| Title |
This “Ethical Trap” Is for Roboticists, Not Robots: On the Issue of Artificial Agent Ethical Decision-Making
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-016-9785-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Keith W. Miller, Marty J. Wolf, Frances Grodzinsky |
| Abstract |
In this paper we address the question of when a researcher is justified in describing his or her artificial agent as demonstrating ethical decision-making. The paper is motivated by the amount of research being done that attempts to imbue artificial agents with expertise in ethical decision-making. It seems clear that computing systems make decisions, in that they make choices between different options; and there is scholarship in philosophy that addresses the distinction between ethical decision-making and general decision-making. Essentially, the qualitative difference between ethical decisions and general decisions is that ethical decisions must be part of the process of developing ethical expertise within an agent. We use this distinction in examining publicity surrounding a particular experiment in which a simulated robot attempted to safeguard simulated humans from falling into a hole. We conclude that any suggestions that this simulated robot was making ethical decisions were misleading. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 25% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 15 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 15% |
| Philosophy | 7 | 11% |
| Engineering | 7 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#835
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,780
of 302,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 302,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.