• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

自主武器系统部署情景下的价值引出:基于价值审议过程的定性研究

Value elicitation on a scenario of autonomous weapon system deployment: a qualitative study based on the value deliberation process.

作者信息

Verdiesen Ilse, Dignum Virginia

机构信息

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

出版信息

AI Ethics. 2022 Sep 5:1-14. doi: 10.1007/s43681-022-00211-2.

DOI:10.1007/s43681-022-00211-2
PMID:36091629
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9442574/
Abstract

Ethical concerns on autonomous weapon systems (AWS) call for a process of human oversight to ensure accountability over targeting decisions and the use of force. To align the behavior of autonomous systems with human values and norms, the Design for Values approach can be used to consciously embody values in the deployment of AWS. One instrument for the elicitation of values during the design is participative deliberation. In this paper, we describe a participative deliberation method and results of a value elicitation by means of the value deliberation process for which we organized two panels each consisting of a mixture of experts in the field of AWS working in military operations, foreign policy, NGO's and industry. The results of our qualitative study indicate not only that value discussion leads to changes in perception of the acceptability of alternatives, or options, in a scenario of AWS deployment, it also gives insight in to which values are deemed important and highlights that trust in the decision-making of an AWS is crucial.

摘要

对自主武器系统(AWS)的伦理关注要求建立一个人为监督过程,以确保对目标决策和武力使用负责。为使自主系统的行为符合人类价值观和规范,可采用“价值设计”方法,在自主武器系统的部署中自觉体现价值观。设计过程中一种引出价值观的手段是参与式审议。在本文中,我们描述了一种参与式审议方法以及通过价值审议过程进行价值引出的结果,为此我们组织了两个小组,每个小组由军事行动、外交政策、非政府组织和行业领域的自主武器系统专家组成。我们的定性研究结果表明,价值讨论不仅会导致在自主武器系统部署场景中对替代方案或选项可接受性的认知发生变化,还能洞察哪些价值观被视为重要,并突出了对自主武器系统决策的信任至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/80572aef466f/43681_2022_211_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/19833680b4ea/43681_2022_211_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/45743bba68a2/43681_2022_211_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/26a92a167863/43681_2022_211_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/80572aef466f/43681_2022_211_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/19833680b4ea/43681_2022_211_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/45743bba68a2/43681_2022_211_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/26a92a167863/43681_2022_211_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d371/9442574/80572aef466f/43681_2022_211_Fig4_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Value elicitation on a scenario of autonomous weapon system deployment: a qualitative study based on the value deliberation process.自主武器系统部署情景下的价值引出:基于价值审议过程的定性研究
AI Ethics. 2022 Sep 5:1-14. doi: 10.1007/s43681-022-00211-2.
2
A Comparative Analysis of the Definitions of Autonomous Weapons Systems.自主武器系统定义的比较分析。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2022 Aug 23;28(5):37. doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00392-3.
3
Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account.人类对自主系统的有效控制:一种哲学阐释。
Front Robot AI. 2018 Feb 28;5:15. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2018.00015. eCollection 2018.
4
Does the process of deliberation change individuals' health state valuations? An exploratory study using the person trade-off technique.审议过程是否会改变个体对健康状况的估值?一项使用人交换技术的探索性研究。
Value Health. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(5):806-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1633. Epub 2013 Jul 11.
5
The weaponization of artificial intelligence: What the public needs to be aware of.人工智能的武器化:公众需要了解的内容。
Front Artif Intell. 2023 Mar 8;6:1154184. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1154184. eCollection 2023.
6
Deficits of Public Deliberation in U.S. Oversight for Gene Edited Organisms.美国对基因编辑生物体监督中的公共审议缺陷。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S25-S33. doi: 10.1002/hast.1317.
7
Lessons Learned About Autonomous AI: Finding a Safe, Efficacious, and Ethical Path Through the Development Process.自主人工智能的经验教训:在开发过程中找到安全、有效和合乎道德的路径。
Am J Ophthalmol. 2020 Jun;214:134-142. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.02.022. Epub 2020 Mar 12.
8
Impact of information and deliberation on the consistency of preferences for prioritization in health care - evidence from discrete choice experiments undertaken alongside citizens' juries.信息与审议对医疗保健优先排序偏好一致性的影响——来自与公民陪审团同时进行的离散选择实验的证据
J Med Econ. 2023 Jan-Dec;26(1):1237-1249. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2262329. Epub 2023 Oct 28.
9
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.对所有医疗环境中共同决策的内部和外部影响进行的定性系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.
10
Proposal for a Framework to Enable Elicitation of Preferences for Clients in Need of Long-Term Care.关于建立一个能够引出长期护理需求客户偏好的框架的提议。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Aug 25;14:1553-1566. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S257501. eCollection 2020.

本文引用的文献

1
Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power.定性访谈研究中的样本量:以信息力为导向
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760. doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444. Epub 2016 Jul 10.