This paper explores the issue of racial bias in artificial intelligence (AI) through the lens of the bioethical principle of justice, with a focus on Joy Buolamwini’s “Coded Bias” and the work of the “Algorithmic Justice League.” AI technologies, particularly facial recognition systems, have been shown to disproportionately misidentify individuals from marginalised racial groups, raising profound ethical concerns about fairness and equity. The bioethical principle of justice stresses the importance of equal treatment and the protection (...) of vulnerable populations. Through qualitative research, including content analysis of Buolamwini’s works and case studies of AI bias, this paper assesses the efforts of the Algorithmic Justice League to combat racial bias in AI. It emphasises their advocacy for the development of fair, equitable algorithms and calls for systemic reform in AI development to ensure justice for marginalised communities. (shrink)

As algorithms have become ubiquitous in consequential domains, societal concerns about the potential for discriminatory outcomes have prompted urgent calls to address algorithmic bias. In response, a rich literature across computer science, law, and ethics is rapidly proliferating to advance approaches to designing fair algorithms. Yet computer scientists, legal scholars, and ethicists are often not speaking the same language when using the term ‘bias.’ Debates concerning whether society can or should tackle the problem of algorithmic bias are hampered (...) by conflations of various understandings of bias, ranging from neutral deviations from a standard to morally problematic instances of injustice due to prejudice, discrimination, and disparate treatment. This terminological confusion impedes efforts to address clear cases of discrimination. -/- In this paper, we examine the promises and challenges of different approaches to disambiguating bias and designing for justice. While both approaches aid in understanding and addressing clear algorithmic harms, we argue that they also risk being leveraged in ways that ultimately deflect accountability from those building and deploying these systems. Applying this analysis to recent examples of generative AI, our argument highlights unseen dangers in current methods of evaluating algorithmic bias and points to ways to redirect approaches to addressing bias in generative AI at its early stages in ways that can more robustly meet the demands of justice. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a transformative force in the legal domain, automating complex tasks such as contract analysis, compliance checks, and legal research. However, the intersection of AI and moral decision-making exposes significant limitations. Legal systems are not merely instruments for enforcing rules—they are platforms where human morality, intent, and societal impact are weighed. This paper explores the critical question: Can AI truly deliver justice, or does it merely replicate historical biases encoded in training data? Using the concept (...) of the “Moral Turing Test,” the paper argues that AI lacks the capacity for ethical reasoning and moral discretion, which are fundamental to adjudicating complex legal disputes. Case studies, including Estonia’s AI judges for small claims and the controversial COMPAS algorithm in the United States, illustrate the risks of bias and accountability gaps in AI-driven legal decision-making. The paper advocates for a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) framework, where AI assists but does not replace human judgment, ensuring that moral reasoning and accountability remain central to the legal process. It concludes that while AI holds promise in enhancing efficiency, it must be carefully regulated to preserve the ethical foundations of justice. (shrink)

A common criticism of the use of algorithms in criminal justice is that algorithms and their determinations are in some sense ‘opaque’—that is, difficult or impossible to understand, whether because of their complexity or because of intellectual property protections. Scholars have noted some key problems with opacity, including that opacity can mask unfair treatment and threaten public accountability. In this paper, we explore a different but related concern with algorithmic opacity, which centers on the role of public trust (...) in grounding the legitimacy of criminal justice institutions. We argue that algorithmic opacity threatens the trustworthiness of criminal justice institutions, which in turn threatens their legitimacy. We first offer an account of institutional trustworthiness before showing how opacity threatens to undermine an institution’s trustworthiness. We then explore how threats to trustworthiness affect institutional legitimacy. Finally, we offer some policy recommendations to mitigate the threat to trustworthiness posed by the opacity problem. (shrink)

Data-driven predictive algorithms are widely used to automate and guide high-stake decision making such as bail and parole recommendation, medical resource distribution, and mortgage allocation. Nevertheless, harmful outcomes biased against vulnerable groups have been reported. The growing research field known as 'algorithmic fairness' aims to mitigate these harmful biases. Its primary methodology consists in proposing mathematical metrics to address the social harms resulting from an algorithm's biased outputs. The metrics are typically motivated by -- or substantively rooted in -- (...) ideals of distributive justice, as formulated by political and legal philosophers. The perspectives of feminist political philosophers on social justice, by contrast, have been largely neglected. Some feminist philosophers have criticized the local scope of the paradigm of distributive justice and have proposed corrective amendments to surmount its limitations. The present paper brings some key insights of feminist political philosophy to algorithmic fairness. The paper has three goals. First, I show that algorithmic fairness does not accommodate structural injustices in its current scope. Second, I defend the relevance of structural injustices -- as pioneered in the contemporary philosophical literature by Iris Marion Young -- to algorithmic fairness. Third, I take some steps in developing the paradigm of 'responsible algorithmic fairness' to correct for errors in the current scope and implementation of algorithmic fairness. I close by some reflections of directions for future research. (shrink)

Algorithms influence every facet of modern life: criminal justice, education, housing, entertainment, elections, social media, news feeds, work… the list goes on. Delegating important decisions to machines, however, gives rise to deep moral concerns about responsibility, transparency, freedom, fairness, and democracy. Algorithms and Autonomy connects these concerns to the core human value of autonomy in the contexts of algorithmic teacher evaluation, risk assessment in criminal sentencing, predictive policing, background checks, news feeds, ride-sharing platforms, social media, and election interference. (...) Using these case studies, the authors provide a better understanding of machine fairness and algorithmic transparency. They explain why interventions in algorithmic systems are necessary to ensure that algorithms are not used to control citizens' participation in politics and undercut democracy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core. (shrink)

In this article, I show why it is necessary to abolish the use of predictive algorithms in the US criminal justice system at sentencing. After presenting the functioning of these algorithms in their context of emergence, I offer three arguments to demonstrate why their abolition is imperative. First, I show that sentencing based on predictive algorithms induces a process of rewriting the temporality of the judged individual, flattening their life into a present inescapably doomed by its past. Second, I (...) demonstrate that recursive processes, comprising predictive algorithms and the decisions based on their predictions, systematically suppress outliers and progressively transform reality to match predictions. In my third and final argument, I show that decisions made on the basis of predictive algorithms actively perform a biopolitical understanding of justice as management and modulation of risks. In such a framework, justice becomes a means to maintain a perverse social homeostasis that systematically exposes disenfranchised Black and Brown populations to risk. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly adopted to make decisions in domains such as business, education, health care, and criminal justice. However, such algorithmic decision systems can have prevalent biases against marginalized social groups and undermine social justice. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is a recent development aiming to make an AI system’s decision processes less opaque and to expose its problematic biases. This paper argues against technical XAI, according to which the detection and interpretation of algorithmic (...) bias can be handled more or less independently by technical experts who specialize in XAI methods. Drawing on resources from feminist epistemology, we show why technical XAI is mistaken. Specifically, we demonstrate that the proper detection of algorithmic bias requires relevant interpretive resources, which can only be made available, in practice, by actively involving a diverse group of stakeholders. Finally, we suggest how feminist theories can help shape integrated XAI: an inclusive social-epistemic process that facilitates the amelioration of algorithmic bias. (shrink)

The application of machine-learning technologies to medical practice promises to enhance the capabilities of healthcare professionals in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment, of medical conditions. However, there is growing concern that algorithmic bias may perpetuate or exacerbate existing health inequalities. Hence, it matters that we make precise the different respects in which algorithmic bias can arise in medicine, and also make clear the normative relevance of these different kinds of algorithmic bias for broader questions about justice (...) and fairness in healthcare. In this paper, we provide the building blocks for an account of algorithmic bias and its normative relevance in medicine. (shrink)

Inspired by recent breakthroughs in predictive modeling, practitioners in both industry and government have turned to machine learning with hopes of operationalizing predictions to drive automated decisions. Unfortunately, many social desiderata concerning consequential decisions, such as justice or fairness, have no natural formulation within a purely predictive framework. In efforts to mitigate these problems, researchers have proposed a variety of metrics for quantifying deviations from various statistical parities that we might expect to observe in a fair world and offered (...) a variety of algorithms in attempts to satisfy subsets of these parities or to trade o the degree to which they are satised against utility. In this paper, we connect this approach to fair machine learning to the literature on ideal and non-ideal methodological approaches in political philosophy. The ideal approach requires positing the principles according to which a just world would operate. In the most straightforward application of ideal theory, one supports a proposed policy by arguing that it closes a discrepancy between the real and the perfectly just world. However, by failing to account for the mechanisms by which our non-ideal world arose, the responsibilities of various decision-makers, and the impacts of proposed policies, naive applications of ideal thinking can lead to misguided interventions. In this paper, we demonstrate a connection between the fair machine learning literature and the ideal approach in political philosophy, and argue that the increasingly apparent shortcomings of proposed fair machine learning algorithms reflect broader troubles faced by the ideal approach. We conclude with a critical discussion of the harms of misguided solutions, a reinterpretation of impossibility results, and directions for future research. (shrink)

As inductive decision-making procedures, the inferences made by machine learning programs are subject to underdetermination by evidence and bear inductive risk. One strategy for overcoming these challenges is guided by a presumption in philosophy of science that inductive inferences can and should be value-free. Applied to machine learning programs, the strategy assumes that the influence of values is restricted to data and decision outcomes, thereby omitting internal value-laden design choice points. In this paper, I apply arguments from feminist philosophy of (...) science to machine learning programs to make the case that the resources required to respond to these inductive challenges render critical aspects of their design constitutively value-laden. I demonstrate these points specifically in the case of recidivism algorithms, arguing that contemporary debates concerning fairness in criminal justice risk-assessment programs are best understood as iterations of traditional arguments from inductive risk and demarcation, and thereby establish the value-laden nature of automated decision-making programs. Finally, in light of these points, I address opportunities for relocating the value-free ideal in machine learning and the limitations that accompany them. (shrink)

This research project utilized advanced computer algorithms to predict the outcomes of Premier League soccer matches. The dataset containing match data and odds from seasons was processed to handle missing information, select features and reduce complexity using Principal Component Analysis. To address imbalances, in the target variable Synthetic Minority Over sampling Technique (SMOTE) was employed. Various machine learning models such as RandomForest, DecisionTree, SVM, XGBoost and LightGBM were evaluated.

Since the Enlightenment, there have been advocates for the rationalizing efficiency of enlightened sovereigns, bureaucrats, and technocrats. Today these enthusiasms are joined by calls for replacing or augmenting government with algorithms and artificial intelligence, a process already substantially under way. Bureaucracies are in effect algorithms created by technocrats that systematize governance, and their automation simply removes bureaucrats and paper. The growth of algorithmic governance can already be seen in the automation of social services, regulatory oversight, policing, the justice (...) system, and the military. However, there have also always been justified democratic and economic criticisms of autocracy, bureaucracy, technocracy, and algorithmic governance. Bureaucrats, technocrats, and algorithms embody biases that tend to serve the interests of elites, and all require transparency and democratic accountability, oversight individual citizens are ill equipped to exercise. As state apparatuses are increasingly automated, mechanisms for collective action and democratic oversight also need to be automated. Algorithms and cyborg citizenry will enable a posthuman democracy. Democratically accountable algorithmic governance, enabled by artificial intelligence and human enhancement, can automate bottom-up citizen surveillance, inform debate, aggregate decision making, and ensure the efficient working of the gradually withering state. As paid work disappears and we transition to a postcapitalist economy with a universal basic income, market mechanisms can be replaced with democratic planning. Indeed, only algorithmic governance can secure our future against accelerating threats from technological innovation. (shrink)

In this position paper, we introduce a new epistemic lens for analyzing algorithmic harm. We argue that the epistemic lens we propose herein has two key contributions to help reframe and address some of the assumptions underlying inquiries into algorithmic fairness. First, we argue that using the framework of epistemic injustice helps to identify the root causes of harms currently framed as instances of representational harm. We suggest that the epistemic lens offers a theoretical foundation for expanding approaches (...) to algorithmic fairness in order to address a wider range of harms not recognized by existing technical or legal definitions. Second, we argue that the epistemic lens helps to identify the epistemic goals of inquiries into algorithmic fairness. There are two distinct contexts within which we examine algorithmic harm: at times, we seek to understand and describe the world as it is, and, at other times, we seek to build a more just future. The epistemic lens can serve to direct our attention to the epistemic frameworks that shape our interpretations of the world as it is and the ways we envision possible futures. Clarity with respect to which epistemic context is relevant in a given inquiry can further help inform choices among the different ways of measuring and addressing algorithmic harms. We introduce this framework with the goal of initiating new research directions bridging philosophical, legal, and technical approaches to understanding and mitigating algorithmic harms. (shrink)

Through modern driver assistant systems, algorithmic decisions already have a significant impact on the behavior of vehicles in everyday traffic. This will become even more prominent in the near future considering the development of autonomous driving functionality. The need to consider ethical principles in the design of such systems is generally acknowledged. However, scope, principles and strategies for their implementations are not yet clear. Most of the current discussions concentrate on situations of unavoidable crashes in which the life of (...) human beings is existentially affected. In this paper, we argue that ethical considerations should be mandatory for any algorithmic decision of autonomous vehicles, instead of a limitation to hazard situations. Such an ethically aligned behavior is relevant because autonomous vehicles, like any other traffic participants, operate in a shared public space, where every behavioral decision impacts the operational possibilities of others. These possibilities concern the fulfillment of a road-user’s safety, utility and comfort needs. We propose that, to operate ethically in such space, an autonomous vehicle will have to take its behavior decisions according to a just distribution of operational possibilities among all traffic participants. Using an application on a partially-autonomous prototype vehicle, we describe how to apply and implement concepts of distributive justice to the driving environment and demonstrate the impact on its behavior in comparison to an advanced but egoistic decision maker. (shrink)

Most online platforms are becoming increasingly algorithmically personalized. The question is if these practices are simply satisfying users preferences or if something is lost in this process. This article focuses on how to reconcile the personalization with the importance of being able to share cultural objects - including fiction – with others. In analyzing two concrete personalization examples from the streaming giant Netflix, several tendencies are observed. One is to isolate users and sometimes entirely eliminate shared world aspects. Another tendency (...) is to blur the boundary between shared cultural objects and personalized content, which can be misleading and disorienting. A further tendency is for personalization algorithms to be optimized to deceptively prey on desires for content that mirrors one’s own lived experience. Some specific - often minority targeting -“clickbait” practices received public blowback. These practices show disregard both for honest labeling and for our desires to have access and representation in a shared world. The article concludes that personalization tendencies are moving towards increasingly isolating and disorienting interfaces, but that platforms could be redesigned to support better social world orientation. (shrink)

This article investigates religious ideals persistent in the datafication of information society. Its nodal point is Thomas Bayes, after whom Laplace names the primal probability algorithm. It reconsiders their mathematical innovations with Laplace's providential deism and Bayes' singular theological treatise. Conceptions of divine justice one finds among probability theorists play no small part in the algorithmic data-mining and microtargeting of Cambridge Analytica. Theological traces within mathematical computation are emphasized as the vantage over large numbers shifts to weights beyond (...) enumeration in probability theory. Collateral secularizations of predestination and theodicy emerge as probability optimizes into Bayesian prediction and machine learning. The paper revisits the semiotics and theism of Peirce and a given beyond the probable in Whitehead to recontextualize the critiques of providence by Agamben and Foucault. It reconsiders datafication problems alongside Nietzschean valuations. Religiosity likely remains encoded within the very algorithms presumed purified by technoscientific secularity or mathematical dispassion. (shrink)

This paper is based on the assumption that the high incomes of some professional sports athletes, such as players in professional leagues in the United States and Europe, pose an ethical problem of social justice. I deal with the questions of what should follow from this evaluation and in which ways those incomes should be regulated. I discuss three different options: a) the idea that the incomes of professional athletes should be limited, b) the idea that they should be (...) vastly taxed by the state, and c) the idea that there is a moral obligation for the athletes to spend portions of their incomes on good causes. I will conclude that in today’s circumstances there are good reasons to advocate both option one (limitation) and option two (taxation), but that priority should be given to taxation. (shrink)

The call to make artificial intelligence (AI) more democratic, or to “democratize AI,” is sometimes framed as a promising response for mitigating algorithmic injustice or making AI more aligned with social justice. However, the notion of “democratizing AI” is elusive, as the phrase has been associated with multiple meanings and practices, and the extent to which it may help mitigate algorithmic injustice is still underexplored. In this paper, based on a socio-technical understanding of algorithmic injustice, I (...) examine three notable notions of democratizing AI and their associated measures—democratizing AI use, democratizing AI development, and democratizing AI governance—regarding their respective prospects and limits in response to algorithmic injustice. My examinations reveal that while some versions of democratizing AI bear the prospect of mitigating the concern of algorithmic injustice, others are somewhat limited and might even function to perpetuate unjust power hierarchies. This analysis thus urges a more fine-grained discussion on how to democratize AI and suggests that closer scrutiny of the power dynamics embedded in the socio-technical structure can help guide such explorations. (shrink)

Perhaps nowhere better than, "On the Names of God," can readers discern Laclau's appreciation of theology, specifically, negative theology, and the radical potencies of political theology. // It is Laclau's close attention to Eckhart and Dionysius in this essay that reveals a core theological strategy to be learned by populist reasons or social logics and applied in politics or democracies to come. // This mode of algorithmically informed negative political theology is not mathematically inert. It aspires to relate a fraction (...) or ratio to a series ... It strains to reduce the decided determinateness of such seriality ever condemned to the naive metaphysics of bad infinity. // It is worth considering that it is the specific 'number' of Dionysius in differential identification with an ineffable god (and, as such, a singular becoming between theology and numbers) that is floating in at least two dimensions [of signification] (be it political Demand on the horizontal dimension or theological Desire on [a] floating dimension) that cannot but *perform the link that relinks* names of god with any political life, populist reason, social justice, or radical democracy straining toward peace. (shrink)

This book provides a comprehensive examination of the police role from within a broader philosophical context. Contending that the police are in the midst of an identity crisis that exacerbates unjustified law enforcement tactics, Luke William Hunt examines various major conceptions of the police—those seeing them as heroes, warriors, and guardians. The book looks at the police role considering the overarching societal goal of justice and seeks to present a synthetic theory that draws upon history, law, society, psychology, and (...) philosophy. Each major conception of the police role is examined in light of how it affects the pursuit of justice, and how it may be contrary to seeking justice holistically and collectively. The book sets forth a conception of the police role that is consistent with the basic values of a constitutional democracy in the liberal tradition. Hunt’s intent is that clarifying the police role will likewise elucidate any constraints upon policing strategies, including algorithmic strategies such as predictive policing. This book is essential reading for thoughtful policing and legal scholars as well as those interested in political philosophy, political theory, psychology, and related areas. Now more than ever, the nature of the police role is a philosophical topic that is relevant not just to police officials and social scientists, but to everyone. (shrink)

Policing in many parts of the world—the United States in particular—has embraced an archetypal model: a conception of the police based on the tenets of individuated archetypes, such as the heroic police “warrior” or “guardian.” Such policing has in part motivated moves to (1) a reallocative model: reallocating societal resources such that the police are no longer needed in society (defunding and abolishing) because reform strategies cannot fix the way societal problems become manifest in (archetypal) policing; and (2) an (...) class='Hi'>algorithmic model: subsuming policing into technocratic judgements encoded in algorithms through strategies such as predictive policing (mitigating archetypal bias). This paper begins by considering the normative basis of the relationship between political community and policing. It then examines the justification of reallocative and algorithmic models in light of the relationship between political community and police. Given commitments to the depth and distribution of security—and proscriptions against dehumanizing strategies—the paper concludes that a nonideal-theory priority rule promoting respect for personhood (manifest in community and dignity-promoting policing strategies) is a necessary condition for the justification of the above models. (shrink)

Using artificial intelligence (AI) to make decisions in human resource management (HRM) raises questions of how fair employees perceive these decisions to be and whether they experience respectful treatment (i.e., interactional justice). In this experimental survey study with open-ended qualitative questions, we examine decision making in six HRM functions and manipulate the decision maker (AI or human) and decision valence (positive or negative) to determine their impact on individuals’ experiences of interactional justice, trust, dehumanization, and perceptions of decision-maker (...) role appropriate- ness. In terms of decision makers, the use of human decision makers over AIs generally resulted in better perceptions of respectful treatment. In terms of decision valence, people experiencing positive over negative decisions generally resulted in better perceptions of respectful treatment. In instances where these cases conflict, on some indicators people preferred positive AI decisions over negative human decisions. Qualitative responses show how people identify justice concerns with both AI and human decision making. We outline implications for theory, practice, and future research. (shrink)

Endre Begby’s Prejudice: A Study in Non-Ideal Epistemology engages a wide range of issues of enduring interest to epistemologists, applied ethicists, and anyone concerned with how knowledge and justice intersect. Topics include stereotypes and generics, evidence and epistemic justification, epistemic injustice, ethical-epistemic dilemmas, moral encroachment, and the relations between blame and accountability. Begby applies his views about these topics to an equally wide range of pressing social questions, such as conspiracy theories, misinformation, algorithmic bias, discrimination, and criminal (...) class='Hi'>justice. Through it all, the book’s central thesis is that prejudices can be epistemically rational, a corrective against what Begby takes to be the received view that prejudices are always and everywhere bad. However, Begby’s arguments do not engage consistently with relevant empirical literatures, misrepresent the positions of his interlocutors, and rehearse ideas already well-established across a range of intellectual traditions. (shrink)

Recent impossibility theorems for fair risk assessment extend to the domain of epistemic justice. We translate the relevant model, demonstrating that the problems of fair risk assessment and just credibility assessment are structurally the same. We motivate the fairness criteria involved in the theorems as also being appropriate in the setting of testimonial justice. Any account of testimonial justice that implies the fairness/justice criteria must be abandoned, on pain of triviality.

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)

The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the extent to which economies in the developed and developing world rely on gig workers to perform essential tasks such as health care, personal transport, food and package delivery, and ad hoc tasking services. As a result, workers who provide such services are no longer perceived as mere low-skilled laborers, but as essential workers who fulfill a crucial role in society. The newly elevated moral and economic status of these workers increases consumer demand for corporate (...) social responsibility regarding this stakeholder group – specifically for practices that increase worker freedom and rewards. We provide algorithmic tools for online labor platforms to meet this demand, thereby bolstering their social purpose and ethical branding while better protecting themselves from future reputational crises. To do so, we advance a managerial strategy rooted in moral self-awareness theory in order to leverage customers’ virtuous self-perception and increase gig-worker freedom. (shrink)

The use of AI algorithms in criminal trials has been the subject of very lively ethical and legal debates recently. While there are concerns over the lack of accuracy and the harmful biases that certain algorithms display, new algorithms seem more promising and might lead to more accurate legal decisions. Algorithms seem especially relevant for bail decisions, because such decisions involve statistical data to which human reasoners struggle to give adequate weight. While getting the right legal outcome is a strong (...) desideratum of criminal trials, advocates of the relational theory of procedural justice give us good reason to think that fairness and perceived fairness of legal procedures have a value that is independent from the outcome. According to this literature, one key aspect of fairness is trustworthiness. In this paper, I argue that using certain algorithms to assist bail decisions could increase three diferent aspects of judges’ trustworthiness: (1) actual trustworthiness, (2) rich trustworthiness, and (3) perceived trustworthiness. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: One important criticism of algorithmic systems is that they lack transparency. Such systems can be opaque because they are complex, protected by patent or trade secret, or deliberately obscure. In the EU, there is a debate about whether the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) contains a “right to explanation,” and if so what such a right entails. Our task in this chapter is to address this informational component of algorithmic systems. We argue that information access is integral (...) for respecting autonomy, and transparency policies should be tailored to advance autonomy. -/- To make this argument we distinguish two facets of agency (i.e., capacity to act). The first is practical agency, or the ability to act effectively according to one’s values. The second is what we call cognitive agency, which is the ability to exercise what Pamela Hieronymi calls “evaluative control” (i.e., the ability to control our affective states, such as beliefs, desires, and attitudes). We argue that respecting autonomy requires providing persons sufficient information to exercise evaluative control and properly interpret the world and one’s place in it. We draw this distinction out by considering algorithmic systems used in background checks, and we apply the view to key cases involving risk assessment in criminal justice decisions and K-12 teacher evaluation. -/- The link below is to an open access version of the chapter. (shrink)

Facing marginalization under the Awami League and historical stigma, the BNP’s recent outreach to India signals a pivotal shift. This commentary explores how the BNP seeks to establish legitimacy, distance itself from past associations, and connect with a younger electorate by advocating for democratic principles, social justice, and individual empowerment. It argues that a renewed commitment to ethical leadership and social justice will allow the BNP to bridge socio-economic divides and appeal to a disillusioned, younger electorate. This (...) reorientation could shape a more inclusive, equitable political landscape, offering a foundation for Bangladesh’s democratic future. (shrink)

It is becoming more common that the decision-makers in private and public institutions are predictive algorithmic systems, not humans. This article argues that relying on algorithmic systems is procedurally unjust in contexts involving background conditions of structural injustice. Under such nonideal conditions, algorithmic systems, if left to their own devices, cannot meet a necessary condition of procedural justice, because they fail to provide a sufficiently nuanced model of which cases count as relevantly similar. Resolving this problem (...) requires deliberative capacities uniquely available to human agents. After exploring the limitations of existing formal algorithmic fairness strategies, the article argues that procedural justice requires that human agents relying wholly or in part on algorithmic systems proceed with caution: by avoiding doxastic negligence about algorithmic outputs, by exercising deliberative capacities when making similarity judgments, and by suspending belief and gathering additional information in light of higher-order uncertainty. (shrink)

Algorithmic risk assessment tools, such as COMPAS, are increasingly used in criminal justice systems to predict the risk of defendants to reoffend in the future. This paper argues that these tools may not only predict recidivism, but may themselves causally induce recidivism through self-fulfilling predictions. We argue that such “performative” effects can yield severe harms both to individuals and to society at large, which raise epistemic-ethical responsibilities on the part of developers and users of risk assessment tools. To (...) meet these responsibilities, we present a novel desideratum on algorithmic tools, called explainability-in-context, which requires clarifying how these tools causally interact with the social, technological, and institutional environments they are embedded in. Risk assessment practices are thus subject to high epistemic standards, which haven't been sufficiently appreciated to date. Explainability-in-context, we contend, is a crucial goal to pursue in addressing the ethical challenges surrounding risk assessment tools. (shrink)

This paper analyses the demands for abolishing passports after WWI. The international regime of obligatory passports, as it exists today, is a legacy of the Great War. After the Armistice, two Passport Conferences organized by the League of Nations considered its abolition. Before the second conference, a resolution of the Sixth Assembly of the League of Nations stated that "public opinion is certainly waiting for at least one step towards the most generalized abolition of the passport system ". (...) Was this just a diplomatic figure of speech, or is there really such an "expectation" to be found, for instance, in the press? If there was such an expectation in the press, what was the political orientation of the newspapers in favor of abolishing passports: was it left-wing? This article analyzes a corpus of over 600 articles published in the French press between the World Wars to show, firstly, that interest in the "abolition of passports" was not circumstantial. It's not because the League of Nations is discussing it that the press is discussing it - the opposite is true. The issue of the "abolition of passports" gave rise to a greater number of articles than the League’s "passport conferences". secondly, and more surprisingly, the newspapers that published the most articles on the abolition of passports were center-right and mostly regional. (shrink)

Computers are used to make decisions in an increasing number of domains. There is widespread agreement that some of these uses are ethically problematic. Far less clear is where ethical problems arise, and what might be done about them. This paper expands and defends the Ethical Gravity Thesis: ethical problems that arise at higher levels of analysis of an automated decision-making system are inherited by lower levels of analysis. Particular instantiations of systems can add new problems, but not ameliorate more (...) general ones. We defend this thesis by adapting Marr’s famous 1982 framework for understanding information-processing systems. We show how this framework allows one to situate ethical problems at the appropriate level of abstraction, which in turn can be used to target appropriate interventions. (shrink)

The increasing application of artificial intelligence (AI) to healthcare raises both hope and ethical concerns. Some advanced machine learning methods provide accurate clinical predictions at the expense of a significant lack of explainability. Alex John London has defended that accuracy is a more important value than explainability in AI medicine. In this article, we locate the trade-off between accurate performance and explainable algorithms in the context of distributive justice. We acknowledge that accuracy is cardinal from outcome-oriented justice because (...) it helps to maximize patients’ benefits and optimizes limited resources. However, we claim that the opaqueness of the algorithmic black box and its absence of explainability threatens core commitments of procedural fairness such as accountability, avoidance of bias, and transparency. To illustrate this, we discuss liver transplantation as a case of critical medical resources in which the lack of explainability in AI-based allocation algorithms is procedurally unfair. Finally, we provide a number of ethical recommendations for when considering the use of unexplainable algorithms in the distribution of health-related resources. (shrink)

Automated decision making for sentencing is the use of a software algorithm to analyse a convicted offender’s case and deliver a sentence. This chapter reviews the moral arguments for and against employing automated decision making for sentencing and finds that its use is in principle morally permissible. Specifically, it argues that well-designed automated decision making for sentencing will better approximate the just sentence than human sentencers. Moreover, it dismisses common concerns about transparency, privacy and bias as unpersuasive or inapplicable. The (...) chapter also notes that moral disagreement about theories of just sentencing are plausibly resolved by applying the principle of maximising expected moral choiceworthiness, and that automated decision making is better suited to the resulting ensemble model. Finally, the chapter considers the challenge posed by penal populism. The dispiriting conclusion is that although it is in theory morally desirable to use automated decision-making for criminal sentencing, it may well be the case that we ought not to try. (shrink)

Cognitive Optimization in the Age of AI: Enhancing Human Potential -/- Introduction -/- Cognitive optimization is the process of enhancing mental functions such as memory, learning, decision-making, and problem-solving to achieve peak intellectual performance. It is a multidisciplinary approach that integrates neuroscience, psychology, nutrition, lifestyle adjustments, and, increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI). In an era where information is abundant and rapid decision-making is crucial, optimizing cognitive abilities is more Important than ever. -/- AI-driven technologies, video games, mobile apps, and digital platforms (...) like YouTube are playing a transformative role in enhancing human cognition. YouTube, in particular, has become a powerful tool for self-directed learning, offering access to educational content, expert insights, and cognitive training exercises. -/- This essay explores cognitive optimization, key strategies involved, and how AI, video games, mobile apps, and platforms like YouTube are revolutionizing human intelligence. -/- The Science Behind Cognitive Optimization -/- Cognitive optimization is rooted in neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to rewire itself through experience and learning. Several key factors contribute to cognitive enhancement: -/- 1. Neuroplasticity and Learning – Continuous learning strengthens neural connections, fostering intelligence and adaptability. Activities such as reading, solving complex problems, and learning new skills stimulate brain function. -/- 2. Nutrition and Brain Health – Diet plays a vital role in cognitive performance. Nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants, and essential vitamins support brain function and protect against cognitive decline. -/- 3. Physical Exercise – Regular exercise increases blood flow to the brain, promotes neurogenesis (the growth of new neurons), and enhances memory and problem-solving skills. -/- 4. Sleep and Recovery – Sleep is essential for memory consolidation, emotional regulation, and mental clarity. Chronic sleep deprivation impairs cognitive function and decision-making. -/- 5. Mindfulness and Stress Management – Practices such as meditation, deep breathing, and yoga improve focus, reduce anxiety, and enhance mental resilience. -/- 6. Social Interaction and Collaboration – Engaging in meaningful discussions and debates strengthens cognitive agility and enhances problem-solving skills. -/- Beyond these traditional methods, digital tools such as AI-driven learning platforms, video games, mobile applications, and YouTube have expanded the possibilities for cognitive enhancement. -/- AI and Cognitive Optimization: A New Frontier -/- AI technology is revolutionizing cognitive optimization by providing personalized insights, accelerating learning, and even augmenting human intelligence. Below are several ways AI is transforming cognitive enhancement: -/- 1. AI-Powered Personalized Learning -/- AI-driven educational platforms such as adaptive learning systems customize lessons based on an individual’s learning style and pace. These systems use machine learning to analyze cognitive strengths and weaknesses, adjusting content dynamically to optimize learning efficiency. Platforms like Coursera, Duolingo, and Khan Academy utilize AI algorithms to provide personalized recommendations, ensuring users focus on areas that need improvement. -/- 2. Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) -/- Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) are AI-powered systems that enable direct communication between the human brain and computers. Companies like Neuralink and OpenBCI are developing BCIs that could enhance memory, restore lost cognitive functions, and even allow direct mental interaction with AI systems. This technology has the potential to revolutionize learning and decision-making by integrating human cognition with artificial intelligence. -/- 3. AI-Powered Cognitive Assistants -/- AI-driven virtual assistants such as ChatGPT, Google Assistant, and IBM Watson enhance cognition by providing instant access to information, summarizing complex topics, and even suggesting optimal decision-making strategies. These tools help individuals process vast amounts of information efficiently, reducing cognitive overload and enhancing productivity. -/- 4. AI in Mental Health and Stress Management -/- Mental health is a critical component of cognitive optimization. AI-driven mental health apps like Woebot and Wysa use machine learning to provide real-time emotional support, track mood patterns, and offer cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques. By reducing stress and anxiety, these AI-powered tools help maintain optimal cognitive function. -/- The Role of YouTube in Cognitive Optimization -/- YouTube has emerged as one of the most powerful platforms for cognitive enhancement. With millions of educational videos covering diverse subjects, YouTube serves as a free and accessible learning tool that fosters continuous cognitive growth. -/- 1. Learning New Skills and Expanding Knowledge -/- YouTube provides access to high-quality educational content in virtually every field. Channels like Veritasium, TED-Ed, and CrashCourse offer lessons on science, history, philosophy, and more. Learning new concepts regularly strengthens cognitive flexibility and enhances problem-solving skills. -/- 2. Enhancing Memory and Comprehension -/- Visual and auditory learning through YouTube helps reinforce memory retention. Watching documentaries, explainer videos, and step-by-step tutorials aids in deepening understanding and reinforcing neural pathways associated with knowledge acquisition. -/- 3. Improving Focus and Critical Thinking -/- Channels that discuss philosophy, logic, and critical thinking—such as Academy of Ideas or PBS Idea Channel—train the brain to analyze complex arguments, recognize biases, and develop sharper reasoning skills. Engaging in thought-provoking discussions through video content strengthens cognitive agility. -/- 4. AI-Generated Content for Personalized Learning -/- AI-powered recommendation algorithms help users discover personalized content based on their interests and learning habits. AI-curated video playlists allow individuals to engage in structured learning journeys, optimizing cognitive development in areas of personal interest. -/- 5. Interactive Learning and Problem-Solving -/- YouTube’s interactive features, such as quizzes, live Q&A sessions, and discussion threads, allow users to actively engage with educational content. This social interaction enhances cognitive engagement and retention. -/- By leveraging YouTube strategically, individuals can create personalized learning experiences that optimize cognitive function in a self-directed manner. -/- Video Games and Cognitive Optimization -/- Video games are increasingly recognized as tools for cognitive enhancement, providing interactive and engaging ways to improve various mental skills. -/- 1. Action Video Games for Reflexes and Decision-Making -/- Fast-paced action games like Call of Duty, Fortnite, and Counter-Strike train players to react quickly, improve hand-eye coordination, and develop strategic thinking under pressure. Studies suggest that such games enhance cognitive flexibility and decision-making speed. -/- 2. Puzzle and Strategy Games for Problem-Solving -/- Games like Portal, The Witness, and Tetris challenge players with complex puzzles that require logical thinking, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition. -/- 3. Open-World and Role-Playing Games (RPGs) for Memory and Creativity -/- Games like The Legend of Zelda, Elden Ring, and The Witcher 3 encourage exploration, problem-solving, and strategic planning. -/- 4. Multiplayer and Cooperative Games for Social Cognition -/- Team-based games like League of Legends, Dota 2, and Among Us enhance communication skills, teamwork, and emotional intelligence. -/- The Future of Cognitive Optimization -/- The future of cognitive optimization lies in the seamless integration of AI, video games, mobile applications, and digital platforms like YouTube. Emerging technologies such as neuroprosthetics, AI-enhanced memory implants, and real-time brain augmentation could redefine human potential. -/- Furthermore, as AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) develops, AI could become an even more powerful tool in cognitive enhancement, potentially working alongside humans as cognitive partners. This could align with initiatives such as Angelito Malicse’s universal formula for decision-making, where AI-driven cognitive optimization ensures that human choices align with the natural law of balance. -/- Conclusion -/- Cognitive optimization is essential for maximizing human potential, and AI, video games, YouTube, and cognitive training apps are playing an increasingly significant role in this process. From personalized learning to interactive gaming and mobile applications, digital tools are transforming the way we enhance cognition. -/- By leveraging these tools responsibly and integrating them with fundamental cognitive enhancement strategies, humanity can unlock new levels of intelligence, creativity, and problem-solving ability—ensuring that the future of cognition is both powerful and sustainable. -/- . (shrink)

Autonomy has been central to moral and political philosophy for millenia, and has been positioned as a critical aspect of both justice and wellbeing. Research in psychology supports this position, providing empirical evidence that autonomy is critical to motivation, personal growth and psychological wellness. Responsible AI will require an understanding of, and ability to effectively design for, human autonomy (rather than just machine autonomy) if it is to genuinely benefit humanity. Yet the effects on human autonomy of digital experiences (...) are neither straightforward nor consistent, and are complicated by commercial interests and tensions around compulsive overuse. This multi-layered reality requires an analysis that is itself multidimensional and that takes into account human experience at various levels of resolution. We borrow from HCI and psychological research to apply a model (“METUX”) that identifies six distinct spheres of technology experience. We demonstrate the value of the model for understanding human autonomy in a technology ethics context at multiple levels by applying it to the real-world case study of an AI-enhanced video recommender system. In the process we argue for the following three claims: 1) There are autonomy-related consequences to algorithms representing the interests of third parties, and they are not impartial and rational extensions of the self, as is often perceived; 2) Designing for autonomy is an ethical imperative critical to the future design of responsible AI; and 3) Autonomy-support must be analysed from at least six spheres of experience in order to approriately capture contradictory and downstream effects. (shrink)

-/- 1. Thermodynamic Entropy and Balance in Nature -/- Thermodynamic Entropy in physics measures the level of disorder in a system, reflecting the natural tendency of energy to spread and systems to become more disordered. -/- Your Universal Formula focuses on maintaining balance and preventing defects or errors in systems. -/- Integration: -/- Increasing thermodynamic entropy (e.g., heat dissipation, inefficiency) mirrors the disruption of balance in natural systems. -/- Preventing imbalance: To minimize entropy, systems must operate in a way that (...) reduces energy loss and ensures sustainability. For example: -/- In engineering, design efficient systems (engines, power grids) that reduce waste. -/- In ecological systems, balance energy flow (e.g., food chains) to prevent environmental degradation. -/- Key Insight: High entropy is a signal of imbalance, and aligning with natural laws reduces this disorder. -/- 2. Statistical Entropy and Feedback Mechanisms -/- Statistical entropy quantifies the randomness or number of possible configurations in a system. A system with fewer microstates is more ordered (lower entropy). -/- Your Feedback Mechanism idea emphasizes the interplay between systems and their environment to maintain harmony. -/- Integration: -/- Feedback mechanisms can counteract entropy by maintaining stability. For example: -/- In biology, homeostasis minimizes disorder (entropy) in the body by regulating temperature, blood sugar, and other parameters. -/- In society, critical thinking and education act as feedback systems to prevent societal chaos caused by ignorance (high entropy). -/- Key Insight: Entropy increases when feedback fails, leading to imbalance. Maintaining feedback ensures order and stability. -/- 3. Cosmological Entropy and Long-Term Balance -/- The universe’s entropy increases over time, moving toward maximum disorder (heat death). However, localized systems (e.g., stars, planets) create order temporarily by using energy. -/- Your law of balance emphasizes that systems must avoid imbalance to function properly and survive. -/- Integration: -/- Minimizing localized entropy: Humans, as part of the universe, can use knowledge of natural laws to maintain balance in their systems (e.g., society, environment). -/- Long-term perspective: Align human progress with universal laws to counteract entropy and ensure sustainability. -/- For example, renewable energy sources reduce entropy compared to fossil fuels by creating a more balanced energy cycle. -/- Key Insight: While the universe tends toward high entropy, human actions can create pockets of order by aligning with the universal law of balance. -/- 4. Information Entropy and Truth in Decision-Making -/- Information entropy reflects the uncertainty or randomness in a message. Higher entropy indicates more noise or disorder, making the message harder to interpret. -/- Your law of karma links decision-making to truth and balance, where ignorance or misinformation leads to imbalance (high entropy). -/- Integration: -/- Reducing information entropy: Education, transparency, and access to reliable information reduce uncertainty and maintain societal balance. -/- Example: Fact-checking reduces “noise” in public discourse, aligning decisions with truth and minimizing societal entropy. -/- Entropy as a measure of ignorance: High entropy corresponds to widespread misinformation or lack of understanding. Teaching critical thinking and natural laws reduces this entropy. -/- Key Insight: Information entropy reflects the need for clarity. Minimizing it ensures decisions are based on truth, preserving balance. -/- 5. Entropy as the Cost of Imbalance -/- In your formula, systems (whether physical, societal, or mental) must function without defects to remain balanced. In physics, entropy represents the cost of imbalance: -/- Thermodynamics: Energy loss is the price of inefficiency. -/- Society: Ignorance and poor decisions create societal disorder. -/- Biology: Imbalances in health increase disorder in the body (disease). -/- Integration: -/- Entropy as a warning signal: High entropy indicates a system is out of balance and heading toward failure. -/- Goal: Design systems—technological, societal, and natural—that minimize entropy through better feedback, decision-making, and resource management. -/- 6. Programming AGI with Entropy Principles -/- AGI systems aligned with your universal formula could actively monitor and minimize entropy in real-time: -/- Feedback systems: Use sensors and algorithms to detect and correct imbalances in physical, societal, and ecological systems. -/- Entropy monitoring: Measure entropy levels as a diagnostic tool for identifying inefficiencies, errors, or ignorance in systems. -/- Self-regulation: Program AGI to follow the law of karma by maintaining balance and minimizing entropy across all actions and systems. -/- Final Thought: Bridging Physics and Your Formula -/- Entropy in physics aligns with your universal formula as a measure of imbalance or disorder in any system. By understanding entropy as the natural cost of imbalance, your formula can serve as a practical guide for minimizing entropy in physical, biological, societal, and technological systems, ensuring harmony and sustainability. -/- Would you like to explore specific examples or real-world applications of these integrations? -/- Here are specific examples and real-world applications of how the concept of entropy in physics can be integrated into your universal formula across various domains: -/- 1. Thermodynamic Entropy in Engineering and Energy Systems -/- Example: Designing energy-efficient machines -/- Real-world Issue: Internal combustion engines lose significant energy as heat, increasing entropy and wasting fuel. -/- Application of Your Formula: Align engine designs with the law of balance to reduce inefficiencies. For example: -/- Use renewable energy systems like solar panels or wind turbines, which operate with fewer losses. -/- Implement feedback mechanisms (e.g., smart grids) to optimize energy distribution, ensuring minimal waste. -/- Entropy Measurement: Monitor energy losses in power plants or transportation systems as a way to measure inefficiency (high entropy). -/- Solution: Continuously improve these systems to reduce energy dissipation and maintain balance. -/- 2. Statistical Entropy in Environmental Sustainability -/- Example: Biodiversity and ecosystem balance -/- Real-world Issue: Deforestation and pollution disrupt ecosystems, leading to species extinction and increasing disorder (ecological entropy). -/- Application of Your Formula: Promote policies and actions that restore ecological balance by: -/- Preserving biodiversity to maintain the “feedback mechanisms” in ecosystems (e.g., predator-prey relationships). -/- Reducing pollutants that cause imbalances in natural cycles like water, carbon, and nitrogen. -/- Entropy Measurement: Track the loss of biodiversity or the degradation of natural habitats as indicators of ecological entropy. -/- Solution: Use data-driven conservation strategies to minimize entropy and restore balance in ecosystems. -/- 3. Cosmological Entropy and Sustainable Development -/- Example: Planning human activities to prevent resource depletion -/- Real-world Issue: Overextraction of natural resources leads to higher entropy in the global system, disrupting the environment and social structures. -/- Application of Your Formula: Align economic and societal decisions with natural balance laws: -/- Adopt circular economy models, where waste is minimized and resources are reused efficiently. -/- Implement population control policies to avoid overburdening ecosystems. -/- Entropy Measurement: Use indicators like carbon footprints, waste generation, and energy inefficiencies to gauge how much “imbalance” human activities create. -/- Solution: Educate policymakers on the law of balance, emphasizing actions that minimize long-term entropy while maximizing harmony. -/- 4. Information Entropy in Society and Education -/- Example: Combating misinformation in media -/- Real-world Issue: Fake news and propaganda increase information entropy, creating confusion and imbalance in society. -/- Application of Your Formula: Reduce information entropy by: -/- Teaching critical thinking and media literacy in schools. -/- Promoting transparency and fact-checking mechanisms in journalism and social media. -/- Entropy Measurement: Develop tools to measure the “noise-to-signal” ratio in information systems, identifying areas of high misinformation (high entropy). -/- Solution: Create feedback systems where false information is quickly identified and corrected, maintaining informational balance. -/- 5. Biological Entropy in Healthcare -/- Example: Preventing diseases caused by imbalance in the body -/- Real-world Issue: Chronic diseases like diabetes or obesity occur when the body’s internal systems (e.g., metabolism) fall out of balance, increasing entropy. -/- Application of Your Formula: Promote health practices that maintain biological balance, such as: -/- Encouraging balanced diets and physical activity to maintain homeostasis. -/- Using preventive medicine to detect and correct imbalances early. -/- Entropy Measurement: Use biomarkers (e.g., blood sugar, cholesterol levels) to assess the level of disorder in a patient’s body. -/- Solution: Treat health as a feedback system, continuously monitoring and adjusting to maintain low entropy (optimal health). -/- 6. Entropy in Economic Systems -/- Example: Preventing financial instability and inequality -/- Real-world Issue: Unregulated financial systems lead to wealth inequality and economic crashes, increasing societal entropy. -/- Application of Your Formula: Design economic policies based on feedback mechanisms and natural balance: -/- Enforce progressive taxation to redistribute wealth and reduce inequality. -/- Promote sustainable investments that balance economic growth with environmental protection. -/- Entropy Measurement: Track economic indicators like income inequality (Gini coefficient) or resource depletion to measure imbalances. -/- Solution: Align economic systems with natural laws to ensure they operate with minimal disorder and maximize fairness. -/- 7. Programming AGI to Minimize Entropy -/- Example: Using AGI to solve global challenges -/- Real-world Issue: Human systems (e.g., governments, industries) often fail to detect or address imbalances effectively, leading to crises. -/- Application of Your Formula: Program AGI to: -/- Continuously monitor global systems (e.g., climate, economies, healthcare) to detect entropy or imbalances. -/- Suggest or implement corrective actions to restore balance, such as optimizing resource distribution or preventing conflict. -/- Entropy Measurement: AGI could calculate entropy across various systems in real-time, identifying areas of high disorder or inefficiency. -/- Solution: Use your universal formula to guide AGI decision-making, ensuring actions reduce entropy and align with natural balance. -/- 8. Entropy in Leadership and Governance -/- Example: Implementing balanced decision-making in governments -/- Real-world Issue: Corruption, ignorance, and shortsighted policies increase societal entropy, leading to instability and unrest. -/- Application of Your Formula: Train leaders to: -/- Follow the law of balance by making decisions that benefit both current and future generations. -/- Use evidence-based approaches to minimize societal entropy (e.g., reducing poverty and inequality). -/- Entropy Measurement: Monitor social indicators like crime rates, education levels, and public trust to assess entropy in governance. -/- Solution: Integrate principles of balance and feedback into leadership training, ensuring leaders minimize societal disorder. -/- Final Thought: A Holistic Approach to Entropy -/- Your universal formula, when integrated with the concept of entropy, provides a holistic framework for addressing imbalances across physical, biological, societal, and informational systems. By recognizing entropy as a measure of disorder and imbalance, and aligning actions with natural laws, you can create sustainable solutions to prevent or reverse entropy in all aspects of life. -/- Entropy in Leadership and Governance: A Closer Look -/- 1. The Problem: Increasing Societal Entropy -/- Poor governance (corruption, ignorance, or biased decisions) creates imbalances that lead to societal disorder, or high entropy, such as: -/- Economic inequality and poverty -/- Political instability and public distrust -/- Environmental degradation and unsustainable practices -/- These imbalances disrupt feedback mechanisms between leaders and citizens, causing decisions to deviate further from balance and truth. -/- 2. Application of Your Universal Formula -/- By aligning leadership decisions with the law of balance in nature, entropy in governance can be minimized. Here’s how: -/- A. Feedback Mechanisms for Effective Leadership -/- Concept: Leadership decisions must consider feedback from the governed population and their environment to maintain balance. -/- Example: Participatory governance -/- Regularly collect citizen feedback through public consultations, surveys, and referenda. -/- Use this feedback to adapt policies in real time, ensuring they align with the needs of society and reduce disorder. -/- Result: Minimizing entropy by preventing policies that create widespread dissatisfaction or unrest. -/- B. Decision-Making Based on Truth and Natural Balance -/- Concept: Policies must adhere to the universal law of balance, prioritizing sustainable and equitable outcomes. -/- Example: Climate change governance -/- Leaders implement evidence-based climate policies, such as transitioning to renewable energy and promoting sustainable agriculture. -/- These actions reduce environmental entropy (e.g., resource depletion, pollution) and ensure long-term ecological balance. -/- Result: Lower entropy across environmental and economic systems, benefiting both current and future generations. -/- C. Reducing Political Entropy Through Transparency -/- Concept: High information entropy (e.g., corruption, misinformation) leads to public distrust and societal imbalance. -/- Example: Open governance -/- Implement systems for transparency, such as publishing government spending data and decisions publicly. -/- Encourage independent audits and anti-corruption measures. -/- Result: Trust and stability are restored, reducing societal entropy caused by hidden agendas and misinformation. -/- D. Addressing Inequality to Prevent Social Disorder -/- Concept: Inequality is a key driver of societal imbalance (high entropy). Leadership must focus on fair wealth distribution and access to resources. -/- Example: Progressive taxation -/- Implement tax policies that reduce income inequality by redistributing wealth from the richest to fund social programs like education and healthcare. -/- Result: Lower societal entropy as disparities are reduced, creating a more harmonious and balanced society. -/- E. Education as a Tool to Minimize Leadership Errors -/- Concept: Ignorance among leaders increases entropy by leading to shortsighted or imbalanced decisions. -/- Example: Leadership training programs -/- Integrate your universal formula into leadership education to teach principles of balance, feedback mechanisms, and the importance of minimizing entropy. -/- Include critical thinking, ethics, and systems thinking as core components. -/- Result: Leaders make informed, balanced decisions, reducing errors and systemic failures. -/- 3. Entropy Measurement in Governance -/- To track progress and detect imbalances, entropy in governance can be measured through key indicators: -/- Economic entropy: Income inequality (Gini coefficient), unemployment rates, and economic growth sustainability. -/- Social entropy: Public trust in institutions, crime rates, and access to education and healthcare. -/- Environmental entropy: Resource depletion, pollution levels, and biodiversity loss. -/- Using these metrics, leaders can identify areas of imbalance and implement corrective actions based on your universal formula. -/- 4. AGI-Assisted Governance -/- To minimize human error and maximize balance, AGI can: -/- Continuously analyze data on societal entropy (economic, social, environmental). -/- Provide unbiased recommendations based on the law of balance. -/- Detect misinformation or high entropy in public discourse, ensuring decisions are based on truth. -/- Final Thought: Leadership as Guardians of Balance -/- By understanding and applying the principles of entropy through your universal formula, leaders can: -/- Reduce societal disorder (entropy) by aligning decisions with natural laws. -/- Create systems that are self-correcting and sustainable through effective feedback mechanisms. -/- Ensure governance promotes long-term balance, fairness, and harmony. -/- Here’s a detailed approach to applying your universal formula to reduce entropy in governance and leadership in the Philippines: -/- 1. Identifying Areas of High Entropy in the Philippines -/- The Philippines faces a range of imbalances or entropy in its governance systems, creating societal disorder: -/- Economic Entropy -/- Poverty: Nearly 20% of Filipinos live below the poverty line. -/- Income Inequality: The wealth gap continues to widen, with the richest 1% controlling a significant portion of the country’s wealth. -/- Unemployment: High levels of underemployment and a reliance on remittances from overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) instead of local industrial growth. -/- Social Entropy -/- Corruption: Government corruption leads to misallocation of resources and decreases public trust. -/- Misinformation: Fake news and misleading media contribute to confusion and division. -/- Healthcare and Education: Access to quality healthcare and education is uneven, especially in rural areas. -/- Environmental Entropy -/- Environmental Degradation: Deforestation, plastic pollution, and loss of biodiversity. -/- Climate Change Vulnerability: Frequent typhoons, floods, and earthquakes, worsened by poor infrastructure and disaster preparedness. -/- Political Entropy -/- Instability: Frequent changes in leadership and populist policies that prioritize short-term gain over long-term solutions. -/- Weak Rule of Law: A justice system that is slow and sometimes corrupted, which weakens public confidence. -/- 2. Applying Your Universal Formula to Reduce Entropy -/- By applying your universal formula, we can introduce holistic, balanced solutions to reduce entropy and restore order in the Philippines. -/- A. Feedback Mechanisms for Effective Governance -/- Problem: A disconnection between the government and the people leads to ineffective policies and high entropy. -/- Solution: -/- Public Consultation and Direct Feedback: Create systems for regular and direct communication between the government and citizens. Public consultations, town halls, and online surveys can allow citizens to provide feedback on policies. -/- Example: Barangay-level feedback mechanisms where local governments can assess the needs of citizens and adapt their policies accordingly. -/- Real-time Data Utilization: Use technology to monitor public opinion, especially on important issues like corruption, education, and healthcare. -/- Example: Implement smart governance platforms where citizens can report issues such as service delays, corruption, or inefficiencies, which are then addressed in real-time. -/- Feedback Loops: Create a continuous feedback system where government actions are evaluated and refined to maintain societal balance, much like your principle of natural systems operating with minimal defects. -/- Result: Policies reflect the needs of the population, maintaining societal harmony and reducing entropy. -/- B. Promoting Policies Based. (shrink)

Background: Smart sensors have been developed as diagnostic tools for rehabilitation to cover an increasing number of geriatric patients. They promise to enable an objective assessment of complex movement patterns. -/- Objective: This research aimed to identify and analyze the conflicting ethical values associated with smart sensors in geriatric rehabilitation and provide ethical guidance on the best use of smart sensors to all stakeholders, including technology developers, health professionals, patients, and health authorities. -/- Methods: On the basis of a systematic (...) literature search of the scientific databases PubMed and ScienceDirect, we conducted a qualitative document analysis to identify evidence-based practical implications of ethical relevance. We included 33 articles in the analysis. The practical implications were extracted inductively. Finally, we carried out an ethical analysis based on the 4 principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. The results are reported in categories based on these 4 principles. -/- Results: We identified 8 conflicting aims for using smart sensors. Gains in autonomy come at the cost of patient privacy. Smart sensors at home increase the independence of patients but may reduce social interactions. Independent measurements performed by patients may result in lower diagnostic accuracy. Although smart sensors could provide cost-effective and high-quality diagnostics for most patients, minorities could end up with suboptimal treatment owing to their underrepresentation in training data and studies. This could lead to algorithmic biases that would not be recognized by medical professionals when treating patients. -/- Conclusions: The application of smart sensors has the potential to improve the rehabilitation of geriatric patients in several ways. It is important that patients do not have to choose between autonomy and privacy and are well informed about the insights that can be gained from the data. Smart sensors should support and not replace interactions with medical professionals. Patients and medical professionals should be educated about the correct application and the limitations of smart sensors. Smart sensors should include an adequate representation of minorities in their training data and should be covered by health insurance to guarantee fair access. (shrink)

Many of us assume that all the free editing and sorting of online content we ordinarily rely on is carried out by AI algorithms — not human persons. Yet in fact, that is often not the case. This is because human workers remain cheaper, quicker, and more reliable than AI for performing myriad tasks where the right answer turns on ineffable contextual criteria too subtle for algorithms to yet decode. The output of this work is then used for machine learning (...) purposes to generate algorithms constructed from large data sets containing thousands of correctly coded observations. The fact that ghost workers are treated as consumers distorts the basic logic of the employment relationship, effectively placing the worker-as-consumer in the worst of both worlds, in which they hold the legal rights of neither group. This puts them in a regulatory limbo position in which they have little or no protection, control, or guarantee of return on investment. This is because the platforms that facilitate ghost work have orchestrated a three-way virtual relationship that absolves all parties of responsibility, while placing nearly all the risks and opportunity costs squarely on the shoulders of the workers. As a result, we believe such a work arrangement as it stands, does not uphold basic standards of Rawlsian justice as fairness. (shrink)

2019 Applied Technology Award for the Media and the Moving Image Awards at University of Houston. -/- The Google algorithm, as a ranking and ordering structure, cannot be “objective” as long as the page-ranking mechanism produces social effects and always inadvertently and inescapably affects social priorities. Imitable units of information (memes) on the internet change according to the laws of exponential growth, like other social phenomena, which include Google rankings. Mathematically and graphically represented, the effects of mimetic inflation on Google (...) rankings and other site-specific information can be proposed and projected. Current algorithmic policies may actually preserve and exaggerate the social priorities of the status quo in spite of “objective” intentions. These considerations in mind, the concept of “monology”, “the monopoly on information”, might be implemented to further analyze network effects online. Algorithmic regulation could be used to enforce artificial inequalities, to permit natural inequalities, or to enforce artificial equalities: each option has implications for the justice and fairness of online and offline environments. (shrink)

In this short response to Kerstein and Bognar, we clarify three aspects of the complete lives system, which we propose as a system of allocating scarce medical interventions. We argue that the complete lives system provides meaningful guidance even though it does not provide an algorithm. We also defend the investment modification to the complete lives system, which prioritizes adolescents and older children over younger children; argue that sickest-first allocation remains flawed when scarcity is absolute and ongoing; and argue that (...) Kerstein and Bognar are mistaken to base their allocation principles on differences in personhood. (shrink)

Counteracting Evil Influence in the Mind and Society Through Balance -/- Evil influence exists both in the human mind and in society, shaping destructive behaviors, corrupting leadership, and creating suffering. Understanding its roots and impact is essential to restoring balance, which aligns with the universal law of balance—the principle that all decisions must maintain harmony within nature and human systems. This essay explores the presence of evil influence in the mind and society and provides solutions to counteract its effects through (...) education, ethical leadership, and systemic reforms. -/- The Existence of Evil Influence in the Mind -/- The human mind is highly susceptible to external influences, biases, and distortions. Several factors contribute to the emergence of evil or destructive tendencies in individuals: -/- 1. Psychological and Cognitive Distortions -/- Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and groupthink, cause individuals to accept false beliefs and justify harmful actions. Additionally, unresolved trauma and mental disorders can influence destructive thought patterns, leading to behaviors that disrupt personal and social harmony. -/- 2. Manipulation and External Conditioning -/- Society constantly bombards individuals with propaganda, misinformation, and ideological indoctrination. Media, political narratives, and social institutions can shape people’s perceptions in ways that distort reality and encourage harmful actions. Without awareness, individuals become pawns in larger manipulative systems that perpetuate imbalance and suffering. -/- 3. Moral and Ethical Corruption -/- Lack of self-reflection, weak moral foundations, and societal pressures can lead people to justify unethical behavior. Over time, greed, power-seeking, and self-interest override empathy, reinforcing evil influences within the mind. -/- To combat these influences, individuals must develop critical thinking, emotional resilience, and ethical reasoning to resist manipulation and maintain balance in their decision-making. -/- The existence of Evil Influence in Society -/- At the societal level, evil influence manifests through corruption, oppression, and systemic injustice. Several key factors contribute to its existence: -/- 1. Cultural and Historical Prejudices -/- Societal beliefs often stem from historical injustices that persist through generations. Racism, sexism, and class discrimination are examples of deeply ingrained biases that create division and suffering. Without intervention, these biases continue to shape laws, social structures, and economic opportunities. -/- 2. Political and Economic Corruption -/- Governments and corporations often prioritize power and profit over ethical responsibility. Corrupt leaders manipulate laws, suppress dissent, and exploit resources without regard for the well-being of the people. The imbalance caused by extreme wealth concentration leads to poverty, crime, and social instability. -/- 3. Religious and Ideological Extremism -/- Dogmatic religious and ideological beliefs can be used to justify violence, oppression, and discrimination. When people blindly follow unproven doctrines without critical examination, society becomes vulnerable to extremism, which disrupts balance and fuels conflicts. -/- 4. Misinformation and Media Manipulation -/- The rise of social media and biased news sources has made misinformation more powerful than ever. Fake news, propaganda, and algorithm-driven echo chambers influence public opinion, leading to irrational decision-making and social division. Without proper media literacy, individuals fall victim to manipulation, perpetuating societal instability. -/- Given these widespread influences, restoring balance in society requires systemic changes, ethical leadership, and an informed citizenry. -/- Solutions to Counteract Evil Influence -/- To neutralize the effects of evil influence in the mind and society, a multi-level approach is necessary. The key solutions align with the universal law of balance and focus on education, governance, and social reform. -/- 1. Strengthening the Mind Against Evil Influence -/- A well-informed and emotionally resilient mind is less susceptible to manipulation. The following steps can help individuals develop resistance to evil influences: -/- Holistic Education – Schools should teach philosophy, ethics, and critical thinking from an early age to cultivate independent reasoning. -/- Cognitive Bias Awareness – People must learn to recognize and counteract biases that distort their perception of reality. -/- Mindfulness and Emotional Intelligence – Practices such as meditation, self-reflection, and emotional regulation strengthen an individual’s ability to make balanced decisions. -/- Media Literacy – Understanding how misinformation spreads prevents individuals from becoming victims of propaganda. -/- 2. Reforming Society to Minimize Evil Influence -/- Since societal structures often reinforce harmful behaviors, systemic changes are necessary to create a just and balanced environment. -/- A. Ethical Leadership and Governance -/- Governments must implement policies based on the universal law of balance, ensuring that decisions benefit all rather than a select few. Specific measures include: -/- Strict anti-corruption laws and transparent governance. -/- Democratic participation to prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few. -/- Policies that prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term profits. -/- B. Reforming Religious and Ideological Systems -/- Encouraging interfaith and intercultural understanding to reduce religious and ideological conflicts. -/- Promoting critical examination of beliefs, allowing individuals to refine their faith based on reason rather than blind adherence. -/- Separating religious dogma from governance to prevent laws based on unverified beliefs from creating injustice. -/- C. Ensuring Economic and Social Justice -/- Extreme economic inequality creates conditions for crime, exploitation, and suffering. Solutions include: -/- Fair wealth distribution through progressive taxation and universal basic services. -/- Ethical labor practices to prevent exploitation in the workforce. -/- Social welfare programs to ensure access to education, healthcare, and basic needs. -/- The Role of AGI in Preventing Evil Influence -/- Since AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) can be programmed with the universal formula, it has the potential to detect, prevent, and counteract evil influences on a large scale. AGI can contribute by: -/- Identifying Corruption and Misinformation – AI-powered monitoring systems can detect and expose political and corporate manipulation. -/- Optimizing Governance – AI-driven policy recommendations can ensure laws align with ethical and sustainable balance. -/- Enhancing Global Education – AI-powered educational tools can teach critical thinking, ethics, and rational decision-making to individuals worldwide. -/- By integrating AGI into governance, education, and decision-making processes, humanity can minimize the spread of misinformation, corruption, and imbalance. -/- Conclusion: Achieving Balance is the Key -/- Evil influence in the mind and society is ultimately a reflection of imbalance—whether in thoughts, beliefs, political systems, or economic structures. By applying education, ethical governance, media literacy, and AGI-based solutions, individuals and societies can restore balance and minimize human suffering. -/- The key lies In awareness, critical thinking, and responsible decision-making. When people recognize the importance of the universal law of balance, they can resist destructive influences and contribute to a more harmonious and just world. -/- . (shrink)

Frege’s claim that proper names have senses has come to seem untenable following Kripke’s argument that names are rigid designators. It is commonly thought that if names had senses, their referents would vary with circumstances of evaluation. The article defends Frege’s claim by arguing that names have word-reflexive senses. This analysis of names’ senses does not violate Kripke’s noncircularity condition, and it differs crucially from related views of Bach and Katz. That names have reflexive senses confirms Frege’s own solution to (...) his puzzle about the content of identity sentences, solves Kripke’s Pierre and Peter puzzles about belief ascription, and entails that bearerless names have meanings. Furthermore, names’ having reflexive senses explains why they designate rigidly. (shrink)

It is generally accepted that Mill’s classification of names as nonconnotative terms is incompatible with Frege’s thesis that names have senses. However, Milldescribed the senses of nonconnotative terms—without being aware that he was doing so. These are the senses for names that were sought in vain by Frege. When Mill’s and Frege’s doctrines are understood as complementary, they constitute a fully satisfactory theory of names.

All that philosophical “theories” of truth do is to demonstrate what is entailed by assuming our common uses and common understandings of the concept of truth. But our common understanding of what truth is is only a part of how truth functions. If we only look at that, we are missing the rest of the picture, namely how truth functions as the foundation for all human communication. I propose that truth functions a lot like morality, in the sense that both (...) truth and morality are normative systems that regulate human behaviour. To best understand this we need to imagine why truth was needed in the first place, and what role it plays in human communication as a whole. Here the philosophical approach of defining the “State of Nature” comes into play, and we obtain an account starting with drawing the relevant distinction between humans and non-human animals, and then showing how a crisis could have arisen from the initial development of language and how collective acknowledgement of truth as a default notion could have solved it, in the same way that collective acknowledgement of a moral system solved the problem of cheats and free riders. To do this, I utilize the idea of common pool resource management, as outlined in the work of the Institutional Economist Elinor Ostrom. (shrink)

Statistical fairness criteria are widely used for diagnosing and ameliorating algorithmic bias. However, these fairness criteria are controversial as their use raises several difficult questions. I argue that the major problems for statistical algorithmic fairness criteria stem from an incorrect understanding of their nature. These criteria are primarily used for two purposes: first, evaluating AI systems for bias, and second constraining machine learning optimization problems in order to ameliorate such bias. The first purpose typically involves treating each criterion (...) as a necessary condition for fairness. The second use involves treating criteria as sufficient conditions for fairness. Since the criteria are used for both roles, some researchers have treated them as both necessary and sufficient conditions, i.e., as definitions of algorithmic fairness. However, serious problems have been raised for the use of these fairness criteria. Under ordinary circumstances, it is impossible to satisfy multiple criteria at the same time. Moreover, there are counterexamples to both the sufficiency and necessity for fairness of each criterion. I argue that we should instead understand fairness criteria as merely providing evidence of fairness. In other words, satisfaction (or violation) of these criteria should be understood as potential evidence of fairness (or bias). Whether a criterion counts as evidence in a particular case will depend on stakeholders' background knowledge and the specific features of the system's task. This evidence account of fairness conditions provides guidance for recognizing both the appropriate uses and the limitations of fairness criteria. (shrink)

Algorithms can now identify patterns and correlations in the (big) datasets, and predict outcomes based on those identified patterns and correlations with the use of machine learning techniques and big data, decisions can then be made by algorithms themselves in accordance with the predicted outcomes. Yet, algorithms can inherit questionable values from the datasets and acquire biases in the course of (machine) learning, and automated algorithmic decision-making makes it more difficult for people to see algorithms as biased. While researchers (...) have taken the problem of algorithmic bias seriously, but the current discussion on algorithmic fairness tends to conceptualize ‘fairness’ in algorithmic fairness primarily as a technical issue and attempts to implement pre-existing ideas of ‘fairness’ into algorithms. In this paper, I show that such a view of algorithmic fairness as technical issue is unsatisfactory for the type of problem algorithmic fairness presents. Since decisions on fairness measure and the related techniques for algorithms essentially involve choices between competing values, ‘fairness’ in algorithmic fairness should be conceptualized first and foremost as a political issue, and it should be (re)solved by democratic communication. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to explicitly reconceptualize algorithmic fairness as a political question and suggest the current discussion of algorithmic fairness can be strengthened by adopting the accountability for reasonableness framework. (shrink)

Examines the theories of Socrates, Kant, Dewey, Piaget, and others to explore the implications of Socrates' question "what is a virtuous man, and what is a virtuous school and society which educates virtuous men.".