James Brusseau

A mimetic AI professor reproduces a specific human professor’s pedagogical method. Within an academic domain, the vocabulary, conceptual framing, and interaction patterns defining the AI mirror those of the human professor it emulates. In this model, knowledge is represented as accurate replication of a subject-matter expert, as opposed to generic subject-matter expertise. This paper provides an ethical and technical foundation for mimetic AI pedagogy by addressing three questions. First, it defines the concept of the mimetic AI professor and outlines why it may provide learning enhancement. Next, it outlines potential instructional roles the AI could play. Then, core human dilemmas that mimetic systems provoke are analyzed, and design responses are proposed. Finally, the paper consolidates as an ethics framework for mimetic AI professors containing these categories of ethical analysis: Autonomy, Dignity, Privacy, Fairness, Equity, Social wellbeing, Explainability, Performance. The framework intends to be useful for professors, engineers, and universities designing their own mimetic AI tools in the education domain.

Acceleration ethics addresses the tension between innovation and safety in artificial intelligence. The acceleration argument is that risks raised by innovation should be answered with still more innovating. This paper summarizes the theoretical position, and then shows how acceleration ethics works in a real case. To begin, the paper summarizes acceleration ethics as composed of five elements: innovation solves innovation problems, innovation is intrinsically valuable, the unknown is encouraging, governance is decentralized, and ethics is embedded. Subsequently, the paper illustrates the acceleration framework with a use-case, a generative artificial intelligence language tool developed by the Canadian telecommunications company Telus. While the purity of theoretical positions is blurred by real-world circumstances, the Telus experience documents acceleration AI ethics as a way of maximizing social responsibility through innovation.

The Internet of Musical Things (IoMusT) is an emerging field of academic and industrial research that extends the Internet of Things to the musical domain. Scarce research has been conducted on the field’s ethical aspects, and to fill this gap we propose a framework for the ethical design and evaluation of IoMusT technologies and applications. Besides being ethically rigorous, the framework seeks to be accessible for information engineers, musicians, and the wider circle of participants in the IoMusT. The purpose is to facilitate and quicken the process of ethically designing and evaluating work at the intersection of network-based technology and musical creativity. Finally, we exemplify the framework by applying it to an IoMusT experimental performance. Beyond facilitating the ethical evaluation of technologically enhanced music, the framework also advances work in contemporary AI ethics in two ways. First, by introducing the principles of creativity and decentralization as critical to ethically exploring musical creativity. Second, by organizing the principles of AI ethics under a human-centric logic.

This article’s main contributions are twofold: 1) to demonstrate how to apply the general European Union’s High-Level Expert Group’s (EU HLEG) guidelines for trustworthy AI in practice for the domain of healthcare and 2) to investigate the research question of what does “trustworthy AI” mean at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, we present the results of a post-hoc self-assessment to evaluate the trustworthiness of an AI system for predicting a multiregional score conveying the degree of lung compromise in COVID-19 patients, developed and verified by an interdisciplinary team with members from academia, public hospitals, and industry in time of pandemic. The AI system aims to help radiologists to estimate and communicate the severity of damage in a patient’s lung from Chest X-rays. It has been experimentally deployed in the radiology department of the ASST Spedali Civili clinic in Brescia, Italy, since December 2020 during pandemic time. The methodology we have applied for our post-hoc assessment, called Z-Inspection®, uses sociotechnical scenarios to identify ethical, technical, and domain-specific issues in the use of the AI system in the context of the pandemic.

Ethics evaluations of companies that function with AI at their core are increasingly required by regulation and law in Europe and the US. Investors in artificial intelligence (AI)-intensive companies also seek ethics evaluations as part of the nonfinancial information they gather about corporate performance, especially as it relates to privacy and algorithmic fairness. The result is an increasing demand for the evaluations. The costs and time necessary to perform an AI ethics audit, however, are high, even prohibitive. To solve the problem, natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) can be employed to automate the process. The proposal is that much of the work of AI evaluating can be accomplished more efficiently by machines than by humans. To show how automated ethics reporting may work, this paper describes a project currently underway at Pace University in New York and the University of Trento in Italy. The project endeavours to apply AI to the task of producing AI ethics evaluations. Keywords: AI, AI ethics, ethical investing, AI human impact, fintech, natural language processing

This paper documents how an ethically aligned co-design methodology ensures trustworthiness in the early design phase of an artificial intelligence (AI) system component for healthcare. The system explains decisions made by deep learning networks analyzing images of skin lesions. The co-design of trustworthy AI developed here used a holistic approach rather than a static ethical checklist and required a multidisciplinary team of experts working with the AI designers and their managers. Ethical, legal, and technical issues potentially arising from the future use of the AI system were investigated. This paper is a first report on co-designing in the early design phase. Our results can also serve as guidance for other early-phase AI-similar tool developments.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to greatly improve the delivery of healthcare and other services that advance population health and wellbeing. However, the use of AI in healthcare also brings potential risks that may cause unintended harm. To guide future developments in AI, the High-Level Expert Group on AI set up by the European Commission (EC), recently published ethics guidelines for what it terms “trustworthy” AI. These guidelines are aimed at a variety of stakeholders, especially guiding practitioners toward more ethical and more robust applications of AI. In line with efforts of the EC, AI ethics scholarship focuses increasingly on converting abstract principles into actionable recommendations. However, the interpretation, relevance, and implementation of trustworthy AI depend on the domain and the context in which the AI system is used. The main contribution of this paper is to demonstrate how to use the general AI HLEG trustworthy AI guidelines in practice in the healthcare domain. To this end, we present a best practice of assessing the use of machine learning as a supportive tool to recognize cardiac arrest in emergency calls. The AI system under assessment is currently in use in the city of Copenhagen in Denmark. The assessment is accomplished by an independent team composed of philosophers, policy makers, social scientists, technical, legal, and medical experts. By leveraging an interdisciplinary team, we aim to expose the complex trade-offs and the necessity for such thorough human review when tackling socio-technical applications of AI in healthcare. For the assessment, we use a process to assess trustworthy AI, called 1Z-Inspection® to identify specific challenges and potential ethical trade-offs when we consider AI in practice.

The ethical and societal implications of artificial intelligence systems raise concerns. In this article, we outline a novel process based on applied ethics, namely, to assess if an AI system is trustworthy. We use the definition of trustworthy AI given by the high-level European Commission's expert group on AI. It is a general inspection process that can be applied to a variety of domains where AI systems are used, such as business, healthcare, and public sector, among many others. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first process to assess trustworthy AI in practice.

Today's AI recommendation algorithms produce a human dilemma between euphoria and freedom. To elaborate, four ways that recommenders reshape experience are delineated. First, the human experience of convenience is tuned to euphoric perfection. Second, a kind of personal authenticity becomes capturable with algorithms and data. Third, a conception of human freedom emerges, one that promotes unfamiliar interests for users instead of satisfying those that already exist. Finally, a new human dilemma is posed between two types of personal identity. On one side, there are recommendation algorithms that locate a user's core preferences, and then reinforce that identity with options designed to resemble those that have already proved satisfying. The result is an algorithmic production of euphoria and authenticity. On the other side, there are recommenders that provoke unfamiliar interests and curiosities. These proposals deny the existence of an authentic self and instead promote new preferences and experiences. The result is a human freedom of new personal identity.

Artificial creativity is presented as a counter to Benjamin’s conception of an “aura” in art. Where Benjamin sees authenticity as art’s critical element, generative artificial intelligence operates as pure inauthenticity. Two elements of purely inauthentic art are described: elusiveness and reflection. Elusiveness is the inability to find an origin-story for the created artwork, and reflection is the ability for perceivers to impose any origin that serves their own purposes. The paper subsequently argues that these elements widen the scope of artistic and creative potential. To illustrate, an example is developed around musical improvisation with an artificial intelligence partner. Finally, a question is raised about whether the inauthentic creativity of AI in art can be extended to human experience and our sense of our identities.

Today's AI recommendation algorithms produce a human dilemma between euphoria and freedom. To elaborate, four ways that recommenders reshape experience are delineated. First, the human experience of convenience is tuned to euphoric perfection. Second, a kind of personal authenticity becomes capturable with algorithms and data. Third, a conception of human freedom emerges, one that promotes unfamiliar interests for users instead of satisfying those that already exist. Finally, a new human dilemma is posed between two types of personal identity. On one side, there are recommendation algorithms that locate a user's core preferences, and then reinforce that identity with options designed to resemble those that have already proved satisfying. The result is an algorithmic production of euphoria and authenticity. On the other side, there are recommenders that provoke unfamiliar interests and curiosities. These proposals deny the existence of an authentic self and instead promote new preferences and experiences. The result is a human freedom of new personal identity.

Acceleration ethics addresses the tension between innovation and safety in artificial intelligence. The acceleration argument is that risks raised by innovation should be answered with still more innovating. This paper summarizes the theoretical position, and then shows how acceleration ethics works in a real case. To begin, the paper summarizes acceleration ethics as composed of five elements: innovation solves innovation problems, innovation is intrinsically valuable, the unknown is encouraging, governance is decentralized, ethics is embedded. Subsequently, the paper illustrates the acceleration framework with a use-case, a generative artificial intelligence language tool developed by the Canadian telecommunications company Telus. While the purity of theoretical positions is blurred by real-world ambiguities, the Telus experience indicates that acceleration AI ethics is a way of maximizing social responsibility through innovation, as opposed to sacrificing social responsibility for innovation, or sacrificing innovation for social responsibility.

Three directions for the AI avant-garde are sketched against the background of time. Posthumanism changes what we are, and belongs to the radical future. Transhumanism changes how we are, and corresponds with the radical past. Genhumanism changes who we are, and exists in the radical present. While developing the concepts, this essay intersects in two ways with theoretical debates about humanism in the face of technological advance. First, it describes how temporal divisions may cleanly differentiate post- and transhumanism. Second, the essay introduces generative humanism, which contributes to discussions about AI and society by delineating a novel humanistic response to contemporary technology. Finally, grounds are provided for a practical project, one where philosophers work with AI engineers in the area of genhumanism. Contemporary AI research into serendipity in recommendation engines provides natural support for the shared research.

The AI ethics of statistical fairness is an error, the approach should be abandoned, and the accumulated academic work deleted. The argument proceeds by identifying four recurring mistakes within statistical fairness. One conflates fairness with equality, which confines thinking to similars being treated similarly. The second and third errors derive from a perspectival ethical view which functions by negating others and their viewpoints. The final mistake constrains fairness to work within predefined social groups instead of allowing unconstrained fairness to subsequently define group composition. From the nature of these misconceptions, the larger argument follows. Because the errors are integral to how statistical fairness works, attempting to resolve the difficulties only deepens them. Consequently, the errors cannot be corrected without undermining the larger project, and statistical fairness collapses from within. While the collapse ends a failure in ethics, it also provokes distinct possibilities for fairness, data, and algorithms. Quickly indicating some of these directions is a secondary aim of the paper, and one that aligns with what fairness has consistently meant and done since Aristotle.