Respecting cultural diversity in ethics applied to AI: A new approach for a multicultural governance

Autores: Emmanuel R. Goffi, Aco Momcilovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25058/1794600X.2135

Artificial intelligence seems to be part of our everyday lives. For some it represents the promise of a better world and many improvements that would be beneficial for humanity. For others, AI is seen as threat, if not an existential threat that needs to be controlled strictly. Whatever the stance, the need to regulate AI is now widely recognized. Short of legal instruments offering a specific framework for the development and use of AI, ethics has been summoned to set standards and establish guardrails. Yet, the number of documents pertaining to ethical standards for AI has increased exponentially to reach a point where it is difficult to know how to use them efficiently. These documents have mostly been issued to promote vested interests, and the setting of a universal code of AI ethics has been seen as a solution for AI global governance. If a global governance system is required to avoid negative outcomes of AI, it appears that the idea of a universal code of ethics denies the diversity of ethical standpoints based on the diversity of philosophical cultures the world is made of. Instead of offering a legitimate and efficient tool, such a solution could lead to cultural tensions between leading actors in the field of AI as it is the case between China and the United States. To avoid conflicting situations stemming from the denial of cultural diversity, it is more than ever necessary to put aside the idea of a universal code of AI ethics and to start thinking about a new governance system that would be respectful of the variety of ethical perspective.

La Inteligencia Artificial parece ser una parte de nuestra vida diaria. Para algunos representa la promesa de un mundo mejor y muchas mejoras que serían beneficiosas para la humanidad. Para otros, la IA es vista amenaza, si no como un peligro existencial que necesita ser estrictamente controlado. Cualquiera sea la postura, la necesidad de regular la IA actualmente está ampliamente reconocida. Con pocos instrumentos legales que ofrezcan un marco específico para el desarrollo y uso de la IA, se ha acudido a la ética para establecer estándares y establecer límites. No obstante, el número de documentos que hacen referencia a los estándares éticos para la IA ha aumentado exponencialmente hasta alcanzar un punto donde es difícil saber cómo utilizarlo de manera eficiente. Estos documentos en su mayoría se han publicado para promocionar intereses particulares y el establecimiento de un código universal de ética para IA ha sido contemplada como una solución para el gobierno mundial IA. Si se necesita un sistema de gobernanza mundial para evitar un resultado negativo de la IA, es aparente que la idea de un código de ética universal niega la diversidad puntos de vista éticos que se basan en las diferentes culturas filosóficas que componen al mundo. En lugar de ofrecer una herramienta legítima y eficiente, una solución de este tipo podría terminar en tensiones culturales entre los actores principales en el campo de la IA como es el caso de China y Estados Unidos. Para evitar situaciones conflictivas derivadas de la negación de la diversidad cultural es más necesario que nunca dejar a un lado la idea de un código ético universal de IA y comenzar a pensar acerca de un nuevo sistema de gobernanza que respete la variedad de perspectivas éticas.

A inteligência artificial parece fazer parte do nosso dia a dia. Para alguns, representa a promessa de um mundo melhor e muitas melhorias que seriam benéficas para a humanidade. Para outros, a IA é vista como uma ameaça, se não uma ameaça existencial que precisa ser rigorosamente controlada. Seja qual for a posição, a necessidade de regular a IA é agora amplamente reconhecida. Sem um instrumento legal que ofereça uma estrutura específica para o desenvolvimento e uso da IA, a ética foi convocada para estabelecer padrões e estabelecer barreiras. No entanto, o número de documentos referentes a padrões éticos para IA aumentou exponencialmente até chegar a um ponto em que é difícil saber como usá-los com eficiência. Esses documentos foram emitidos principalmente para promover interesses adquiridos, e a definição de um código universal de ética em IA tem sido vista como uma solução para a governança global de IA. Se um sistema de governança global é necessário para evitar resultados negativos da IA, parece que a ideia de um código de ética universal nega a diversidade de pontos de vista éticos baseados na diversidade de culturas filosóficas de que o mundo é feito. Em vez de oferecer uma ferramenta legítima e eficiente, tal solução poderia levar a tensões culturais entre os principais atores no campo da IA, como é o caso da China e dos Estados Unidos. Para evitar situações conflitantes decorrentes da negação da diversidade cultural, é mais do que nunca necessário deixar de lado a ideia de um código universal de IA.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence; culture; governance; ethics; diversity.

Palabras claves: Inteligencia Artificial; cultura; gobernanza; ética; diversidad.

Palavras-chave: Inteligência artificial; cultura; governança; ética; diversidade

Para citar este artículo:

Goffi, E. y Momcilovic, A. (2022). Respecting cultural diversity in ethics applied to AI: A new approach for a multicultural governance. Revista Misión Jurídica, 15, (22), 111 -122.


Referencias

[1] Jobin, Anna, Ienca, Marcello and Vayena, Effy. “The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines.” Nature Machine Intelligence 1.9 (2019): 389-99.

[2] Zeng, Yi, Lu, Enmeng, and Huangfu, Cunqing. “Linking Artificial Intelligence Principles.” CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2301, paper 15 (2019).

[3] Jelinek, Thorsten. “The Future Rulers? On Artificial Intelligence Ethics and Governance.” In Billows W. and Körber S. Reset Europe: Time For Culture To Give Europe New Momentum. Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen (2020): 244-252.

[4] OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Legal Instrument 0449 (2021). Available at

[5] UNESCO. Preliminary report on the first draft of the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. (2020). Available at https://events.unesco.org/event?id=515530304

[6] HLEGAI – High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Ethics guidelines for Trustworthy AI. European Commission (2019). Available at file:///D:/Publications/En%20cours/ICSSD/ai_hleg_ethics_guidelines_for_trustworthy_ ai-en_87F84A41-A6E8-F38C-BFF661481B40077B_60419.pdf

[7] G20. Ministerial Statement on Trade and Digital Economy. Tsukuba City, Japan, 8-9 June 2019. Available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000486596.pdf

[8] CAHAI – Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence. “Towards regulation of AI systems: Global perspectives on the development of a legal framework on Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems based on the Council of Europe’s standards on human rights, democracy and the rule of law.” Council of Europe (2020). Available at https://rm.coe.int/prems-107320-gbr-2018-compli-cahai-couv-texte-a4-bat- web/1680a0c17a

[9] Bielby, Jared. “Comparative philosophies in intercultural information ethics.” Confluence: Online Journal of World Philosophies 2 (2015): 233-253.

[10] IEEE. Ethically Aligned Design First Edition: Prioritizing Human Wellbeing with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (2019). https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee- standards/standards/web/documents/other/ead1e.pdf?utm_medium=undefined&utm_ source=undefined&utm_campaign=undefined&utm_content=undefined&utm_term=und efined

[11] European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts. COM(2021) 206 final, 2021/0106(COD). Brussels (2021). Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206&from=EN

[12] Aristotle. History of Animals. Translated by D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson. The Internet Classics Archive (2000). Available at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/history_anim.html

[13] Lovejoy, Arthur O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Harvard University Press (1964).

[14] Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology.1958.

[15] Simondon, Gilbert. On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Translated form French by Cécile Malaspina and John Rogove. Univocal Publishing (2017) [1958].

[16] Feenberg, Andrew. Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Revisited. Oxford University Press (2002).

[17] Evans, Lewis. The Satires of Juvenal, Persius, Sulpici, and Luculius. Henry G. Bohn (1860).

[18] Goffi, Emmanuel R. “Escaping the Western Cosm-Ethical Hegemony: The Importance of Cultural Diversity in the Ethical Assessment of Artificial Intelligence.” AI Ethics Journal 2(2)-1 (2021).

[19] Auernhammer, Jan. “Human-centered AI: The role of Human-centered Design Research in the development of AI.” In Boess, S., Cheung, M., and Cain, R. (eds.). Synergy – DRS International Conference 2020, (2020). Available at https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference- papers/drs2020/researchpapers/89/

[20] Hagendorf, Thilo. “The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines.” Minds and Machines 30 (2020): 99-120. Available at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8.pdf

[21] Greene, Daniel, Hoffmann, Anna Lauren, and Stark, Luke. “Better, Nicer, Clearer, Fairer: A Critical Assessment of the Movement for Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.” HICSS (2019).

[22] Fjeld, Jessica, Achten, Nele, Hilligoss, Hannah, Nagy, Adam, Adam, and Srikumar, Madhulika. “Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights- Based Approaches to Principles for AI.” Berkman Klein Center Research Publication, 2020.1 (2020).

[23] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations General Assembly, Paris (1948). Available at https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/217(III)

[24] UNDP. Human Development Report. Oxford Oxford University Press (1994). Available at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/255/hdr_1994_en_complete_nostats.pdf

[25] UNHR. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1966). Available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx

[25] Commission on Human Security. Human Security Now. CHS (2003). Available at https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/91BAEEDBA50C6907C1256D 19006A9353-chs-security-may03.pdf

[26] UN General Assembly. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution 55/2 (2000). Available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Millennium.aspx

[27] UNESCO. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. (2001). Available at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

[28] UN General Assembly. Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome. Resolution 66/290 (2012). Available at: https://documents- dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/22/PDF/N1147622.pdf?OpenElement

[29] United Nations. World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development, 21 May. (n.d.). Available at https://www.un.org/en/observances/cultural-diversity- day/background

[30] Wimmer, Franz M. “Is Intercultural Philosophy a New Branch or a New Orientation in Philosophy?” In D’Souza, Gregory (ed.). Interculturality of Philosophy and Religion. National Biblical Catechetical and Liturgical Centre (1996): 45-57.

[31] Wimmer, Franz M. Essays on Intercultural Philosophy. Satya Nilayam Publications – Research Institute for Philosophy and Sanskrit (2002).

[32] Capurro, Rafael. “Intercultural Information Ethics.” In Capurro, Rafael, Frühbauer, Johannes, and Hausmanninger, Thomas (eds.). Localizing the Internet. Ethical Aspects in Intercultural Perspective. ICIE Series Vol. 4, (2007): 21-38.

[33] Goffi, Emmanuel R., Colin, Louis, and Belouali Saïda. “Ethical Assessment of AI Cannot Ignore Cultural Pluralism: A Call for Broader Perspective on AI Ethics.” Arribat 1.2 (2021): 48-71.

[34] Metzinger, Thomas. “Ethics washing made in Europe.” Der Tagsspiegel (2019). Available at https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/eu-guidelines-ethics-washing-made- in-europe/24195496.html

[35] Franke, Ulrich. Artificial Intelligence Diplomacy: Artificial Intelligence governance as a new European Union external tool policy. Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Study (2021). Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2 021)662926