Digital and Computational Aspects of Human and AI Ethical Frameworks

I explore previous attempts, including recent ones, to introduce aspects of digital information and computation into the discussion of ethical frameworks. I study some limitations and advantages of previous attempts to produce guiding principles at different scales. In particular, I survey and discuss questions and approaches based on, or related to, simulation, information theory, integrated information, computer simulation, intractability, algorithmic complexity, and measures of computational organisation and sophistication. I discuss and propose a set of desirable features of ethical frameworks that may be considered well-grounded, both in theoretical and methodological terms. I will show that while global ethical frameworks that are uncomputable are desirable because they provide non-teleological directions with open-ended meaning, constrained versions should be able to provide guidelines at more local and immediate time scales. In connection to the ethics of artificial intelligence, one point that must be underscored in relation to computational approaches is that (General) AI should only share and embrace an ethical framework that we humans are willing to adopt, preempting the need for possibly flawed distinctions between human and machine actions, especially in connection to concerns of a much more fundamental nature than the classical issues raised by AI development such as job displacement and legal liability. I think that such framework is possible by following a general and universal (in the sense of computation) framework from first computational princi-

[1]  Jean-Gabriel Ganascia,et al.  Event-Based and Scenario-Based Causality for Computational Ethics , 2018, AAMAS.

[2]  Larissa Albantakis,et al.  From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0 , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[3]  D. Wolberg Human Evolution , 1927, Nature.

[4]  J. Henrich,et al.  The Moral Machine experiment , 2018, Nature.

[5]  Hector Zenil,et al.  Low Algorithmic Complexity Entropy-deceiving Graphs , 2016, Physical review. E.

[6]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Body Perception in Newborns , 2013, Current Biology.

[7]  Hector Zenil,et al.  On the possible Computational Power of the Human Mind , 2006, ArXiv.

[8]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Reinforcement Learning as a Framework for Ethical Decision Making , 2016, AAAI Workshop: AI, Ethics, and Society.

[9]  J. Bentham An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , 1945, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[10]  Alicia Ruvinsky Computational Ethics , 2007, Encyclopedia of Information Ethics and Security.

[11]  Hector Zenil,et al.  Algorithmic Data Analytics, Small Data Matters and Correlation versus Causation , 2013, 1309.1418.

[12]  Nick Bostrom,et al.  Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies , 2014 .

[13]  Gregory J. Chaitin,et al.  On the Length of Programs for Computing Finite Binary Sequences: statistical considerations , 1969, JACM.

[14]  Jean-Paul Delahaye,et al.  Universal Ethics: Organized Complexity as an Intrinsic Value , 2019, Evolution, Development and Complexity.

[15]  Stephen Wolfram,et al.  A New Kind of Science , 2003, Artificial Life.

[16]  L. Floridi © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Information ethics: On the philosophical foundation of computer ethics ⋆ , 2022 .

[17]  Ray J. Solomonoff,et al.  A Formal Theory of Inductive Inference. Part I , 1964, Inf. Control..

[18]  Charles H. Bennett Logical depth and physical complexity , 1988 .

[19]  D. Benatar,et al.  Why it is better never to come into existence , 1997 .