental laws of nature. This would lead to a more balanced and sustainable world, where ignorance, misinformation, and destructive decisions are minimized. If properly implemented, the universal formula could indeed serve as the closest thing to a “perfect information field,” guiding the future of human civilization and artificial intelligence alike. -/- . (shrink)

This paper categorizes current approaches to AI ethics into four perspectives and briefly summarizes them: (1) Case studies and technical trend surveys, (2) AI governance, (3) Technologies for AI alignment, (4) Philosophy. In the second half, we focus on the fourth perspective, the philosophical approach, within the context of applied ethics. In particular, the explicability of AI may be an area in which scientists, engineers, and AI developers are expected to engage more actively relative to other ethical issues in AI.

The pervasiveness of AI-empowered technologies across multiple sectors has led to drastic changes concerning traditional social practices and how we relate to one another. Moreover, market-driven Big Tech corporations are now entering public domains, and concerns have been raised that they may even influence public agenda and research. Therefore, this chapter focuses on assessing and evaluating what kind of business model is desirable to incentivise the AI for Social Good (AI4SG) factors. In particular, the chapter explores the implications of this (...) discourse for SDG #17 (global partnership) and how this goal may encourage Big Tech corporations to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships that promote effective public-private and civil society partnerships and the meaningful co-presence of non-market and market values. In doing so, the chapter proposes an analysis of the sociological notion of "social license to operate" (SLO) elaborated in the mining and extractive industry literature and introduces it into the discourse on sustainable digital business models and responsible management of risks in the digital age. This serves to explore how such a social license can be adopted as a practice by digital business models to foster trust, collaboration and coordination among different actors - AI researchers and initiatives, institutions and civil society at large - for the support of SDGs interrelated targets and goals. (shrink)

The thesis introduces and criticizes the discourse on technology, with a specific reference to the concept of AI. The discourse on AI is particularly saturated with reified metaphors which drive connotations and delimit understandings of technology in society. To better analyse the discourse on AI, the thesis proposes the concept of “Expected AI”, a composite signifier filled with historical and sociocultural connotations, and numerous referent objects. Relying on cultural semiotics, science and technology studies, and a diverse selection of heuristic (...) concepts, the thesis delves beneath the surface of AI discourse and demonstrates the hidden political, social, cultural, and ecological dangers of AI. The entanglement of the discourse(s) with (science) fiction, folklore, myth, and religion impacts how AI is perceived and received, as well as the expectations to AI-enabled technologies now and in the future. The thesis also proposes a more ethical and comprehensive ontological model for AI systems. The model describes AI systems as complex figurations, considering their socio-material organisation, global economic-material becoming, and impact on the environment, social institutions, and the semiosphere. The dissertation argues that AI should be understood not just as an object or sociotechnical system, but as its entire product chain encompassing people and cultures, as well as the used resources and impact (both material-ecological and semiotic) on a planetary scale. (shrink)

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has generated an increasing demand for tools that can assess public attitudes toward AI. This study proposes the development and the validation of the AI Attitude Scale (AIAS), a concise self-report instrument designed to evaluate public perceptions of AI technology. The first version of the AIAS that the present manuscript proposes comprises five items, including one reverse-scored item, which aims to gauge individuals’ beliefs about AI’s influence on their lives, careers, and humanity overall. (...) The scale is designed to capture attitudes toward AI, focusing on the perceived utility and potential impact of technology on society and humanity. The psychometric properties of the scale were investigated using diverse samples in two separate studies. An exploratory factor analysis was initially conducted on a preliminary 5-item version of the scale. Such exploratory validation study revealed the need to divide the scale into two factors. While the results demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency for the overall scale and its correlation with related psychometric measures, separate analyses for each factor showed robust internal consistency for Factor 1 but insufficient internal consistency for Factor 2. As a result, a second version of the scale is developed and validated, omitting the item that displayed weak correlation with the remaining items in the questionnaire. The refined final 1-factor, 4-item AIAS demonstrated superior overall internal consistency compared to the initial 5-item scale and the proposed factors. Further confirmatory factor analyses, performed on a different sample of participants, confirmed that the 1-factor model (4-items) of the AIAS exhibited an adequate fit to the data, providing additional evidence for the scale’s structural validity and generalizability across diverse populations. In conclusion, the analyses reported in this article suggest that the developed and validated 4-items AIAS can be a valuable instrument for researchers and professionals working on AI development who seek to understand and study users’ general attitudes toward AI. (shrink)

Edward Wilson wrote in Consilience that “Human history can be viewed through the lens of ecology as the accumulation of environmental prostheses” (1999 p 316), with technologies mediating our collective habitation of the Earth and its complex, interdependent ecosystems. Wilson emphasized the defining characteristic of complex systems, that they undergo transformations which are irreversible. His view is now standard, and his central point bears repeated emphasis, today: natural systems can be broken, species—including us—can disappear, ecosystems can fail, and technological prostheses (...) potentiate rather than ameliorate disaster when the fragilities that they introduce into our evolutionary co-dependencies with natural systems, and with each other, are under-appreciated. (shrink)

The debate about the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence dates from the 1960s :741–742, 1960; Wiener in Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine, MIT Press, New York, 1961). However, in recent years symbolic AI has been complemented and sometimes replaced by Neural Networks and Machine Learning techniques. This has vastly increased its potential utility and impact on society, with the consequence that the ethical debate has gone mainstream. Such a debate has primarily focused on (...) principles—the ‘what’ of AI ethics —rather than on practices, the ‘how.’ Awareness of the potential issues is increasing at a fast rate, but the AI community’s ability to take action to mitigate the associated risks is still at its infancy. Our intention in presenting this research is to contribute to closing the gap between principles and practices by constructing a typology that may help practically-minded developers apply ethics at each stage of the Machine Learning development pipeline, and to signal to researchers where further work is needed. The focus is exclusively on Machine Learning, but it is hoped that the results of this research may be easily applicable to other branches of AI. The article outlines the research method for creating this typology, the initial findings, and provides a summary of future research needs. (shrink)

This paper reframes the issue of appropriation, extraction, and dispossession through AI—an assemblage of machine learning models trained on big data—in terms of enclosure and foreclosure. While enclosures are the product of a well-studied set of operations pertaining to both the constitution of the sovereign State and the primitive accumulation of capital, here, I want to recover an older form of the enclosure operation to then contrast it with foreclosure to better understand the effects of current algorithmic rationality. I argue (...) that the act of enclosing is to be understood as a set of fundamental operations that consist in producing structural distinctions between inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion—whether by drawing lines on a map, constructing border walls, or by algorithmically categorizing and (mis)recognizing people and things. Tracking the transformation of an enclosure-logic into one of foreclosure, I show how current AI perpetuates and at the same time expends forms of extraction, exclusion, and dispossession toward a totalizing horizon. For, while the outside is essential and constitutive to the logic of enclosure, foreclosure, by contrast, is characterized by the “totalizing desire” to not leave anything out of it. The totalizing desire to move beyond the logic of the enclosure forecloses that the enclosure has just gotten bigger and that the operations of exclusion have been masked and displaced, making them harder to contest. (shrink)

What does Cyberpunk and AI Ethics have to do with each other? Cyberpunk is a sub-genre of science fiction that explores the post-human relationships between human experience and technology. One similarity between AI Ethics and Cyberpunk literature is that both seek a dialogue in which the reader may inquire about the future and the ethical and social problems that our technological advance may bring upon society. In recent years, an increasing number of ethical matters involving AI have been pointed (...) and debated, and several ethical principles and guides have been suggested as governance policies for the tech industry. However, would this be the role of AI Ethics? To serve as a soft and ambiguous version of the law? I would like to promote in this article a more Cyberpunk way of doing AI Ethics, whit a more anarchic way of governance. In this study, I will seek to expose some of the deficits of the underlying power structures of our society, and suggest that AI governance be subject to public opinion, so that ‘good AI’ can become ‘good AI for all’. (shrink)

The Inefficiency of the Biological Brain and the Importance of AI for the Next Generation -/- The human brain, often considered the pinnacle of evolutionary design, is an extraordinary organ capable of creativity, critical thinking, and adaptation. However, despite its remarkable abilities, it is inherently inefficient when compared to artificial intelligence (AI) systems in certain domains. The inefficiencies of the biological brain, coupled with the rapid development of AI technology, underline why artificial general intelligence (AGI) holds immense promise for shaping (...) the future of the next generation. By complementing and extending human cognition, AI can address many of the limitations of the biological brain and equip young people with tools to solve the world’s most pressing challenges. -/- The Inefficiencies of the Biological Brain -/- The biological brain operates under significant constraints that limit its potential. Some of these inefficiencies include: -/- 1. Cognitive Biases and Emotional Interference The human brain is subject to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, which can hinder rational decision-making. Emotional states, while vital for human experience, can cloud judgment and lead to impulsive or irrational behavior. These limitations often result in flawed decisions, particularly in complex or high-stakes situations. -/- 2. Limited Processing Power and Memory While the brain is capable of parallel processing, it has finite processing power and memory storage. Tasks requiring large-scale computations, vast data analysis, or instantaneous recall of details often exceed its capabilities. For instance, analyzing terabytes of data to identify patterns or trends is beyond the capacity of any single individual. -/- 3. Slow Learning and Knowledge Retention Learning is a time-intensive process for humans. Acquiring expertise in a single domain can take years, and even then, the retention of knowledge often deteriorates over time. The brain also struggles to adapt quickly to entirely new fields or technologies without substantial effort. -/- 4. Physical Vulnerabilities The brain is biologically constrained by aging, disease, and trauma. These vulnerabilities can result in cognitive decline, memory loss, or even the complete inability to function. These natural limitations cannot yet be fully mitigated through biological means. -/- 5. Bias from Evolutionary Pressures The human brain evolved for survival in environments vastly different from the modern world. Traits like fear, aggression, or tribalism, which were once advantageous, can now lead to social conflicts, inefficiency, and short-term thinking. -/- Why AI and AGI Are Crucial for the Next Generation -/- Artificial intelligence has the potential to address the inefficiencies of the biological brain and create a brighter, more equitable future for the next generation. Its capabilities go far beyond traditional human cognition in several key areas: -/- 1. Enhanced Problem-Solving Abilities AI systems are capable of processing massive datasets, analyzing patterns, and generating solutions far more efficiently than the human brain. For example, AI is already transforming industries such as healthcare by diagnosing diseases with greater accuracy and speed. Future AGI could enable young people to tackle global challenges such as climate change, resource distribution, and poverty with unprecedented precision. -/- 2. Overcoming Human Biases Unlike the biological brain, which is prone to emotional and cognitive biases, well-designed AI systems can function based on objective logic and evidence. This could lead to more equitable policy-making, unbiased education systems, and transparent governance. -/- 3. Accelerated Learning and Knowledge Access AI-powered tools can revolutionize education by providing personalized learning experiences tailored to individual needs. With access to AI tutors and resources, young people can acquire skills and knowledge faster and more effectively than ever before, bridging educational gaps and fostering innovation. -/- 4. Augmentation of Human Potential By integrating AI with human cognition, individuals can expand their capabilities beyond natural limits. For example, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) could allow people to directly interact with AI systems, enhancing memory, decision-making, and creativity. This symbiosis between humans and machines could redefine what it means to be human. -/- 5. Future-Proofing Against Global Challenges The next generation will face challenges that require solutions at a scale and complexity beyond human capacity. AI and AGI are indispensable for managing these challenges, from predicting pandemics and optimizing energy usage to navigating ethical dilemmas in an interconnected world. -/- Building a New Paradigm for the Next Generation -/- To ensure that AI benefits society as a whole, it is essential to integrate it into the foundational education and development of young people. Teaching students about AI, its capabilities, and ethical implications will empower them to use these tools responsibly. Furthermore, fostering collaboration between humans and AI, rather than fearing technological displacement, will cultivate a new paradigm where human creativity and machine efficiency coexist harmoniously. -/- Governments, educational institutions, and industries must work together to democratize access to AI technologies, ensuring that the benefits are shared equitably. Ethical frameworks should be developed to guide the use of AI, ensuring that it remains a tool for human progress rather than a source of inequality or harm. -/- Conclusion -/- The inefficiencies of the biological brain highlight the need for complementary technologies that can amplify human potential. AI and AGI represent the next frontier in human evolution, offering solutions to our cognitive and societal limitations. For the next generation, these technologies are not merely tools but essential companions in shaping a better, more sustainable world. By embracing AI and equipping young people with the skills to harness its power, humanity can transcend its limitations and unlock a future of unparalleled possibilities. -/- . (shrink)

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), understanding its capabilities and limitations has become significant for mitigating unfounded anxiety and unwarranted optimism. As part of this endeavor, this study delves into the following question: Can AI become an expert? More precisely, should society confer the authority of experts on AI even if its decision-making process is highly opaque? Throughout the investigation, I aim to identify certain normative challenges in elevating current AI to a level comparable to that of (...) human experts. First, I will narrow the scope by proposing the definition of an expert. Along the way, three normative components of experts -trust, explainability, and responsibility-will be presented. Subsequently, I will suggest why AI cannot become a trustee, successfully transmit knowledge, or take responsibility. Specifically, the arguments focus on how these factors regulate expert judgments, which are not made in isolation but within complex social connections and spontaneous dialogue. Finally, I will defend the plausibility of the presented criteria in response to a potential objection, the claim that some machine learning-based algorithms, such as AlphaGo, have already been recognized as experts. (shrink)

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) defines four risk categories for AI systems: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. However, it lacks a clear methodology for the assessment of these risks in concrete situations. Risks are broadly categorized based on the application areas of AI systems and ambiguous risk factors. This paper suggests a methodology for assessing AI risk magnitudes, focusing on the construction of real-world risk scenarios. To this scope, we propose to integrate the AIA with a framework developed by (...) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and related literature. This approach enables a nuanced analysis of AI risk by exploring the interplay between (a) risk determinants, (b) individual drivers of determinants, and (c) multiple risk types. We further refine the proposed methodology by applying a proportionality test to balance the competing values involved in AI risk assessment. Finally, we present three uses of this approach under the AIA: to implement the Regulation, to assess the significance of risks, and to develop internal risk management systems for AI deployers. (shrink)

The EU proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) defines four risk categories: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. However, as these categories statically depend on broad fields of application of AI, the risk magnitude may be wrongly estimated, and the AIA may not be enforced effectively. This problem is particularly challenging when it comes to regulating general-purpose AI (GPAI), which has versatile and often unpredictable applications. Recent amendments to the compromise text, though introducing context-specific assessments, remain insufficient. To address this, (...) we propose applying the risk categories to specific AI scenarios, rather than solely to fields of application, using a risk assessment model that integrates the AIA with the risk approach arising from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and related literature. This model enables the estimation of the magnitude of AI risk by considering the interaction between (a) risk determinants, (b) individual drivers of determinants, and (c) multiple risk types. We use large language models (LLMs) as an example. (shrink)

-/- Aligning AI with the Universal Formula for Balanced Decision-Making -/- Introduction -/- Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents a highly advanced form of automated information processing, capable of analyzing vast amounts of data, identifying patterns, and making predictive decisions. However, the effectiveness of AI depends entirely on the integrity of its inputs, processing mechanisms, and decision-making frameworks. If AI is programmed without a foundational understanding of natural laws, it risks reinforcing misinformation, bias, and societal imbalance. -/- Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, particularly (...) the law of karma as a system principle and the law of balance in nature, provides a crucial foundation for AI’s role in decision-making. The law of karma states that any system, whether natural or artificial, must be free of defects to function properly, while the law of balance ensures that all decisions align with equilibrium in nature and society. By embedding these principles into AI development, AI can serve as a powerful tool for maintaining systemic harmony and solving human problems without creating unintended disruptions. -/- This essay explores how AI can be structured according to the universal formula by incorporating a complete sensor system, error-free processing mechanisms, balance-driven decision-making, and integration into leadership and education. Through these elements, AI can function as a stabilizing force that enhances human governance, education, and social progress. -/- 1. The Importance of a Complete Sensor System in AI -/- AI decision-making depends on the quality of its inputs. Just as human perception relies on sensory feedback, AI requires a comprehensive sensor system to process information accurately. If AI is fed incomplete or biased data, its conclusions will reflect those flaws, leading to distorted outputs that can negatively impact society. -/- To align with the universal formula, AI must be equipped with: -/- Multimodal data processing – AI should integrate data from visual, auditory, textual, and real-time environmental sources to ensure a holistic understanding of reality. -/- Error detection and bias correction – Automated validation mechanisms should filter out misinformation, propaganda, and manipulated narratives before they influence AI’s conclusions. -/- Dynamic feedback loops – AI should continuously refine its decisions based on real-world outcomes, adapting to new conditions while maintaining systemic balance. -/- Without these mechanisms, AI risks becoming an imbalanced system that propagates human errors rather than correcting them. The universal formula emphasizes that any decision-making system must operate on accurate and unbiased inputs to prevent instability. -/- 2. AI Must Be Programmed for Error-Free Processing Aligned with Natural Laws -/- The law of karma states that systems must function without defects to ensure proper operation. If AI is to assist human decision-making, it must be programmed in a way that eliminates errors and ensures logically consistent outputs. -/- To achieve this, AI must: -/- Prioritize verified and logical knowledge – AI should be trained using scientifically validated information, avoiding speculation, conspiracy theories, or biased narratives. -/- Reject false or manipulated data – AI should detect and neutralize black propaganda, unproven theories, and misleading statistics that could lead to imbalance. -/- Develop self-correction mechanisms – AI should continuously evaluate its own decision-making processes, identifying and adjusting for errors in real-time. -/- By ensuring AI adheres to error-free processing aligned with natural laws, it becomes a predictable and reliable tool that enhances rather than disrupts decision-making at all levels of society. -/- 3. AI Decision-Making Must Follow the Law of Balance in Nature -/- One of the most critical aspects of AI programming is ensuring that its decision-making aligns with the law of balance—the natural equilibrium that governs all systems. AI should not only analyze cause-and-effect relationships but also assess whether its decisions maintain systemic harmony. -/- This can be achieved by: -/- Evaluating the long-term impact of decisions – AI should assess both immediate and future consequences, ensuring that actions do not create new problems while solving existing ones. -/- Adaptive decision-making – AI should dynamically adjust its recommendations if new data suggests an imbalance is forming. -/- Ensuring fairness in governance and society – AI can guide policy decisions by ensuring that no group is disproportionately favored over another, maintaining social stability. -/- For example, in economic policy, AI could analyze global trade and recommend adjustments to prevent financial instability. In environmental sustainability, AI could assess resource consumption patterns and suggest policies that maintain ecological balance. When programmed according to the law of balance, AI becomes a guardian of systemic harmony, preventing crises before they arise. -/- 4. AI Should Be Integrated into Leadership and Education -/- AI should not replace human judgment but rather serve as an educational and advisory tool that reinforces rational and ethical decision-making. To maximize its potential, AI should be implemented in: -/- The Educational System – Students should learn how AI aligns with natural laws, ensuring that future AI developers prioritize systemic balance and ethical considerations in programming. -/- Leadership and Governance – Governments should use AI to analyze complex societal issues, making data-driven decisions that align with long-term stability rather than short-term political interests. -/- Knowledge Dissemination – AI can generate content that explains the universal formula in accessible ways, helping different cultures and societies understand and implement its principles. -/- By integrating AI into education and governance, societies can ensure that leaders are equipped with knowledge based on natural laws, reducing the risk of decisions that create instability or conflict. -/- 5. Challenges and Considerations in Implementing the Universal Formula in AI -/- While structuring AI according to the universal formula offers many advantages, several challenges must be addressed: -/- Data Integrity – AI can only function properly if its training data is accurate and unbiased. Preventing misinformation from influencing AI requires constant monitoring and updates. -/- Ethical Implementation – Governments and organizations must ensure AI is used for balance and stability, not for manipulation or control. -/- Technological Limitations – Current AI systems are not yet capable of fully replicating human judgment. Further advancements in AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) are needed to align AI more closely with the universal formula’s principles. -/- Despite these challenges, implementing AI based on natural laws represents the most logical and sustainable path forward, ensuring that technology serves humanity rather than disrupting it. -/- Conclusion -/- AI, as an advanced information processing system, has the potential to transform human decision-making at all levels of society. However, without a structured framework, it risks creating systemic imbalances rather than solving them. Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, particularly the law of karma as a system principle and the law of balance in nature, provides a crucial foundation for ensuring AI aligns with natural equilibrium. -/- By incorporating a complete sensor system, error-free processing, balanced decision-making, and integration into leadership and education, AI can function as a powerful tool for reinforcing societal stability. If properly implemented, AI will not only prevent errors in human decision-making but also guide humanity toward a future where choices are made in harmony with the fundamental laws of nature. -/- This structured approach to AI development ensures that technology serves as a stabilizing force rather than a disruptive one, ultimately helping to create a world where all decisions—whether human or machine-assisted—uphold the principles of balance, integrity, and sustainability. -/- . (shrink)

The Science of Balanced Leadership and Competition: The Role of AI Technology as a Guide -/- Introduction -/- Leadership and competition are two fundamental forces that shape human societies, economies, and institutions. However, their effectiveness depends on how they are managed. When leadership is imbalanced, it leads to corruption, authoritarianism, or inefficiency. When competition is unregulated, it creates inequality, exploitation, and instability. The science of balanced leadership and competition is an approach that integrates principles of natural balance, ethical decision-making, and (...) systemic thinking to ensure sustainable and just progress. -/- In the modern era, artificial intelligence (AI) technology serves as a powerful tool to assist leaders in maintaining this balance. AI can analyze vast amounts of data, predict potential crises, and offer insights for decision-making. Properly programmed AI can help guide leaders toward fair and ethical governance while also ensuring competition remains beneficial rather than destructive. -/- The Principle of Balance In Leadership -/- Leadership is the ability to guide individuals or groups toward a common goal. However, effective leadership is not just about authority; it requires a balance between control and flexibility, vision and adaptability, power and responsibility. -/- 1. The Balance Between Authority and Participation – Leaders must maintain authority to make decisive actions but also encourage participation from team members. Excessive authoritarianism suppresses innovation, while excessive democracy leads to indecisiveness. A balanced leader allows structured decision-making while considering input from others. -/- 2. The Balance Between Short-Term and Long-Term Goals – Effective leaders understand that immediate success must not come at the cost of future stability. Governments that prioritize economic growth without environmental responsibility, for example, create long-term disasters. Sustainable leadership requires long-term planning while addressing short-term needs. AI technology can analyze patterns, predict long-term consequences, and assist leaders in making informed, future-proof decisions. -/- 3. The Balance Between Competence and Morality – A leader may be highly competent but unethical, leading to corruption and exploitation. Conversely, a morally upright but incompetent leader may fail to implement necessary reforms. Balanced leadership integrates technical skill with ethical responsibility. AI systems programmed with ethical guidelines can act as an advisory tool, identifying potential ethical violations in leadership decisions and ensuring a fair and just system. -/- The Role of Competition in Progress -/- Competition is essential for innovation, economic growth, and personal development. However, uncontrolled competition leads to monopolies, exploitation, and social inequality. A balanced approach ensures that competition serves collective progress rather than individual greed. -/- 1. Healthy Competition vs. Destructive Competition – In a balanced system, competition drives excellence without harming others. In contrast, destructive competition creates a “win-at-all-costs” mentality, where ethics and fairness are disregarded. Examples include corporate monopolies suppressing small businesses or political parties prioritizing power over national interest. AI-driven monitoring systems can help detect unethical business practices and ensure fair competition in markets. -/- 2. Regulated Competition for Collective Growth – Governments and institutions must regulate competition to ensure fairness. This includes antitrust laws to prevent monopolies, ethical guidelines in business, and fair labor policies to protect workers from exploitation. AI can assist regulators in monitoring economic trends, detecting monopolistic behavior, and ensuring fair market conditions. -/- 3. Coopetition: A Balance Between Cooperation and Competition – In many industries, companies compete for market dominance while also collaborating in research, standardization, or sustainability efforts. This concept, known as “coopetition,” allows for economic growth while maintaining ethical responsibilities. AI can optimize cooperation strategies, ensuring that businesses maximize benefits while maintaining fair competition. -/- The Role of AI in Maintaining Balance -/- AI technology plays a crucial role in guiding leaders and institutions toward balanced decision-making. It can be used in the following ways: -/- 1. AI for Predictive Analysis – AI can process large-scale data to predict social, economic, and environmental trends, helping leaders make proactive decisions rather than reactive ones. -/- 2. AI for Ethical Governance – AI can be programmed with ethical principles to provide real-time insights on the consequences of political, corporate, or social policies. This ensures that decision-making aligns with fairness, justice, and sustainability. -/- 3. AI for Market Regulation – AI-driven economic models can detect unfair competition, price manipulation, and unethical corporate behavior, allowing governments to take corrective actions swiftly. -/- 4. AI for Educational Guidance – AI can be integrated into the educational system to teach critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and the science of balance, helping to shape future leaders who understand the importance of sustainable leadership and competition. -/- Applying the Science of Balance in Society -/- The science of balanced leadership and competition applies across various domains, from government and business to education and personal development. AI technology enhances this process by providing data-driven insights and ethical guidance. -/- 1. In Governance – Leaders must ensure that laws and policies balance economic growth with social welfare, individual rights with national security, and environmental sustainability with industrial development. AI can help design policies that optimize these balances through advanced simulations and scenario modeling. -/- 2. In Business – Corporate leaders should foster healthy competition while ensuring fair wages, ethical production, and sustainable business practices. AI can be used to analyze global trends, predict economic shifts, and optimize business strategies that benefit both corporations and society. -/- 3. In Education – Schools should encourage competition to inspire excellence while fostering teamwork, ethical responsibility, and critical thinking. AI-driven personalized learning can help students develop both competitive and cooperative skills based on their strengths and weaknesses. -/- 4. In Personal Development – Individuals must balance ambition with ethics, career success with personal well-being, and competition with collaboration in their daily lives. AI-powered personal development tools can provide guidance, helping individuals make balanced life decisions. -/- Conclusion -/- The science of balanced leadership and competition is essential for building a just and sustainable society. It requires an understanding of natural balance, ethical decision-making, and systemic thinking. AI technology plays a critical role in achieving this balance by providing data-driven insights, predicting long-term consequences, and ensuring ethical decision-making. -/- When leadership is balanced, it fosters progress without oppression. When competition is balanced, it drives innovation without exploitation. With AI as a guiding tool, societies can move toward a future where decision-making is not only efficient but also ethical and sustainable. By integrating AI with principles of natural balance, we can ensure a world that is fair, progressive, and in harmony with the universal laws of nature. -/- . (shrink)

Engineering an artificial intelligence to play an advisory role in morally charged decision making will inevitably introduce meta-ethical positions into the design. Some of these positions, by informing the design and operation of the AI, will introduce risks. This paper offers an analysis of these potential risks along the realism/anti-realism dimension in metaethics and reveals that realism poses greater risks, but, on the other hand, anti-realism undermines the motivation for engineering a moral AI in the first place.

The increasing use of Generative AI raises many ethical, philosophical, and legal issues. A key issue here is uncertainties about how different degrees of Generative AI assistance in the production of text impacts assessments of the human authorship of that text. To explore this issue, we developed an experimental mixed methods survey study (N = 602) asking participants to reflect on a scenario of a human author receiving assistance to write a short novel as part of a 3 (high, medium, (...) or low degrees of assistance) X 2 (human or AI assistant) factorial design. We found that, for a human author, the degree of assistance they receive matters for our assessments of their level of authorship, creatorship, and responsibility, but not what or who rendered that assistance, although it was more important to disclose human rather than AI assistance. However, in our assessments of the assisting agent, human assistants were viewed as warranting higher rates of authorship, creatorship, and responsibility, compared to AI assistants rendering the same level of support. These results help us to better understand emerging norms around collaborative human-AI generated text, with implications for other types of collaborative content creation. (shrink)

Autonomy is often considered a core value of Western society that is deeply entrenched in moral, legal, and political practices. The development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems to perform a wide variety of tasks has raised new questions about how AI may affect human autonomy. Numerous guidelines on the responsible development of AI now emphasise the need for human autonomy to be protected. In some cases, this need is linked to the emergence of increasingly ‘autonomous’ AI systems (...) that can perform tasks without human control or supervision. Do such ‘autonomous’ systems pose a risk to our own human autonomy? In this article, I address the question of a trade-off between human autonomy and system ‘autonomy’. (shrink)

Justified by spectacular achievements facilitated through applied deep learning methodology, the “Everything is possible” view dominates this new hour in the “boom and bust” curve of AI performance. The optimistic view collides head on with the “It is not possible”—ascertainments often originating in a skewed understanding of both AI and medicine. The meaning of the conflicting views can be assessed only by addressing the nature of medicine. Specifically: Which part of medicine, if any, can and should be entrusted to AI—now (...) or at some moment in the future? AI or not, medicine should incorporate the anticipation perspective in providing care. (shrink)

Exploring the relationship between humans and AI chatbots, as well as the ethical concerns surrounding their use, this paper argues that our relations with chatbots are not solely based on their function as a source of knowledge, but, rather, on the desire for the subject not to know. It is argued that, outside of the very fears and anxieties that underscore our adoption of AI, the desire not to know reveals the potential to embrace the very loss AI avers. Consequently, (...) rather than proposing a knowledge that seeks to disavow loss, we can instead recognize the potential in loss itself: an opportunity to assert and define the gap inherent to both the subject and AI we create. (shrink)

Motivated by the question of responsible AI and value alignment, I seek to offer a uniquely Foucauldian reconstruction of the problem as the emergence of an ethical subject in a disciplinary setting. This reconstruction contrasts with the strictly human-oriented programme typical to current scholarship that often views technology in instrumental terms. With this in mind, I problematise the concept of a technological subjectivity through an exploration of various aspects of ChatGPT in light of Foucault’s work, arguing that current systems lack (...) the reflexivity and self-formative characteristics inherent in the notion of the subject. By drawing upon a recent dialogue between Foucault and phenomenology, I suggest four techno-philosophical desiderata that would address the gaps in this search for a technological subjectivity: embodied self-care, embodied intentionality, imagination and reflexivity. Thus I propose that advanced AI be reconceptualised as a subject capable of “technical” self-crafting and reflexive self-conduct, opening new pathways to grasp the intertwinement of the human and the artificial. This reconceptualization holds the potential to render future AI technology more transparent and responsible in the circulation of knowledge, care and power. (shrink)

This paper explores the ways in which Cordwainer Smith’s short story “Under Old Earth” problematizes emotions, who/what has them, and who/what is granted moral status. Most importantly, however, “Under Old Earth” questions the primacy of happiness in human society, especially where happiness is understood as the absence of other (negative) emotions. As such, “Under Old Earth” challenges the notion, widely held in contemporary ethics, that our moral obligation to one another is mediated through the goal of the attainment of (...) happiness. Through this challenge, Smith’s short story speaks directly to the current understanding of emotion in the field of AI, and complicates what the goal of affective computing should be. (shrink)