Discourse analysis of academic debate of ethics for AGI

Artificial general intelligence is a greatly anticipated technology with non-trivial existential risks, defined as machine intelligence with competence as great/greater than humans. To date, social scientists have dedicated little effort to the ethics of AGI or AGI researchers. This paper employs in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:AI & society Vol. 37; no. 4; pp. 1519 - 1532
Main Author: Graham, Ross
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: London Springer London 01.12.2022
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects:
Anthropology
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Science
Control
Discourse analysis
Electrical engineering
Engineering Economics
Ethical standards
Ethics
Logistics
Marketing
Mechatronics
Methodology of the Social Sciences
Open Forum
Organization
Performing Arts
Philosophy
Robotics
Technicians
Ethics
Existential risk
Discourse analysis
Artificial general intelligence
Superintelligence
ISSN:0951-5666, 1435-5655
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Artificial general intelligence is a greatly anticipated technology with non-trivial existential risks, defined as machine intelligence with competence as great/greater than humans. To date, social scientists have dedicated little effort to the ethics of AGI or AGI researchers. This paper employs inductive discourse analysis of the academic literature of two intellectual groups writing on the ethics of AGI—applied and/or ‘basic’ scientific disciplines henceforth referred to as technicians (e.g., computer science, electrical engineering, physics), and philosophy-adjacent disciplines henceforth referred to as PADs (e.g., philosophy, theology, anthropology). These groups agree that AGI ethics is fundamentally about mitigating existential risk. They highlight our moral obligation to future generations, demonstrate the ethical importance of better understanding consciousness, and endorse a hybrid of deontological/utilitarian normative ethics. Technicians favor technocratic AGI governance, embrace the project of ‘solving’ moral realism, and are more deontologically inclined than PADs. PADs support a democratic approach to AGI governance, are more skeptical of deontology, consider current AGI predictions as fundamentally imprecise, and are wary of using AGI for moral fact-finding.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0951-5666
1435-5655
DOI:10.1007/s00146-021-01228-7