skip to main content
10.1145/3278721.3278767acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaiesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Cake, Death, and Trolleys: Dilemmas as benchmarks of ethical decision-making

Published: 27 December 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are becoming part of our lives and societies. The more decisions such systems make for us, the more we need to ensure that the decisions they make have a positive individual and societal ethical impact. How can we estimate how good a system is at making ethical decisions? Benchmarking is used to evaluate how good a machine or a process performs with respect to industry bests. In this paper we argue that (some) ethical dilemmas can be used as benchmarks for estimating the ethical performance of an autonomous system. We advocate that an open source repository of such dilemmas should be maintained. We present a prototype of such a repository available at https://imdb. uib.no/dilemmaz/articles/all1.

References

[1]
N. Aletras, D. Tsarapatsanis, D. Preotiuc-Pietro, and V. Lampos. 2016. Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science 2 (2016).
[2]
C. Allen, I. Smit, andW.Wallach. 2005. Artificial morality: Top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches. Ethics and information technology 7, 3 (2005), 149--155.
[3]
Michael Anderson and S. Leigh Anderson. 2007. Machine ethics: Creating an ethical intelligent agent. AI Magazine 28, 4 (2007), 15.
[4]
M. Anderson and S. Leigh Anderson. 2014. GenEth: A General Ethical Dilemma Analyzer. In Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 27 -31, 2014, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 253--261. http://www.aaai.org/ ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI14/paper/view/8308
[5]
M. Anderson and S. Leigh Anderson. 2015. Toward ensuring ethical behavior from autonomous systems: a case-supported principle-based paradigm. Industrial Robot 42, 4 (2015), 324--331.
[6]
S. Armstrong. 2015. Motivated Value Selection for Artificial Agents. In Artificial Intelligence and Ethics, Papers from the 2015 AAAI Workshop, Austin, Texas, USA, January 25, 2015. http://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW15/paper/view/ 10183.
[7]
T. L. Beauchamp and J. F. Childress. 1979. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.no/books?id=nreKPwAACAAJ
[8]
M. M. Bentzen. 2016. The principle of double effect applied to ethical dilemmas of social robots. IOS Press, 268--279.
[9]
S. Bringsjord, K. Arkoudas, and P. Bello. 2006. Toward a General Logicist Methodology for Engineering Ethically Correct Robots. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21, 4 (July 2006), 38--44.
[10]
J. Bryson and A.F.T. Winfield. 2017. Standardizing Ethical Design for Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems. IEEE Computer 50, 5 (2017), 116--119.
[11]
V. Charisi, L.A. Dennis, M. Fisher, R. Lieck, A. Matthias, M. Slavkovik, J. Sombetzki, A.F.T. Winfield, and R. Yampolskiy. 2017. Towards Moral Autonomous Systems. CoRR abs/1703.04741 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04741
[12]
L. A. Dennis, M. Fisher, M. Slavkovik, and M. P.Webster. 2016. Formal Verification of Ethical Choices in Autonomous Systems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 77 (2016), 1--14.
[13]
L. A. Dennis, M. Fisher, and A. F. T. Winfield. 2015. Towards Verifiably Ethical Robot Behaviour. In Proceedings of AAAI Workshop on AI and Ethics. http: //aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW15/paper/view/10119.
[14]
ElasticSearch. https://www.elastic.co/products/elasticsearch. (????). Accessed: 2017-05-09.
[15]
C. Elgin. 1996. Considered Judgment. Princeton: New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
[16]
J.W. Ellington. 1993. Translation of: Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: with On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns by Kant, I. {1785}. Hackett Publishing Company.
[17]
A. Etzioni and O. Etzioni. 2017. Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence. The Journal of Ethics (2017), 1--16.
[18]
M. Fisher, C. List, M. Slavkovik, and A. F. T. Winfield. 2016. Engineering Moral Agents - from Human Morality to Artificial Morality (Dagstuhl Seminar 16222). Dagstuhl Reports 6, 5 (2016), 114--137.
[19]
P. Foot. 1967. The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Oxford Review 5 (1967), 5--15.
[20]
Jean H Gallier. 2015. Logic for computer science: foundations of automatic theorem proving. Courier Dover Publications.
[21]
J. Garrett. 2004. A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics ofW.D. Ross. http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.htm. (2004). http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.htm Accessed: 2017-05- 09.
[22]
B. Gert and J. Gert. 2017. The Definition of Morality. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2017 ed.), E.N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
[23]
J.C. Harsanyi. 1977. Rule Utilitarianism and Decision Theory. Erkenntnis (1975-) 11, 1 (1977), 25--53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20010532
[24]
F. Lindner and M.M. Bentzen. 2017. The Hybrid Ethical Reasoning Agent IMMANUEL. In Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2017, Vienna, Austria, March 6--9, 2017. 187--188.
[25]
B. F. Malle, M. Scheutz, T. Arnold, J. Voiklis, and C. Cusimano. 2015. Sacrifice One For the Good of Many?: People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '15). ACM, 117--124.
[26]
B. McLaren. 2003. Extensionally defining principles and cases in ethics: An AI model. Artificial Intelligence 150, 1 (2003), 145 -- 181.
[27]
Jason Millar. 2016. An Ethics Evaluation Tool for Automating Ethical Decision- Making in Robots and Self-Driving Cars. Applied Artificial Intelligence 30, 8 (2016), 787--809.
[28]
B. Mobasher, R. Cooley, and J. Srivastava. 2000. Automatic Personalization Based on Web Usage Mining. Communications of ACM 43, 8 (2000), 142--151.
[29]
J. H. Moor. 2006. The Nature, Importance, and Difficulty of Machine Ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21, 4 (July 2006), 18--21.
[30]
L. M. Pereira and A. Saptawijaya. 2016. Programming Machine Ethics. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, Vol. 26. Springer.
[31]
Thomas M Powers. 2006. Prospects for a Kantian machine. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21, 4 (2006), 46--51.
[32]
W.D. Ross. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.
[33]
G. Scopino. 2015. Do Automated Trading Systems Dream of Manipulating the Price of Futures Contracts? Policing Markets for Improper Trading Practices by Algorithmic Robots. Florida Law Review 67 (2015), 221--293.
[34]
J.J. Thomson and W. Parent. 1986. The Trolley Problem. In Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory. Harvard University Press. https://books.google. no/books?id=sLh4oBgJEtEC
[35]
L. Vaughn. 2014. Beginning Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. W. W. Norton, Incorporated. https://books.google.no/books?id=BwChoAEACAAJ
[36]
A. F. T. Winfield, C. Blum, and W. Liu. 2014. Towards an Ethical Robot: Internal Models, Consequences and Ethical Action Selection. Springer International Publishing, 85--96.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Learning about AI ethics from cases: a scoping review of AI incident repositories and casesAI and Ethics10.1007/s43681-024-00639-8Online publication date: 9-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Finding middle grounds for incoherent horn expressions: the moral machine caseAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-024-09681-638:2Online publication date: 16-Oct-2024
  • (2023)Engineering Responsible And Explainable Models In Human-Agent CollectivesApplied Artificial Intelligence10.1080/08839514.2023.228283438:1Online publication date: 5-Dec-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
AIES '18: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
December 2018
406 pages
ISBN:9781450360128
DOI:10.1145/3278721
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 December 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. benchmarking
  2. machine ethics

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

AIES '18
Sponsor:
AIES '18: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
February 2 - 3, 2018
LA, New Orleans, USA

Acceptance Rates

AIES '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 61 of 162 submissions, 38%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 61 of 162 submissions, 38%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)54
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Learning about AI ethics from cases: a scoping review of AI incident repositories and casesAI and Ethics10.1007/s43681-024-00639-8Online publication date: 9-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Finding middle grounds for incoherent horn expressions: the moral machine caseAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-024-09681-638:2Online publication date: 16-Oct-2024
  • (2023)Engineering Responsible And Explainable Models In Human-Agent CollectivesApplied Artificial Intelligence10.1080/08839514.2023.228283438:1Online publication date: 5-Dec-2023
  • (2023)A Partially Synthesized Position on the Automation of Machine EthicsDigital Society10.1007/s44206-023-00040-82:2Online publication date: 21-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Trolleys, crashes, and perception—a survey on how current autonomous vehicles debates invoke problematic expectationsAI and Ethics10.1007/s43681-023-00284-74:2(473-484)Online publication date: 17-Apr-2023
  • (2022)AI Journal Special Issue on Ethics for Autonomous SystemsArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2022.103677305:COnline publication date: 1-Apr-2022
  • (2022)Pro-Social Rule Breaking as a Benchmark of Ethical Intelligence in Socio-Technical SystemsDigital Society10.1007/s44206-022-00001-71:1Online publication date: 6-Jul-2022
  • (2022)Moral dilemmas for moral machinesAI and Ethics10.1007/s43681-022-00134-y2:4(737-746)Online publication date: 8-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Immune moral models? Pro-social rule breaking as a moral enhancement approach for ethical AIAI & Society10.1007/s00146-022-01478-z38:2(801-813)Online publication date: 23-May-2022
  • (2021)Modeling and Guiding the Creation of Ethical Human-AI TeamsProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society10.1145/3461702.3462573(469-479)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media