Ethical Dilemma of Artificial Intelligent Samples for Students

Question: Write a Business Report Providing an Ethical Analysis of a Project Management Case Study. Answer: Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) has always raised many ethical dilemmas, the notion that a machine can produce the same thinking and reasoning as a human being is both a critical and challenging endeavour. As humans we are designed to preserve life at all costs while the machines will analyse the situation to develop the least harmful outcome. These analyses could lead to serious consequences especially for the motoring industry where a self-driving car could risk the life of the owner in an attempt the save the lives of others (Bostrom Yudkowsky, 2011). The case study under consideration raises similar ethical dilemmas where the consultant is forced to make a decision between extending the capabilities of the AI system and losing to the competition. Now, this report will analyse this scenario while providing an ethical response to the situation while consulting the acclaimed ACS Code of professional conduct. The Dilemma To extend the AI capabilities and adaptabilities, John (the AI consultant) must extend the time spent on modelling the cars response to different accidents scenarios. However, as expected this outcome is going to affect the companys product release dates which in effect will give the rival companies a competitive edge. John could forego the extra modelling tests in an attempt to beat the competition but this risk lives. Therefore, the ethical dilemma, extend the modelling time and risk losing the financial/economic battle or fails to extend it and wins the competition however with a risk of losing lives in the future through accidents. Ethical response based on consequences When integrated self-driving cars are set to be part or members of the functioning society thus must have the reasoning capabilities to decide what is right and wrong (Burton, Goldsmith, Koeing, Kuipers, Mattei Walsh, 2017). Ultimately, the vehicle will have to make a life-defining decision which according to the AI consultant still requires further testing. Therefore, a release to the market holds grave consequences to human life. As the consultant, John holds all responsibility for the vehicles outcome particularly when a negative outcome is observed. He stands to lose his credibility if frequent accidents are observed and more so if they are caused by his decision to stop further modelling. Moreover, he is liable to legal suits if lives are lost as he willingly let the vehicles into the market despite the foreseeable consequences. On the other hand, the customers unknowingly will risk their lives while using the newly designed technology. Yes, the technology does present considerable benefits such as time efficiency but these outcomes are based on the presumption that the intelligent system can make better decisions than humans (Bostrom, 2011). As a customer, a user will surrender all control to the tested system placing his/her life to the AI. Consequently, they risk their lives and that of other in the process. Ethical response based on principles John as the AI consultant is obligated to perform his duties using an upright moral code, this because his decisions directly affect the outcome of the intelligent system (Wah, 2008). Morally, he holds a professional responsibility to provide an honest assessment of the situation and devise the appropriate action regardless of the financial outcomes. Essentially, this is the largest temptation that the consultant faces as there are no auditing features done nor are there rules or guidelines to gauge his progress. Therefore, choosing to extend the modelling process clearly, falls within his domain. Moreover, his hired to provide his professional advice based on his years as an AI expert more so in technical design, which means he must provide a credible opinion regardless of the clients (company) demands. Therefore, his obligated to extend the modelling of the vehicles AI system if needed. Furthermore, he must exercise patience and consider the actual customers at hand, not the car company but the future owners of the vehicles. Ethical response of a caring person Empathy generally guides a caring individual who feels the desire to promote self-responsibility when dealing with other people. Therefore, in the given scenario a caring person would put the needs of others before those of his own and also those of the company. In response, as the AI consultant, the individual would extend the time spent on the modelling of the car to meet the maximum if not minimal accident assessment requirements. Moreover, they would feel obliged to convey their assessment to the customers in an attempt to safeguard their lives. Furthermore, their concerns would have little to do with the financial outcomes of the project choosing to delay it in effect losing to the competition. ACS Code of Professional Conduct ACS codes are meant to uphold and honour dignity while dealing with any professional work. Our chosen case study outlines a serious ethical dilemma that can as well be related to ACS codes which would facilitate a better decision. Moreover, from Johns requirements, his supposed to offer the best and most efficient solution (AI related) but with the adherence to the proper professional code. Now, lets examine the ACS codes (relevant codes) and how they relate to this case study. Public interest According to this code, a profession should place his primary focus on the interests of the public. Therefore, for the ethical dilemma at hand, the AI consultant should extend his modelling phase even though it contradicts the deployment phase. This outcome will without a doubt safeguard the interest of the public. Honesty These codes calls for an honest representation of an individuals profession including skills, information, and service delivery. Its Johns opinion that the designed intelligent system fails to meet the accident modelling requirements. He must be true to this code to safeguard the safety of the public. Competence a profession should conduct his role diligently to meet the mandates set by his stakeholders. This code further exhibits the dilemma at hand, on one hand, the AI consultant must serve the interest of the company (deploy before the competition does) however, he also holds a responsibility for the public who are also stakeholders in the designed vehicle. Professionalism This code calls for enhancement and improvement of the ACS codes. Therefore, to stay true to his profession, John must employ the ACS codes by enacting a solution that serves the interest of the public while satisfying those of his employers. (ACS, 2014) Ethical defence John requires the approval of the companys CEO in order to conduct the accident modelling. Furthermore, this process will require additional resources most of which will be time, a resource that the company cannot afford. Therefore, in the off chance the modelling is approved the company risk losing their business both from the investment already made and from the additional resource requirement. As a consequence, the company risk losing its clientele which may cause other problems including the extreme which would be bankruptcy. Moreover, personally, John risks losing his job as a consultant in the company which can also extend to other affiliated organisations. In essence, John will hold both a personal and professional responsibility in meeting the desires of his employers even though they contradict his own. Furthermore, his obliged not only by his ethical standards but also by those of the ACS to meet the set mandate. Therefore, John must respect the wishes of his employers and pass the components of the car in order to fulfil his professional mandate. Summary Based on this analysis, one party in the case study stands to lose i.e. either the company or the public. Moreover, the outcome depends on the AI consultant who has to devise an intelligent system that meets his customer desires. Ethically, his obligated by both his immediate employer (company) and extended employers who are the public (companys customers). The company stand to lose financially where extra resources will be spent on modelling ventures in addition to the loss of customers. However, the anticipated loss on behalf of the public graver than that of the company as a lot of people will risk their lives in the newly designed cars. Therefore, John should critically analyse the situation and offer a true assessment of the possible outcomes regardless of the opinions held by the CEO. He should stay true to his profession while exhibiting empathy and good ethical/moral standards. Yes, the company stands to lose however, financial ramifications are far too inferior as compared to the loss of lives. Moreover, in case he approves the already designed components (despite the faults) the company stands to lose in the future when the worse possible outcomes eventually occur. Therefore, by siding with the public interest he not only does the right thing but also safeguards the future interest of the company. References ACS. (2014). ACS Code of Professional Conduct Professional Standards Board Australian Computer Society. Inspiring success. Retrieved 24 April, 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 24 April, 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, Mattei. N Walsh. T. (2017). Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence Courses. Retrieved 24 April, 2017, from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.07769.pdf Wah. B. (2008). Ethics and professional responsibility in computing. Wiley encyclopaedia of computer science and engineering. Retrieved 24 April, 2017, from: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/12247/ecse909.pdf?sequence=2