Professional IT for Artificial Intelligence - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theProfessional IT Culturefor Artificial Intelligence. Answer: Introduction Technology has always pointed towards the automation of machines, more so through virtual systems that will inherently replace the need for human participation. Artificial intelligence is the technological element that deals with this automation, where technology will generally become independent of mankind. Now, while this outcome is favourable for the efficiency of daily operation, it does raise many serious ethical concerns. For one, most operations conducted today, irrespective of the field, require human judgement so as to protect peoples safety. Furthermore, it takes special subliminal attributes to conduct daily activities such as empathy and self-awareness, concepts that are not possessed by programmable systems (the AIs)(Bostrom Yudkowsky, 2011). A similar problem is exhibited in this paper, where a company in the automotive industry is faced with a serious ethical dilemma in deploying an untested AI vehicle. In light of this outcome, this short report analyzes the case stu dy from an ethical perspective. The ethical dilemma In the case study, an electric car-making company is sited, where for the last few years has been developing a self-driving car. This company has collected enough data to successfully support the deployment process. However, John, an AI consultant with the company feels that more tests are needed for AI systems to understand certain scenarios more so, those related to accidents incidences. To him, the machine learning process requires time to perfect the vehicles responses, especially when faced with life and death situations, an eventuality that is most likely to occur with a vehicle on the road. These sentiments are opposed by the company as they risk losing the market to the competitors who as may have developed a similar vehicle, having the same technology. Therefore, the company proposes that the extra tests suggested by John should be conducted after the car is launched on the road. Therefore, John must decide on whether to sign off on the project and risk the lives of the user s or stand up against the company wishes. In essence, he faces a battle between the growth of his career and the greater common good. Ethical response based on the consequences According to Burton et al (2017), self-autonomous cars will in the future serve as functioning members of the community as they will hold equal responsibility as humans. These machines will have to choose between what is good and what is bad, a great undertaking for an item lacking a conscious mind. Therefore, the developed vehicle at some point will face the dilemma of life and death, which based on the existing results requires further research and simulation. If launched, both the company and the costumers may end up facing many serious consequences(Burton, et al., 2017). For the company, and more so the AI consultant (John) his code of conduct will be on the line, having signed off on a project lacking the necessary accreditations. Moreover, his reputation as an AI consultant will be lost as he will hold all the blame for any eventualities. Consequently, the customers of the newly developed vehicles would face the gravest consequences, having placed their lives on a substandard system. In the event of an accident, they (the customers) could easily lose their lives, an outcome that would spell another consequence for the consultant as he could face criminal charges for endangering peoples lives(Bostrom, Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence, 2011). Application of principles (Consultant duties) Two major ethical issues are outlined in this case study, one, a misleading leadership as outlined by the companys management. Two, the dilemma of choosing between the common good of the people, and the growth of the consultant career. John, the AI consultant holds both a professional and moral obligation in ensuring that the outcomes of the project are favourable to the users. In fact, his actions, whether intentional or not are considered ethical if they promote the greater good of the people (Utility principle). Therefore, at a fundamental level, he must protect the end users as they stand to lose the most in the overall outcome(Mill, 2012). In addition to this, John must conduct himself in accordance with the code of conduct that requires him to apply his professional skills in the most accurate way. The correct way in this instance will have him giving a truthful opinion on the outcomes of the project. He must stand for the existing results that would see an untested system deployed onto the roads thus risk the lives of the motorists involved. In all, his conscious should propel him to preserve the greater good and not his career(Mill, 2012). Response of a caring person In general, a caring person is associated with heartfelt actions that promote the great good of the people regardless of the conditions or situation. Furthermore, caring people are associated with empathy, an experience or capacity of understanding situations based on other peoples perspective(Cottingham, 2010). Therefore, if faced with the ethical dilemma at hand, the actions of a caring person will be directed towards protecting the end user. For one, they will stand and fight for the extra tests needed by the vehicles AI system. Furthermore, they would protest the recommendation made by the company by outlining the risks involved regardless of the opposition they face. If this approach fails, the caring person would seek external help to try and stop the process as the overall consequences greatly out do the individual consequences (losing a job and career). In essence, the situation at hand would push a dedicated professional to become a whistle blower to the internal proceedings of an organization and its products. Relevant ACS codes of professional conduct The elements outlined in the ACSs code of conduct are a set of guidelines to ICT professionals who in their duties must honour and respect their actions as well as those of the end users. Furthermore, the ACS code of conduct that guides its users in responding to ethical dilemmas as it stipulates the actions that should be taken in a professional environment. Now, with respect to Johns situation, he as a professional consultant should offer the best and most optimal solution to the users. However, this solution should be based on the conducts outlined by the ACS as they seek to protect the common good. Honesty John should be true to his profession and to his customers who indirectly trust his judgement as well as the decisions he makes. This code calls for him as an honourable professional whose information, skills and conduct are based on honesty. Public interest the common good of the people as stipulated by the code where a professional must consider the people affected by their decisions. The end users may lose their lives, while the company itself may be subject to criminal litigation. Competence a professional should conduct his/her duties based on the mandates given by the industrial stakeholders. The customer is the most important stakeholder in this case. Professionalism a code that requires experts to promote the codes of conduct by aspiring to be a better professional. This requirement starts with protecting the greater good of the people(ACS, 2014). Defence for the AI consultant John as an AI consultant cannot perform the extra tests on his own, in fact, he requires additional resources to execute them. These resources include testing material/equipment which will incur additional expenses to the project. Furthermore, the tests will also require additional time, a resource the company currently lacks as their competitors are in the process of launching their own products. Therefore, considering the company at hand, John may also be considering the greater good of the organization and its employees who may lose their position if the project fails. Again, the project would fail if the company loses its market share to the competitors thus lack the necessary funds to compensate for the resources used in the development process(Wah, 2008). In addition to this, consider the individual himself, who as a consultant must adhere to the hiring company and his contractual obligations. If he signed off on the project, he would be trying to fulfil his role as requested by the employer, a stakeholder of the professional which as stated in the ethical conduct must be obeyed. Moreover, he also seeks to expand his career thus propel his life and that of his family to greater heights. Conclusion (summary) Despite the position held by the consultant, his focus should be on the greater good of the end user, who lacks the technical ability to understand the overall operation of the developed system. Therefore, the end-users (customers) inherently place their trust in the company which must conduct its duties in an ethical manner. The AI consultant should, therefore, side with the common good and stand with his opinion of conducting extra safety tests. Yes, the company may lose the market but this outcome is less consequential as compared to the loss of life. Furthermore, the consultant also faces an individual battle between self-preservation (growing his career) and his professional conduct. In this dilemma, he should place emphasis on the professional conduct by following the codes of ethics that in this case align with the common good. References ACS. (2014). ACS Code of Professional Conduct Professional Standards Board Australian Computer Society. Inspiring success, Retrieved 22 August, 2017, from: https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/acs-documents/ACS%20Code-of-Professional-Conduct_v2.1.pdf. Bostrom, N. (2011). Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence. Philosophy Faculty, Retrieved 22 August, 2017, from: https://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.pdf. Bostrom, N., Yudkowsky, E. (2011). The ethics of artificial intelligence. Cambridge Handbook Of Artificial Intelligence, Retrieved 24 April, 2017, from: https://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/artificial-intelligence.pdf. Burton, E., Goldsmith, J., Koenig, S., Kuipers, B., N, M., Walsh, T. (2017). Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence Courses. Retrieved 24 April, 2017, from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.07769.pdf. Cottingham, J. (2010). EMPATHY AND ETHICS. Abstracta special issue, Retrieved 22 Auguts, 2017, from: . Mill. (2012). The principle of utility determines the rightness of acts (or rules of action?) by their effect on the total happiness. Retrieved 22 August, 2017, from: https://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/PGreenspan/Crs/MILL.pdf. Wah, B. (2008). Ethics and professional responsibility in computing. Wiley encyclopaedia of computer science, Retrieved 22 August, 2017, from: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/12247/ecse909.pdf?sequence=2.