Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 20:6:1143907.
doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1143907. eCollection 2023.

Foresight for ethical AI

Stephen L Dorton  1   2 , Lauren M Ministero  1 , Balca Alaybek  1 , Douglas J Bryant  1
Affiliations

Foresight for ethical AI

Stephen L Dorton et al. Front Artif Intell. .

Abstract

There is growing expectation that artificial intelligence (AI) developers foresee and mitigate harms that might result from their creations; however, this is exceptionally difficult given the prevalence of emergent behaviors that occur when integrating AI into complex sociotechnical systems. We argue that Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) principles, models, and tools are well-suited to tackling this challenge. Already applied in high-consequence domains, NDM tools such as the premortem, and others, have been shown to uncover a reasonable set of risks of underlying factors that would lead to ethical harms. Such NDM tools have already been used to develop AI that is more trustworthy and resilient, and can help avoid unintended consequences of AI built with noble intentions. We present predictive policing algorithms as a use case, highlighting various factors that led to ethical harms and how NDM tools could help foresee and mitigate such harms.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; ethics; foresight; naturalistic decision making; policy; premortem.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

    1. Alikhademi K., Drobina E., Prioleau D., Richardson B., Purves D., Gilbert J. E., et al. . (2021). A review of predictive policing from the perspective of fairness. Artif. Intell. Law 30, 1–17. 10.1007/s10506-021-09286-4 - DOI
    1. Asaro P. M. (2019). AI ethics in predictive policing: from models of threat to ethics of care. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 38, 40–53. 10.1109/MTS.2019.2915154 - DOI
    1. Bettin B., Steelman K., Wallace C., Pontious D., Veinott E. (2022). Identifying and addressing risks in the early design of a sociotechnical system through premortem. Proc. 2022 HFES 66th Ann. Meet. 66, 1514–1518. 10.1177/1071181322661307 - DOI
    1. Blasch E., Sung J., Nguyen T. (2021). Multisource ai scorecard table for system evaluation. arXiv. [preprint] 2102.03985. 10.48550/arXiv.2102.03985 - DOI
    1. Borenstein J., Herkert J. R., Miller K. W. (2019). Self-driving cars and engineering ethics: the need for a system level analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics 25, 383–398. 10.1007/s11948-017-0006-0 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources