Reflections on Putting AI Ethics into Practice: How Three AI Ethics Approaches Conceptualize Theory and Practice

Abstract

Critics currently argue that applied ethics approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) are too principles-oriented and entail a theory–practice gap. Several applied ethical approaches try to prevent such a gap by conceptually translating ethical theory into practice. In this article, we explore how the currently most prominent approaches of AI ethics translate ethics into practice. Therefore, we examine three approaches to applied AI ethics: the embedded ethics approach, the ethically aligned approach, and the Value Sensitive Design (VSD) approach. We analyze each of these three approaches by asking how they understand and conceptualize theory and practice. We outline the conceptual strengths as well as their shortcomings: an embedded ethics approach is context-oriented but risks being biased by it; ethically aligned approaches are principles-oriented but lack justification theories to deal with trade-offs between competing principles; and the interdisciplinary Value Sensitive Design approach is based on stakeholder values but needs linkage to political, legal, or social governance aspects. Against this background, we develop a meta-framework for applied AI ethics conceptions with three dimensions. Based on critical theory, we suggest these dimensions as starting points to critically reflect on the conceptualization of theory and practice. We claim, first, that the inclusion of the dimension of affects and emotions in the ethical decision-making process stimulates reflections on vulnerabilities, experiences of disregard, and marginalization already within the AI development process. Second, we derive from our analysis that considering the dimension of justifying normative background theories provides both standards and criteria as well as guidance for prioritizing or evaluating competing principles in cases of conflict. Third, we argue that reflecting the governance dimension in ethical decision-making is an important factor to reveal power structures as well as to realize ethical AI and its application because this dimension seeks to combine social, legal, technical, and political concerns. This meta-framework can thus serve as a reflective tool for understanding, mapping, and assessing the theory–practice conceptualizations within AI ethics approaches to address and overcome their blind spots.

From Pixels to Principles: A Decade of Progress and Landscape in Trustworthy Computer Vision

“…In recent years, there has been a global consensus on developing trustworthy and responsible AI (Bommasani et al, 2021 ) and bridging the gap between theories and practices (Li et al, 2023 ; Bleher & Braun, 2023 ). Among them, the construction of an interdisciplinary and systematic AI governance framework has received increasing attention.…”

Digital ethicswashing: a systematic review and a process-perception-outcome framework

“…Such inquiries should concurrently address concerns related to the side-lining of stakeholders and the watering down of proposals [35,44]. Furthermore, as outlined by Munn [74], it is necessary to explore alternative approaches to AI governance and applied ethics [9,92] that are potentially less susceptible to ethicswashing. Finally, a social construction perspective demands further investigations into linkages between industry and other involved societal actors, such as policymakers and academia [35].…”

Permissibility vs. Feasibility: AI in service from a CX perspective

“…Drawing from the therapy example, instead of positioning AI as a surrogate human therapist, it might be more productive to introduce it as a facilitator of “guided self-reflection”. By emphasizing individual empowerment and harnessing AI's analytical prowess, marketers can circumvent the definitional barrier, aligning the technology with a more compatible narrative (Bleher and Braun, 2023; Rigby, 2019). Such recreations, while honoring the integrity of traditional services, pave the way for novel and harmonious integrations of AI in sectors once deemed incompatible.…”