The AI ethicist’s dilemma: fighting Big Tech by supporting Big Tech

Abstract

Assume that a researcher uncovers a major problem with how social media are currently used. What sort of challenges arise when they must subsequently decide whether or not to use social media to create awareness about this problem? This situation routinely occurs as ethicists navigate choices regarding how to effect change and potentially remedy the problems they uncover. In this article, challenges related to new technologies and what is often referred to as ‘Big Tech’ are emphasized. We present what we refer to as the AI ethicist’s dilemma, which emerges when an AI ethicist has to consider how their own success in communicating an identified problem is associated with a high risk of decreasing the chances of successfully remedying the problem. We examine how the ethicist can resolve the dilemma and arrive at ethically sound paths of action through combining three ethical theories: virtue ethics, deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics. The article concludes that attempting to change the world of Big Tech only using the technologies and tools they provide will at times prove to be counter-productive, and that political and other more disruptive avenues of action should also be seriously considered by ethicists who want to effect long-term change. Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages, and a combination might be desirable to achieve these advantages and mitigate some of the disadvantages discussed.

From EU Robotics and AI Governance to HRI Research: Implementing the Ethics Narrative

“…While robotics and AI technologies have become become "big business", and that this could in fact aid the establishment of a rhetoric of "ethics washing" large-scale technological developments that harm society [41][42][43]. In line with this point, ethicists have argued that a collaborative attitude within a system of technological innovation can be counterproductive and that sometimes, more politicized, disruptive strategies should be considered to generate change for the better in the long run [44].…”

Power in the modern ‘surveillance society’: From theory to methodology1

“…Interesting empirical results may be gained when looking at the formal positions of state actors and private entities like companies. While state actors are in the formal position of authority and of control, it is often argued that some corporate actors such as Big Tech companies have acquired a factual position of power, because they control digital infrastructures and information by possessing massive amounts of data (Saetra et al, 2021;Fernandez et al, 2020;Hawley, 2021).…”

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

“…But the digital transformation also raises concerns about the responsible use of AI and corporate data practices as adverse societal and environmental ramifications manifest [16,111,115,124]. Scholars have critically highlighted issues related to AI biases, data privacy violations, discrimination, energy cost, human replacement, and corporate power concentration [41,97,115]. These new digital challenges emerge as adverse externalities of corporate conduct, challenging corporate legitimacy [68], namely the "generalised perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions" [109].…”