| 1. |
- de Fine Licht, Karl, 1979, et al.
(författare)
-
Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making Why explanations are key when trying to produce perceived legitimacy
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Ai & Society. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0951-5666 .- 1435-5655. ; 35, s. 917-926
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for making decisions in public affairs has sparked a lively debate on the benefits and potential harms of self-learning technologies, ranging from the hopes of fully informed and objectively taken decisions to fear for the destruction of mankind. To prevent the negative outcomes and to achieve accountable systems, many have argued that we need to open up the "black box" of AI decision-making and make it more transparent. Whereas this debate has primarily focused on how transparency can secure high-quality, fair, and reliable decisions, far less attention has been devoted to the role of transparency when it comes to how the general public come to perceive AI decision-making as legitimate and worthy of acceptance. Since relying on coercion is not only normatively problematic but also costly and highly inefficient, perceived legitimacy is fundamental to the democratic system. This paper discusses how transparency in and about AI decision-making can affect the public's perception of the legitimacy of decisions and decision-makers and produce a framework for analyzing these questions. We argue that a limited form of transparency that focuses on providing justifications for decisions has the potential to provide sufficient ground for perceived legitimacy without producing the harms full transparency would bring.
|
|
| 2. |
- de Fine Licht, Karl, 1979
(författare)
-
"Hostile architecture" and its confederates: A conceptual framework for how we should perceive our cities and the objects in them
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Canadian Journal of Urban Research. - 1188-3774. ; 29:2, s. 1-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In recent years “hostile architecture” or designs (also called “disciplinary architecture” and “defensive architecture”) has become an ever more common feature of our cities. Examples of these designs are benches you cannot sleep on, spikes you cannot stand on, and metal plugs you cannot skate on. These designs have created an outrage among activists and the general population since they have largely been conceived as an attack on the worst-off and there is an increasing academic body of work mostly looking into their design features, the motivations behind them, but also whether and under what condition they should be used. Although progress has been made on the issue of these forms of architecture/designs, no clear definitions currently exist for “hostile architecture,” (etc.) and their related concepts, which are especially concerned with their respective environments, such as a “hostile environment.” As a result, there has been no clear discussion of how these concepts relate to each other and also to morally permissible and impermissible actions, which many times lead the discussion astray. In this paper I try to amend this by defining the central concepts, as well as showing how they relate to each other and morally permissible and impermissible actions.
|
|
| 3. |
- Nijsingh, Niels, 1977, et al.
(författare)
-
Justifying Antibiotic Resistance Interventions: Uncertainty, Precaution and Ethics
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Jamrozik E., Selgelid M.J. (eds) Ethics and Drug-Resistance: Collective Responsibility for Global Public Health. - Cham, Switzerland : Springer. - 2211-6680. - 9783030278731
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter charts and critically analyses the ethical challenge of assessing how much (and what kind of) evidence is required for the justification of interventions in response antibiotic resistance (ABR), as well as other major public health threats. Our ambition here is to identify and briefly discuss main issues, and point to ways in which these need to be further advanced in future research. This will result in a tentative map of complications, underlying problems and possible challenges. This map illustrates that the ethical challenges in this area are much more complex and profound than is usually acknowledged, leaving no tentatively plausible intervention package free of downsides. This creates potentially overwhelming theoretical conundrums when trying to justify what to do. We therefore end by pointing out two general features of the complexity we find to be of particular importance, and a tentative suggestion for how to create a theoretical basis for further analysis.
|
|
