Asking Computers What Our Ethics Are

Last updated on: July 3, 2013 at 8:10 pm by Leah Libresco

Asking Computers What Our Ethics Are 2013-07-03T20:10:40-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In an essay on drone policy, Cyborgology is skeptical of our intuitive approach to ethics and empathy, for many of the same reasons as psychologics Paul Bloom. In the Cyborgology piece, Robin James takes a critical look at why we prize ‘the human factor’ and feel unnerved by autonomous drones:

In this view, drones are problematic because they don’t possess the “human factor”; they make mistakes because they lack the crucial information provided by “empathy” or “gut feelings” or “common sense”–faculties that give them access to kinds of information that even the best AI (supposedly) can’t process, because it’s irreducible to codable propositions. This information is contained in affective, emotional, aesthetic, and other types of social norms. It’s not communicated in words or logical propositions (which is what computer code is, a type of logical proposition), but in extra-propositional terms. Philosophers call this sort of knowledge and information “implicit understanding.” It’s a type of understanding you can’t put into words or logically-systematized symbols (like math). Implicit knowledge includes all the things you learn by growing up in a specific culture, as a specific type of person (gendered, raced, dis/abled, etc.)…

Our “empathy” and “common sense” aren’t going to save us from making bad judgment calls–they in fact enable and facilitate erroneous judgments that reinforce hegemonic social norms and institutions, like white supremacy. Just think about stop-and-frisk, a policy that is widely known to be an excuse for racial profiling. Stop-and-frisk is a policy that allowed New York City police officers to search anyone who arose, to use the NYPD’s own term, “reasonable suspicion.” As the term “reasonable” indicates, the policy requires police officers to exercise their judgment–to rely on both explicitly and implicitly known information to decide if there are good reasons to think a person is “suspicious.”

…We make such bad calls when we rely on mainstream “common sense” because it is, to use philosopher Charles Mills’s term, an “epistemology of ignorance” (RC 18). Errors have been naturalized so that they seem correct, when, in fact, they aren’t. These “cognitive dysfunctions” seem correct because all the social cues we receive reinforce their validity; they are, as Mills puts it “psychologically and socially functional”

Of course, when we code the blunt if-thens that make up a drone’s or a police officer’s heuristics, our decisions may still be informed by an “epistemology of ignorance.” But there’s something about writing down:

switch(race):

if(white): prob_search*= 0.25;

if(black): prob_search*= 1.2;

else;

That makes us flinch. It’s much easier to do things we don’t quite approve of when we can keep them shielded behind an ugh field, so their details are obscured. Whether or not we want to have autonomous drones, codifying the rules they’d operate under forces us to acknowledge the norms we currently follow. And it gives us the opportunity to change, once we notice we feel uncomfortable.

And, as machine learning advances, we may not need to write the rules down ourselves. It’s possible to computers to approximate “quintessentially human judgement” with high fidelity, as long as we give them enough data.

Imagine there was one notably trustworthy insurance claims adjuster named Alice, and we wanted to write a program that could ape her instinctive judgement. Given enough sets of inputs along with the real Alice’s decisions, it would be possible. The computer program might not come to its answers quite the same way (it’s model would probably be laden with epicycles and other errors of modelling), but it might be much closer to Alice’s judgement than any of the employees she trained.

And we could look at the code of the Alice-program to get a sense of what she might be weighting in her decisions. Maybe we’d see:

if(photo_included = TRUE)

compensation+=2000;

else;

And we might decide to excise that line and talk to Alice about stripping the photos out of the applications she processed.

Using machine learning to approximate our own decision making is a way of examining revealed preference, ethical or otherwise. I’m sure if I could look at a Leah-program that was adept at imitating the way I treat people, I’d be appalled by some of the rules of thumb that it was using. It’s easier to delete the offending code from a program than from my heart and my habits, but the act of formalizing my choices helps bring these errors to my attention, so I can act. As learning algorithms get better, I hope we make the use of this opportunity of introspection into our own behaviors and look for ways to patch our moral bugs.

Morality in Practice

Previous Post

July 1, 2013

Requiescat in pace, Magister Rus

Next Post

July 4, 2013 Happy Fourth of July!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Cornelius was a Roman centurion who was the first Gentile convert.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE