2004
Volume 116, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Abstract

Abstract

Apart from scrutinizing the societal implications of AI technology, philosophical reflection is needed on the ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Is this an unproblematic concept, or a target of appropriate criticism? In this article, I discuss four shortcomings of the concept of AI. Adopting a conceptual engineering approach, I answer the question of whether AI should be considered a defective concept, and with what implications.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2024.4.002.HOPS
2024-11-01
2024-12-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BeerendsS. en AydinC. (2024) Negotiating the authenticity of AI: how the discourse on AI rejects human indeterminacy. AI & Society, pp.1-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CappelenH. en PlunkettD. (2020) A guided tour of conceptual engineering and conceptual ethics, in: Burgess, A., Cappelen, H, en Plunkett, D., Conceptual engineering and conceptual ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CappelenH. (2023) The Concept of Democracy. An Essay on Conceptual Amelioration and Abandonment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CaveS. (2020) The problem with intelligence: its value-laden history and the future of AI. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 29-35.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CrawfordK. (2021) The atlas of AI. Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Council of EU (2023) Artificial intelligence act. Council and Parliament strike a deal on the first rules for AI in the world. Press release. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/12/09/artificial-intelligence-act-council-and-parliament-strike-a-deal-on-the-first-worldwide-rules-for-ai/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. EijsboutsW.T. (2021) European Constitution and European Sovereignty. On Art and Craft of the Anticipating Notion, in: De Boer, N. e.a. (red.), Liber Amicorum Besselink. Amsterdam, pp. 85-93. dot.org/10.5281/zenodo.5528701
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FloridiL. (2017) Digital’s cleaving power and its consequences, Philosophy & Technology,30, pp. 123–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. GebruT. en TorresÉ.P. (2024) The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence. First Monday.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GouldS.J. (1981) The mismeasure of man. New York: WW Norton & company.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HopsterJ.K.G. (2024) Socially disruptive technologies and epistemic injustice, Ethics and Information Technology, 26(1), pp.14.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hopster, J.K.G., GerolaA., HofbauerB., LöhrG., RijssenbeekJ., & KorenhofP. (2024) Who owns NATURE? Conceptual appropriation in discourses on climate and biotechnologies. Environmental Values33(4), pp. 414-433.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HopsterJ.K.G. en LöhrG. (2023) Conceptual engineering and philosophy of technology: Amelioration or adaptation?Philosophy & Technology36(4), p. 70.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. IsaacM.G. (2023) Which concept of concept for conceptual engineering?, Erkenntnis, 88(5), pp. 2145-2169.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. ISO (2022) ISO/IEC 22989:2022. Artificial intelligence concepts and terminology. https://www.iso.org/standard/74296.html
  16. LeggS. (2008) Machine super intelligence. Doctoral Dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MaasM.M. (2023) AI is Like… A Literature Review of AI Metaphors and Why They Matter for Policy, AI Foundations Report 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4612468
    [Google Scholar]
  18. McCarthyJ., MinskyM.L., RochesterN., ShannonC.E. (2006) A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, August 31, 1955. AI Mag27(4), pp. 12.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Mul de, J. (2014) Kunstmatig van nature. Onderweg naar Homo sapiens 3.0. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nyholm, S. (2023a) This is technology ethics. An introduction. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Nyholm, S. (2023b) A new control problem? Humanoid robots, artificial intelligence, and the value of control. AI and Ethics, 3(4), pp. 1229-1239.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. OECD (2023) OECD AI Principles Overview. https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles
  23. RussellS. en NorvigP. (2003) [1990] Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Second edition. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Education Inc..
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ScharpK. (2020) Philosophy as the study of defective concepts, in: BurgessA., CappelenH., PlunkettD.Conceptual engineering and conceptual ethics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SiddarthD., AcemogluD., AllenD., CrawfordK., EvansJ., JordanM., WeylE. (2021) How AI fails us. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.04200.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. TuringA.M. (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence, Mind59, pp. 433-460.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. White House (2023) Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
  28. WRR (2021) WRR rapport 105. Opgave AI. De nieuwe systeemtechnologie. https://www.wrr.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2021/11/11/opgave-ai-de-nieuwe-systeemtechnologie
/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2024.4.002.HOPS
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error