Phillip Honenberger

Research in ethical AI has made strides in quantitative expression of ethical values such as fairness, transparency, and privacy. Here we contribute to this effort by proposing a new family of metrics called “decisional value scores” (DVS). DVSs are scores assigned to a system based on whether the decisions it makes meet or fail to meet a particular standard (either individually, in total, or as a ratio or average over decisions made). Advantages of DVS include greater discrimination capacity between types of ethically relevant decisions and facilitation of ethical comparisons between decisions and decision-making systems, including across different modalities (for instance: human, machine, or coupled human–machine systems). After clarifying ambiguities in the concept of “decision” itself, including the question of how to individuate the decisions made by a system, we discuss the role and meaning of “decision” in common AI and machine learning approaches such as decision trees, neural networks, SVMs, and unsupervised classifiers. We then show how DVSs may be defined for several ethical values of interest, with an extended discussion of transparency. Finally, we explore how such metrics can be applied to real decision-making systems through two case studies: evaluations of LLMs for transparency; and evaluations of criminal risk assessment tools for utility, rights violations, fairness, and transparency.

What is a human being? The twentieth and twenty-first century tradition known as 'philosophical anthropology' has approached this question with unusual sophistication, experimentalism, and subtlety. Such innovations as Arnold Gehlen's description of humans as naturally 'deficient' beings in need of artificial institutions to survive; Max Scheler's concept of 'spirit' (Geist) as the physically and organically irreducible realm of persons and spiritual acts; and Helmuth Plessner's analysis of the way human embodiment transcends spatial locations and limitations ('ex-centric positionality') have inspired generations of European intellectuals. This edited collection from an international network of scholars critically engages the philosophical anthropologies of Scheler, Plessner, Gehlen, Blumenberg, and others in unparalleled detail, showing their applicability to the themes of nature and naturalism, organic life, comparative primatology, cultural anthropology, paleoanthropology, the body, addiction, and death. The volume sets a new standard for Anglophone scholarship on this tradition and will be required reading for specialists in twentieth-century philosophy, history of the human sciences, history of the life sciences, and philosophies of human nature.

In the course of a more than 70-year philosophical career and over 100 publications, Marjorie Grene (1910–2009) developed an original and coherent philosophical position that placed situated organic life at the center of the interpretation of reality and human affairs. Grene sometimes described this position as an “ecological epistemology” and summarized its central thrust in the expression “all knowledge is orientation.” However, Grene’s view incorporated a set of apparently or potentially opposed commitments such as naturalism and anti-reductionism, pluralism and realism, and both a critique and affirmation of Darwinian evolutionary theory. This raises questions about precisely where Grene stood on the issues over which she argued and the coherence of her “ecological epistemology” as a whole. Here I review Grene’s work in the main research areas for which she is best known – history of philosophy, philosophy of biology, epistemology, and philosophical anthropology – with an eye to how these tensions were ultimately resolved in her account.

There are at least two senses in which human beings can be called “naturally artificial”: being adapted for creation of and participation in niche constructed environments, and being adapted for creation of and participation in such environments despite an exceptional indeterminacy in the details of the niche constructed environments themselves. The former puts human beings in a common category with many niche-constructing organisms while the latter is arguably distinctive of our species. I explain how this can be so by developing an account of supporting concepts of complexity, contingency, and content-openness, and show how to defend the position against a common style of objection by a single comparative case study: hermit crabs and their shells versus humans and their movable dwellings. Finally, I consider evidence that such a feature is indeed species-typical and evolved in human populations.