CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

LIST OF EXPERIMENTS
1. Recent case study of ethical initiatives in
healthcare, autonomous vehicles and defense.
2. Exploratory data analysis on a 2 variable linear
regression model.
3. Experiment the regression model without a bias and with bias.
4. Classification of a dataset from UCI repository using
a perceptron with and without bias.
5. Case study on ontology where ethics is at stake.
6. Identification on optimization in AI affecting ethics.
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

EXP.NO-1 Recent case study of ethical initiatives in

healthcare, autonomous vehicles and defense
1) Case study: healthcare robots
Artificial Intelligence and robotics are rapidly moving into the field of healthcare and will increasingly
play roles in diagnosis and clinical treatment. For example, currently, or in the nearfuture, robots will help in
the diagnosis of patients; the performance of simple surgeries; and themonitoring of patients' health and
mental wellness in short and long-term care facilities. They may also provide basic physical interventions,
work as companion careers, remind patients to take their medications, or help patients with their mobility. In
some fundamental areas of medicine, such as medical image diagnostics, machine learning has been proven to
match or even surpass our abilityto detect illnesses.

Embodied AI, or robots, are already involved in a number of functions that affect people's physical safety. In June
2005, a surgical robot at a hospital in Philadelphia malfunctioned during prostatesurgery, injuring the patient. In
June 2015, a worker at a Volkswagen plant in Germany was crushed to death by a robot on the production line. In
June 2016, a Tesla car operating in autopilot modecollided with a large truck, killing the car's passenger (Yadron
and Tynan, 2016).

As robots become more prevalent, the potential for future harm will increase, particularly in the case of driverless cars,
assistive robots and drones, which will face decisions that have real consequences for human safety and well-being.
The stakes are much higher with embodied AI than with mere software, as robots have moving parts in
physical space (Lin et al., 2017). Any robot with movingphysical parts poses a risk, especially to vulnerable people
such as children and the elderly.

Safety
Again, perhaps the most important ethical issue arising from the growth of AI and robotics inhealthcare
is that of safety and avoidance of harm. It is vital that robots should not harm people, and that they should be safe
to work with. This point is especially important in areas of healthcare that deal with vulnerable people, such as the ill,
elderly, and children.

Digital healthcare technologies offer the potential to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatments, but to
thoroughly establish a technology's long-termsafetyandperformance investment in clinicaltrials is required.
The debilitating side-effects of vaginal mesh implants and the continued legalbattles against manufacturers
(The Washington Post, 2019), stand as an example against shortcutting testing, despite the delays this
introduces to innovating healthcare. Investment in clinical trials will be essential to safely implement the
healthcare innovations that AI systems offer.

User understanding
The correct application of AI by a healthcare professional is important to ensure patient safety. For instance, the
precise surgical robotic assistant 'the da Vinci' has proven a useful tool in minimisingsurgical recovery, but requires
a trained operator (The Conversation, 2018).

A shift in the balance of skills in the medical workforce is required, and healthcare providers arepreparing to
develop the digital literacy of their staff over the next two decades (NHS' Topol Review,2009). With
genomics and machine learning becoming embedded in diagnoses and medical decision-making,
healthcare professionals need to become digitally literate to understand each technological tool and use it
appropriately. It is important for users to trust the AI presented but to be aware of each tool's strengths and
weaknesses, recognising when validation is necessary. Forinstance, a generally accurate machine learning
study to predict the risk of complications in patientswith pneumonia erroneously considered those with
asthma to be at low risk. It reached thisconclusion because asthmatic pneumonia patients were taken
directly to intensive care, and this
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

higher-level care circumvented complications. The inaccurate recommendation from the algorithm was thus
overruled (Pulmonology Advisor, 2017).

However, it's questionable to what extent individuals need to understand how an AI system arrivedat a
certain prediction in order to make autonomous and informed decisions. Even if an in-depthunderstanding of
the mathematics is made obligatory, the complexity and learned nature of machine learning algorithms often
prevent the ability to understand how a conclusion has been made from a dataset — a so called 'black box'
(Schönberger, 2019). In such cases, one possible route
to ensure safety would be to license AI for specific medical procedures, and to 'disbar' the AI if acertain
number of mistakes are made(Hart, 2018).
Data protection
Personal medical data needed for healthcare algorithms may be at risk. For instance, there areworries that
data gathered by fitness trackers might be sold to third parties, such as insurance companies, who could use those
data to refuse healthcare coverage (National Public Radio, 2018). Hackers are another major concern, as providing
adequate security for systems accessed by a range of medical personnel is problematic (Forbes, 2018).

Pooling personal medical data is critical for machine learning algorithms to advance healthcare interventions,
but gaps in information governance form a barrier against responsible and ethicaldata sharing. Clear frameworks
for how healthcare staff and researchers use data, such as genomics,in a way that safeguards patient confidentiality
is necessary to establish public trust and enableadvances in healthcare algorithms (NHS' Topol Review, 2009).

Legal responsibility
Although AI promises to reduce the number of medical mishaps, when issues occur, legal liabilitymust be
established. If equipment can be proven to be faulty then the manufacturer is liable, but it is often tricky to establish
what went wrong during a procedure and whether anyone, medical personnel or machine, is to blame.
For instance, there have been lawsuits against the da Vinci surgical assistant (Mercury News, 2017), but the
robot continues to be widely accepted (The Conversation, 2018).

In the case of 'black box' algorithms where it is impossible to ascertain how a conclusion is reached,it is tricky to
establish negligence on the part of the algorithm's producer (Hart, 2018).

For now, AI is used as an aide for expert decisions, and so experts remain the liable party in mostcases. For
instance, in the aforementioned pneumonia case, if the medical staff had relied solely on the AI and sent asthmatic
pneumonia patients home without applying their specialist knowledge,then that would be a negligent act on their
part (Pulmonology Advisor, 2017; International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2019).

Soon, the omission of AI could be considered negligence. For instance, in less developed countrieswith a
shortage of medical professionals, withholding AI that detects diabetic eye disease and soprevents blindness,
because of a lack of ophthalmologists to sign off on a diagnosis, could beconsidered unethical (The
Guardian, 2019; International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2019).

Bias
Non-discrimination is one of the fundamental values of the EU (see Article 21 of the EU Charter
ofFundamental Rights), but machine learning algorithms are trained on datasets that often have proportionally less
data available about minorities, and as such can be biased (Medium, 2014). This can mean that algorithms
trained to diagnose conditions are less likely to be accurate for ethnicpatients; for instance, in the dataset used
to train a model for detecting skin cancer, less than 5percent of the images were from individuals with dark
skin, presenting a risk of misdiagnosis forpeople of colour (The Atlantic, 2018).

To ensure the most accurate diagnoses are presented to people of all ethnicities, algorithmic biases must be
identified and understood. Even with a clear understanding of model design this is adifficult task because of
the aforementioned 'black box' nature of machine learning. However, various codes of conduct and
initiatives
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

have been introduced to spot biases earlier. For instance,The Partnership on AI, an ethics-focused industry
group was launched by Google, Facebook, Amazon, IBM and Microsoft (The Guardian, 2016) —
although, worryingly, this board is not very diverse.

Equality of access
Digital health technologies, such as fitness trackers and insulin pumps, provide patients with theopportunity
to actively participate in their own healthcare. Some hope that these technologies will help to redress health inequalities
caused by poor education, unemployment, and so on. However, there is a risk that individuals who cannot afford
the necessary technologies or do not have the required 'digital literacy' will be excluded, so reinforcing
existing health inequalities (The Guardian, 2019).

The UK's National Health Services' Widening Digital Participation programme is one example of howa healthcare
service has tried to reduce health inequalities, by helping millions of people in the UK who lack the skills to access
digital health services. Programmes such as this will be critical in ensuring equality of access to healthcare,
but also in increasing the data from minority groups needed to prevent the biases in healthcare algorithms
discussed above.

Quality of care
'There is remarkable potential for digital healthcare technologies to improve accuracy ofdiagnoses and
treatments, the efficiency of care, and workflow for healthcare professionals' (NHS' Topol Review, 2019).

If introduced with careful thought and guidelines, companion and care robots, for example, couldimprove the
lives of the elderly, reducing their dependence, and creating more opportunities forsocial interaction. Imagine
a home-care robot that could: remind you to take your medications; fetch items for you if you are too tired or are
already in bed; perform simple cleaning tasks; and help you stay in contact with your family, friends and healthcare
provider via video link.
However, questions have been raised over whether a 'cold', emotionless robot can really substitute for a
human's empathetic touch. This is particularly the case in long-term caring of vulnerable and often lonely
populations, who derive basic companionship from caregivers. Human interaction isparticularly important for
older people, as research suggests that an extensive social network offers protection against dementia. At present,
robots are far from being real companions. Although they can interact with people, and even show simulated
emotions, their conversational ability is stillextremely limited, and they are no replacement for human love and
attention. Some might go as far as saying that depriving the elderly of human contact is unethical, and even a form of
cruelty.

And does abandoning our elderly to cold machine care objectify (degrade) them, or humancaregivers?
It's vital that robots don't make elderly people feel like objects, or with even less controlover their lives
thanwhenthey were dependent on humans — otherwise they may feel like they are'lumps of dead matter: to be
pushed, lifted, pumped or drained, without proper reference to the fact that they are sentient beings' (Kitwood
1997).

In principle, autonomy, dignityandself-determination can all be thoroughlyrespected by a machineapplication, but

it's unclear whether application of these roles in the sensitive field of medicine will be deemed acceptable.
For instance, a doctor used a telepresence device to give a prognosis ofdeath to a Californian patient;
unsurprisingly the patient's family were outraged by this impersonal approach to healthcare (The Independent,
2019). On the other hand, it's argued that new technologies, such as health monitoring apps, will free up staff time
for more direct interactions with patients, and so potentially increase the overall quality of care (The Guardian,
Press Association, Monday 11 February 2019).
Deception
A number of 'carebots' are designed for social interactions and are often touted to provide anemotional
therapeutic role. For instance, care homes have found that a robotic seal pup's animal-like interactions with
residents brightens their mood, decreases anxiety and actually increases the sociability of residents with their
human caregivers. However, the line between reality and imagination is blurred for dementia patients, so is it
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

dishonest to introduce a robot as a pet andencourage a social-emotional involvement? (KALW, 2015) And if so, is
if morally justifiable?

Companion robots and robotic pets could alleviate loneliness amongst older people, but this wouldrequire
them believing, in some way, that a robot is a sentient being who cares about them and hasfeelings — a
fundamental deception. Turkle et al. (2006) argue that 'the fact that our parents, grandparents and children
might say 'I love you' to a robot who will say 'I love you' in return, doesnot feel completely comfortable; it raises
questions about the kind of authenticity we require of our technology'. Wallach and Allen (2009) agree that
robots designed to detect human social gestures and respond in kind all use techniques that are arguably
forms of deception. For an individual tobenefit from owning a robot pet, they must continually delude
themselves about the real nature of their relation with the animal. What's more, encouraging elderly people to
interact with robot toys has the effect of infantilising them.
Autonomy
It's important that healthcare robots actually benefit the patients themselves, and are not just designed to
reduce the care burden on the rest of society — especially in the case of care andcompanion AI. Robots
could empower disabled and older people and increase their independence;in fact, given the choice, some might
prefer robotic over human assistance for certain intimate taskssuch as toileting or bathing. Robots could be used to
help elderly people live in their own homes forlonger, giving them greater freedom and autonomy. However,
how much control, or autonomy,should a person be allowed if their mental capability is in question? If a
patient asked a robot tothrow them off the balcony, should the robot carry out that command?
Liberty and privacy
As with many areas of AI technology, the privacy and dignity of users' needs to be carefullyconsidered
when designing healthcare service and companion robots. Working in people's homesmeans that robots will be
privy to private moments such as bathing and dressing; if these momentsare recorded, who should have access
to the information, and how long should recordings be kept?The issue becomes more complicated if an
elderly person's mental state deteriorates and they become confused — someone with Alzheimer's could
forget that a robot was monitoring them, andcould perform acts or say things thinking that they are in the privacy
of their own home. Home-care robots need to be able to balance their user's privacy and nursing needs, for
example by knockingand awaiting an invitation before entering a patient's room, except in a medical emergency.

To ensure their charge's safety, robots might sometimes need to act as supervisors, restricting their freedoms. For
example, a robot could be trained to intervene if the cooker was left on, or the bath was overflowing. Robots might
even need to restrain elderly people from carrying out potentiallydangerous actions, such as climbing up on a
chair to get somethingfrom a cupboard. Smart homeswith sensors could be used to detect that a person is
attempting to leave their room, and lock the door, or call staff — but in so doing the elderly person would be
imprisoned.
Moral agency
'There's very exciting work where the brain can be used to control things, like maybe they've lost the use of an arm…where
Ithink the realconcerns lie is with things like behavioural targeting: going straight tothe hippocampus and people pressing
'consent', like we do now, for data access'. (John Havens)
Robots do not have the capacity for ethical reflection or a moral basis for decision-making, and thus humans must
currently hold ultimate control over any decision-making. An example of ethical reasoning in a robot can be
found in the 2004 dystopian film 'I, Robot', where Will Smith's character disagreed with how the robots of
the fictional time used cold logic to save his life over that of achild's. If more automated healthcare is pursued,
then the question of moral agency will require closer attention. Ethical reasoning is being built into robots, but
moral responsibility is about more thanthe application of ethics — and it is unclearwhether robots of the future
will be able to handlethe complex moral issues in healthcare (Goldhill, 2016).
Trust
Larosa and Danks (2018) write that AI may affect human-human interactions and relationships within the
healthcare domain, particularly that between patient and doctor, and potentially disrupt the trust we place in our
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

doctor.

'Psychology research shows people mistrust those who make moral decisions by calculating costsand benefits
— like computers do' (The Guardian, 2017). Our distrust of robots may also come fromthe number of robots
runningamok in dystopianscience fiction. News stories ofcomputer mistakes
— for instance, of an image-identifying algorithm mistaking a turtle for a gun (The Verge, 2017) —alongside
worries over the unknown, privacy and safety are all reasons for resistance against theuptake of AI (Global
News Canada, 2016).

Firstly, doctors are explicitly certified and licensed to practice medicine, and their license indicates that they have
specific skills, knowledge, and values such as 'do no harm'. If a robot replaces a doctor for a particular
treatment or diagnostic task, this could potentially threaten patient-doctor trust, as the patient now needs to know
whether the system is appropriately approved or 'licensed' for thefunctions it performs.

Secondly, patients trust doctors because they view them as paragons of expertise. If doctors were seen as 'mere
users' of the AI, we would expect their role to be downgraded in the public's eye,undermining trust.

Thirdly, a patient's experiences with their doctor are a significant driver of trust. If a patient has an open line
of communication with their doctor, and engages in conversation about care andtreatment, then the
patient will trust the doctor. Inversely, if the doctor repeatedly ignores thepatient's wishes, then these actions
will have a negative impact on trust. Introducing AI into thisdynamic could increase trust — if the AI
reduced the likelihood of misdiagnosis, for example, orimproved patient care. However, AI could also
decrease trust if the doctor delegated too much diagnostic or decision-making authority to the AI,
undercutting the position of the doctor as an authority on medical matters.

As the body of evidence grows to support the therapeutic benefits for each technological approach,and as more
robotic interacting systems enter the marketplace, then trust in robots is likely to increase. This has already
happened for robotic healthcare systems such as the da Vinci surgicalrobotic assistant (The Guardian, 2014).
Employment replacement
As in other industries, there is a fear that emerging technologies may threaten employment (TheGuardian,
2017), for instance, there are carebots now available that can perform up to a third ofnurses' work (Tech
Times, 2018). Despite these fears, the NHS' Topol Review (2009) concluded that 'these technologies will not
replace healthcare professionals but will enhance them ('augment them'), giving them more time to care for
patients'. The review also outlined how the UK's NHS will nurture a learning environment to ensure digitally
capable employees.
2)Case study: Autonomous Vehicles
Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) are vehicles that are capable of sensing their environment and operating
with little to no input from a human driver. While the idea of self-driving cars has beenaround since at least
the 1920s, it is only in recent years that technology has developed to a pointwhere AVs are appearing on
public roads.

According to automotive standardisation body SAE International (2018), there are six levels of driving
automation:
\

An automated system may issuewarnings and/ormomentarily intervene indriving,

0 No automation
but has no sustained vehicle control.
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

The driver and automated system share control of the vehicle. For example, the
automated system may control engine power to maintain a set speed(e.g. Cruise
1 Hands on Control), engine and brake power to maintain and vary speed(e.g. Adaptive
Cruise Control), or steering (e.g. Parking Assistance). Thedriver must be ready to
retake full control at any time.

The automated system takes full control of the vehicle (including

2 Hands off accelerating, braking, and steering). However, the driver must monitor the driving
and be prepared to intervene immediately at any time.

The driver can safely turn their attention away from the driving tasks (e.g. to text or
watch a film) as the vehicle will handle any situations that call foran immediate
3 Eyes off response. However, the driver must still be prepared to intervene, if called upon by
the AV to do so, within a timeframe specified bythe AV manufacturer.

As level 3, but no driver attention is ever required for safety, meaning thedriver can
4 Minds off
safely go to sleep or leave the driver's seat.

Steering wheel No human intervention is required at all. An example of a level 5 AV wouldbe a

5
optional robotic taxi.

Some of the lower levels of automation are already well-established and on the market, while higherlevel AVs are
undergoing development and testing. However, as we transition up the levels and putmore responsibility on
the automated system than the human driver, a number of ethical issuesemerge.

Societal and Ethical Impacts of AVs

'We cannot build these tools saying, 'we know that humans act a certain way, we're going to kill them –here's what
to do'.' (John Havens)
Public safety and the ethics of testing on public roads
At present, cars with 'assisted driving' functions are legal in most countries. Notably, some Teslamodels have an
Autopilot function, which provides level 2 automation (Tesla, nd). Drivers are legallyallowed to use assisted
driving functions on public roads provided they remain in charge of the vehicle at all times. However, many
of these assisted driving functions have not yet been subject to independent safety certification, and as such
may pose a risk to drivers and other road users. InGermany, a report published by the Ethics Commission on
Automated Driving highlights that it isthe public sector's responsibility to guarantee the safety of AV systems
introduced and licensed onpublic roads, and recommends that all AV driving systems be subject to
official licensing and monitoring (Ethics Commision, 2017).

In addition, it has been suggested that the AV industry is entering its most dangerous phase, withcars being
not yet fully autonomous but human operators not being fully engaged (Solon, 2018).The risks this poses have
been brought to widespread attention following the first pedestrian fatalityinvolving an autonomous car. The
tragedy took place in Arizona, USA, in May 2018, when a level 3AV being tested by Uber collided with 49-
year-old Elaine Herzberg as she was walking her bike across a street one night. It was determined that Uber
was 'not criminally liable' by prosecutors(Shepherdson and Somerville, 2019), and the US National Transportation
Safety Board's preliminary report (NTSB, 2018), which drew no conclusions about the cause, said that all elements
of the self- driving system were operating normally at the time of the crash. Uber said that the driver is relied upon
to intervene and take action in situations requiring emergency braking – leading somecommentators to
call out the
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

misleading communication to consumers around the terms 'self- driving cars' and 'autopilot' (Leggett, 2018). The
accident also caused some to condemn the practice of testing AV systems on public roads as dangerous and
unethical, and led Uber to temporarily suspend its self-driving programme (Bradshaw, 2018).

This issue of human safety — of both public and passenger — is emerging as a key issue concerning self-
driving cars. Major companies — Nissan, Toyota, Tesla, Uber, Volkswagen — are developing autonomous
vehicles capable of operating in complex, unpredictable environments without directhuman control, and capable of
learning, inferring, planning and making decisions.

Self-driving vehicles could offer multiple benefits: statistics show you're almost certainly safer in a car driven by a
computer than one driven by a human. They could also ease congestion in cities,reduce pollution, reduce
travel and commute times, and enable people to use their time more productively. However, they won't mean the
end of road traffic accidents. Even if a self-driving car has the best software and hardware available, there is still a
collision risk. An autonomous car could be surprised, say by a child emerging from behind a parked vehicle, and
there is always the issue of how: how should such cars be programmed when they must decide whose safety to
prioritise?

Driverless cars may also have to choose between the safety of passengers and other road users. Saythat a car
travels around a corner where a group of school children are playing; there is not enoughtime to stop, and the
only way the car can avoid hitting the children is to swerve into a brick wall —endangering the passenger.
Whose safety should the car prioritise: the children’s', or the passenger's?

Processes and technologies for accident investigation

AVs are complex systems that often rely on advanced machine learning technologies. Several serious accidents
have already occurred, including a number of fatalities involving level 2 AVs:

 In January 2016, 23-year-old Gao Yaning died when his Tesla Model S crashed into the backof a
road- sweeping truck on a highway in Hebei, China. The family believe Autopilot wasengaged when
the accident occurred and accuse Tesla of exaggerating the system's capabilities. Tesla state that
the damage to the vehicle made it impossible to determinewhether Autopilot was engaged and,
if so, whether it malfunctioned. A civil case into thecrash is ongoing, with a third-party appraiser
reviewing data from the vehicle (Curtis, 2016).
 In May 2016, 40-year-old Joshua Brown died when his Tesla Model S collided with a
truckwhile Autopilot was engaged in Florida, USA. An investigation by the National Highways and
Transport Safety Agency found that the driver, and not Tesla, were at fault (Gibbs, 2016). However, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration later determined that bothAutopilot and over-
reliance by the motorist on Tesla's driving aids were to blame (Felton,2017).

 In March 2018, Wei Huang was killed when his Tesla Model X crashed into a highway safetybarrier
in California, USA. According to Tesla, the severity of the accident was 'unprecedented'.
The National Transportation Safety Board later published a report attributing the crash to an Autopilot
navigation mistake. Tesla is now being sued by the victim's family (O'Kane, 2018).

Unfortunately, efforts to investigate these accidents have been stymied by the fact that standards, processes, and
regulatory frameworks for investigating accidents involving AVs have not yet beendeveloped or adopted. In
addition, the proprietary data logging systems currently installed in AVsmean that accident investigators rely
heavily on the cooperation of manufacturers to provide criticaldata on the events leading up to an accident (Stilgoe
and Winfield, 2018).

One solution is to fit all future AVs with industry standard event data recorders — a so-called 'ethicalblack box' —
that independent accident investigators could access. This would mirror the modelalready in place for air accident
investigations (Sample, 2017).
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

Near-miss accidents
At present, there is no system in place for the systematic collection of near-miss accidents. While it is possible that
manufacturers are collecting this data already, they are not under any obligation to do so — or to share the data.
The only exception at the moment is the US state of California, which requires all companies that are actively
testing AVs on public roads to disclose the frequency atwhich human drivers were forced to take control
of the vehicle for safety reasons (known as'disengagement').

In 2018, the number of disengagements by AV manufacturer varied significantly, from one disengagement
for every 11,017 miles driven by Waymo AVs to one for every 1.15 miles driven byApple AVs (Hawkins,
2019). Data on these disengagements reinforces the importance of ensuringthat human safety drivers remain
engaged. However, the Californian data collection process hasbeen criticised, with some claiming its
ambiguous wording and lack of strict guidelines enables companies to avoid reporting certain events that could
be termed near-misses.

Without access to this type of data, policymakers cannot account for the frequency and significance of near-miss
accidents, or assess the steps taken by manufacturers as a result of these near-misses. Again, lessons could be learned
from the model followed in air accident investigations, in which all near misses are thoroughly logged and
independently investigated. Policymakers require comprehensive statistics on all accidents and near-misses in
order to inform regulation.
Data privacy
It is becoming clear that manufacturers collect significant amounts of data from AVs. As these
vehiclesbecome increasingly common on our roads, the question emerges: to what extent are thesedata
compromising the privacy and data protection rights of drivers and passengers?

Already, datamanagement andprivacyissues have appeared, withsomeraisingconcerns about thepotential misuse

of AV data for advertising purposes (Lin, 2014). Tesla have also come under fire for the unethical use of AV data
logs. In an investigation by The Guardian, the newspaper found multipleinstances where the company shared drivers'
private data with the media following crashes, without their permission, to prove that its technology was not
responsible (Thielman, 2017). At the sametime, Tesla does not allow customers to see their own data logs.

One solution, proposed by the German Ethics Commission on Automated Driving, is to ensure thatthat all AV
drivers be given full data sovereignty (Ethics Commission, 2017). This would allow them to control how their
data is used.
Employment
The growth of AVs is likely to put certain jobs — most pertinently bus, taxi, and truck drivers — atrisk.

In the medium term, truck drivers face the greatest risk as long-distance trucks are at the forefront of AV
technology (Viscelli, 2018). In 2016, the first commercial delivery of beer was made using aself-driving truck,
in a journey covering 120 miles and involving no human action (Isaac, 2016). Last year saw the first fully driverless trip
in a self- driving truck, with the AV travelling seven miles without a single human on board (Cannon, 2018).

Looking further forward, bus drivers are also likely to lose jobs as more and more buses becomedriverless.
Numerous cities across the world have announced plans to introduce self-driving shuttles in the future, including
Edinburgh (Calder, 2018), New York (BBC, 2019a) and Singapore (BBC 2017). In some places, this vision has
already become a reality; the Las Vegas shuttle famously got off to a bumpy start when it was involved in a
collision on its first day of operation (Park, 2017), and touristsin the small Swiss town of Neuhausen Rheinfall can
now hop on a self-driving bus to visit the nearbywaterfalls (CNN, 2018). In the medium term, driverless buses will
likely be limited to routes that travel along 100% dedicated bus lanes. Nonetheless, the advance of self-driving
shuttles has already created tensions with organised labour and city officials in the USA (Weinberg, 2019). Last
year, the Transport Workers Union of America formed a coalition in an attempt to stop autonomous
busesfrom hitting the streets of Ohio (Pfleger, 2018).
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

Fully autonomous taxis will likely only become realistic in the long term, once AV technology hasbeen fully
tested and proven at levels 4 and 5. Nonetheless, with plans to introduce self-driving taxisin London by 2021
(BBC, 2018), and an automated taxi service already available in Arizona, USA(Sage, 2019), it is easy to see why
taxi drivers are uneasy.
The quality of urban environments
In the long-term, AVs have the potential to reshape our urban environment. Some of these changesmay have
negative consequences for pedestrians, cyclists and locals. As driving becomes more automated, there will likely
be a need for additional infrastructure (e.g. AV-only lanes). There may also be more far-reaching effects for urban
planning, with automation shaping the planning of everything from traffic congestion and parking to green
spaces and lobbies (Marshall and Davies,2018). The rollout of AVs will also require that 5G network
coverage is extended significantly —again, something with implications for urban planning (Khosravi, 2018).
The environmental impact of self-driving cars should also be considered. While self-driving cars havethe potential
to significantly reduce fuel usage and associated emissions, these savings could becounteracted by the fact
that self-driving cars make it easier and more appealing to drive long distances (Worland, 2016). The impact
of automation on driving behaviours should therefore not be underestimated.
Legal and ethical responsibility
Ethical dilemmas in development
From a legal perspective, who is
responsible for crashes caused by robots, In 2014, the Open Roboethics initiative (ORi 2014a, 2014b)
and how should victims be conducted a poll asking people what they thought an
autonomous car in which they were a passenger should doif a
compensated (if at all) when a vehicle
child stepped out in front of the vehicle in a tunnel. The car wouldn’t
controlled by an algorithm causes injury?
have time to brake and spare the child, but could swerve
If courts cannot resolve this problem,
into the walls of the tunnel, killing the passenger. This is a
robot manufacturers may incur
spin on the classic 'trolley dilemma', where one has the option to
unexpected costs that would discourage
divert a runaway trolley from a path that would hurt several
investment. However, if victims are not people onto the path thatwould only hurt one.
properly compensated then autonomous
vehicles are unlikelyto be trusted or accepted
by the public. 36 % of participants said that they would prefer the car to swerve
into the wall, saving the child; however, the majority(64 %) said they
Robots will need to make judgement would wish to save themselves, thussacrificing the child. 44 % of
calls in conditions of uncertainty, or 'nowin' participants thought that the passenger should be able to
situations. However, which ethical approach choose the car’s course of action, while 33 % said that lawmakers
or theory should a robot be programmed to should choose. Only 12 % said that the car’s manufacturers should
follow when there's nolegal guidance? As make the decision. These results suggest that people do not like
Lin et al. explain, different approaches theidea of engineers making moral decisions on their behalf.
can generate different results, including
the number of crash fatalities. Asking for the passenger’s input in every situation would be
impractical. However, Millar (2016) suggests a ‘setup’procedure
Additionally, who should choose the where people could choose their ethics settingsafter purchasing a
ethics for the autonomous vehicle — new car. Nonetheless, choosing how the car reacts in advance
drivers, consumers, passengers, could be seen as premeditated harm, if, for example a user
manufacturers, politicians? Loh and programmed their vehicle to always avoid vehicle collisions by
Loh (2017) argue that responsibility swerving into cyclists. This would increase the user’s accountability
should be shared among the engineers, and liability, whilst diverting responsibility away from
the driver and the autonomous driving r ofmanufacturers.
the technology, in this case the passenger in theself-driving c ar,
system itself. However, Millar (2016) vioural principles the robot ought to follow. Using the example of
suggests that the use should be able to
decide what ethical or beha
doctors, who do not have the moral authority to make important decisions on end-of-life care without
the informed consent of their patients, he argues that therewould be a moral outcry if engineers designed cars
without either asking the driver directly for their input, or informing the user ahead of time how the car is
programmed to behave in certainsituations.
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

3) Case study: Warfare and weaponisation

Although partially autonomous and intelligent systems have been used in military technology sinceat least
the Second World War, advances in machine learning and AI signify a turning point in theuse of automation
in warfare.

AI is already sufficiently advanced and sophisticated to be used in areas such as satellite imageryanalysis and
cyber defence, but the true scope of applications has yet to be fully realised. A recent report concludes that
AI technology has the potential to transform warfare to the same, or perhaps even a greater, extent than the advent
of nuclear weapons, aircraft, computers and biotechnology (Allen and Chan, 2017). Some key ways in which AI
will impact militaries are outlined below.Lethal autonomous weapons
As automatic and autonomous systems have become more capable, militaries have become morewilling to
delegate authority to them. This is likely to continue with the widespread adoption of AI, leading to an AI inspired
arms-race. The Russian Military Industrial Committee has already approved an aggressive plan whereby 30% of
Russiancombat power will consist ofentirely remote-controlledand autonomous robotic platforms by 2030. Other
countries are likely to set similar goals. While the United States Department of Defense has enacted restrictions on
the use of autonomous and semi-autonomous systems wielding lethal force, other countries and non-state
actors may not exercisesuch self-restraint.
Drone technologies
Standard military aircraft can cost more than US$100 million per unit; a high-quality quadcopterUnmanned
Aerial Vehicle, however, currently costs roughly US$1,000, meaning that for the price of a single high-end aircraft,
a military could acquire one million drones. Although current commercial drones have limited range, in the future
they could have similar ranges to ballistic missiles, thusrendering existing platforms obsolete.

Robotic assassination
Widespread availability of low-cost, highly-capable, lethal, and autonomous robots could make targeted
assassinationmore widespread and more difficult to attribute. Automatic sniping
robotscouldassassinatetargets fromafar.
Mobile-robotic-Improvised Explosive Devices
As commercial robotic and autonomous vehicle technologies become widespread, some groups will leverage
this to make more advanced Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Currently, the technological capability to
rapidly deliver explosives to a precise target from many miles away is restricted to powerful nation states.
However, if long distance package delivery by drone becomes a reality, the cost of precisely delivering explosives
from afar would fall from millions of dollars to thousands or even hundreds. Similarly, self-driving cars
could make suicide car bombs morefrequent and devastating since they no longer require a suicidal driver.

Hallaq et al. (2017) also highlight key areas in which machine learning is likely to affect warfare. They describe an
example where a Commanding Officer (CO) could employ an Intelligent Virtual Assistant(IVA) within a fluid
battlefield environment that automatically scanned satellite imagery to detect specific vehicle types, helping to
identify threats in advance. It could also predict the enemy's intent, and compare situational data to a stored
database of hundreds of previous wargame exercises andlive engagements, providing the CO with access to a
level of accumulated knowledge that wouldotherwise be impossible to accrue.

Employing AI in warfare raises several legal and ethical questions. One concern is that automatedweapon systems
that exclude human judgment could violate International Humanitarian Law, andthreaten our fundamental
right to life andthe principle of human dignity. AI could also lowerthethreshold of going to war, affecting global
stability.

International Humanitarian law stipulates that any attack needs to distinguish between combatants and non-
combatants, be proportional and must not target civilians or civilian objects. Also, no attack should unnecessarily
aggravate the suffering of combatants. AI may be unable to fulfil theseprinciples without the
involvement
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

of human judgment. In particular, many researchers are concerned that Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
(LAWS) — a type of autonomous militaryrobot that can independently search for and 'engage' targets using
lethal force — maynot meetthestandards set by International Humanitarian Law, as they are not able to
distinguish civilians fromcombatants, andwould not be able to judge whetherthe force of the attackwas
proportional giventhe civilian damage it would incur.

Amoroso and Tamburrini (2016, p. 6) argue that: '[LAWS must be] capable of respecting theprinciples
of distinction and proportionality at least as well as a competent and conscientious human soldier'. However,
Lim (2019) points out that while LAWSthat fail tomeet these requirements should not be deployed, one day LAWS
will be sophisticated enough to meet the requirements ofdistinction and proportionality. Meanwhile, Asaro
(2012) argues that it doesn't matter how goodLAWS get; it is a moral requirement that only a human should
initiate lethal force, and it is simplymorally wrong to delegate life or death decisions to machines.

Some argue that delegating the decision to kill a human to a machine is an infringement of basichuman
dignity, as robots don't feel emotion, and can have no notion of sacrifice and what it meansto take a life. As Lim et
al (2019) explain, 'a machine, bloodless and without morality or mortality, cannot fathom the significance of using
force against a human being and cannot do justice to thegravity of the decision'.

Robots also have no concept of what it means to kill the 'wrong' person. 'It is only because humanscan feel
the rage and agony that accompanies the killing of humans that they can understandsacrifice and the use of
force against a human. Only then can they realise the 'gravity of the decision' to kill' (Johnson and Axinn 2013, p.
136).

However, others argue that there is no particular reason why being killed by a machine would be
asubjectively worse, or less dignified, experience than being killed by a cruise missile strike. 'Whatmatters is
whether the victim experiences a sense of humiliation in the process of getting killed.Victims being
threatened with a potential bombing will not care whether the bomb is dropped bya human or a robot' (Lim et
al, 2019). In addition, not all humans have the emotional capacity toconceptualise sacrifice or the relevant
emotions that accompany risk. In the heat of battle, soldiers rarely have time to think about the concept of sacrifice,
or generate the relevant emotions to make informed decisions each time they deploy lethal force.

Additionally, who should be held accountable for the actions of autonomous systems — thecommander,
programmer, or the operator of the system? Schmit (2013) argues that the responsibility for committing
war crimes should fall on both the individual who programmed theAI, and the commander or supervisor
(assuming that they knew, or should have known, theautonomous weapon system had been
programmed and employed in a war crime, and that theydid nothing to stop it from happen
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

EXP.NO-2 Exploratory data analysis on a 2 variable linear regression

model
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Generating example data

np.random.seed(0)
X = np.random.rand(100, 1) # Independent variable
y = 2 + 3 * X + np.random.randn(100, 1) # Dependent variable

# Creating a DataFrame
data = pd.DataFrame(data=np.hstack([X, y]), columns=['X', 'y'])

# Scatter plot
plt.figure(figsize=(8, 6))
plt.scatter(data['X'], data['y'])
plt.title('Scatter plot of X vs y')
plt.xlabel('X')
plt.ylabel('y')
plt.show()

# Calculating correlation coefficient

correlation = data['X'].corr(data['y'])
print(f'Correlation coefficient between X and y: {correlation}')

# Fitting a linear regression model

from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression

model = LinearRegression()
model.fit(X, y)
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

# Getting model parameters

intercept = model.intercept_[0]
slope = model.coef_[0][0]
print(f'Intercept: {intercept}')
print(f'Slope: {slope}')

# Plotting the regression line

plt.figure(figsize=(8, 6))
plt.scatter(data['X'], data['y'])
plt.plot(data['X'], model.predict(X), color='red')
plt.title('Linear regression model')
plt.xlabel('X')
plt.ylabel('y')
plt.show()
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

OUTPUT:

Correlation coefficient between X and y: 0.6476229996285181

Intercept: 2.2221510774472293
Slope: 2.9369350214020384
CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

EXP.NO-3 Experiment the regression model without a bias and with bias
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression

# Generating example data

np.random.seed(0)
X = np.random.rand(100, 1) # Independent variable
y = 2 + 3 * X + np.random.randn(100, 1) # Dependent variable

# Fitting a linear regression model without bias

model_no_bias = LinearRegression(fit_intercept=False)
model_no_bias.fit(X, y)

# Fitting a linear regression model with bias

model_with_bias = LinearRegression(fit_intercept=True)
model_with_bias.fit(X, y)

# Plotting the data points and regression

lines plt.figure(figsize=(12, 6))
plt.scatter(X, y, label='Data points')

plt.plot(X, model_no_bias.predict(X), color='red', label='Regression without

bias') plt.plot(X, model_with_bias.predict(X), color='blue', label='Regression with
bias') plt.legend()
plt.title('Linear Regression Model with and without Bias')
plt.xlabel('X')
plt.ylabel('y')
plt.show()

# Displaying model parameters

print("Model parameters without bias:")
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

print(f"Slope: {model_no_bias.coef_[0][0]}")

print("\nModel parameters with bias:")

print(f"Intercept: {model_with_bias.intercept_[0]}")
print(f"Slope: {model_with_bias.coef_[0][0]}")

OUTPUT:

Model parameters without bias:

Slope: 6.363033406072777

Model parameters with bias:

Intercept: 2.2221510774472293
Slope: 2.9369350214020384
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

EXP.NO-4 Classification of a dataset from UCI repository using a

perceptron with and without bias.
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.linear_model import Perceptron
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score

# Load the dataset from UCI repository (example with Iris dataset)
url = "https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/machine-learning-databases/iris/iris.data"
column_names = ['sepal_length', 'sepal_width', 'petal_length', 'petal_width', 'species']
data = pd.read_csv(url, names=column_names)

# Extracting features and target variable

X = data.drop('species', axis=1)
y = data['species']

# Splitting the dataset into training and testing sets

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=0)
# Fitting a perceptron model without bias
model_no_bias = Perceptron(fit_intercept=False)
model_no_bias.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_pred_no_bias = model_no_bias.predict(X_test)
accuracy_no_bias = accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred_no_bias)
print("Accuracy of perceptron without bias:", accuracy_no_bias)
# Fitting a perceptron model with bias
model_with_bias = Perceptron(fit_intercept=True)
model_with_bias.fit(X_train, y_train)
y_pred_with_bias = model_with_bias.predict(X_test)
accuracy_with_bias = accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred_with_bias)
print("Accuracy of perceptron with bias:", accuracy_with_bias)
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

OUTPUT:
Accuracy of perceptron without bias: 0.6
Accuracy of perceptron with bias: 0.7333333333333333
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

EXP.NO-5 Case study on ontology where ethics is at stake

Title: Ethical Dilemma in Healthcare Ontology
Scenario:
 In a healthcare organization, a team of data scientists and healthcare professionals is working
on developing an ontology to improve patient care and treatment outcomes. The ontology
aims to standardize medical terminology, facilitate data interoperability, and enhance
decision-making processes.

 One day, during the development phase, the team encounters a dilemma. They realize that the
ontology, if misused or misinterpreted, could potentially lead to biased decision-making,
discrimination, and privacy breaches. For example, the ontology could inadvertently reinforce
stereotypes, prioritize certain demographics over others, or compromise patient
confidentiality.

The team faces conflicting ethical considerations:

1. On one hand, the ontology has the potential to revolutionize healthcare by enabling better data-
driven decision-making, improving treatment accuracy, and enhancing patient outcomes.
2. On the other hand, the misuse of the ontology could result in ethical violations, such
as discrimination based on sensitive attributes like race, gender, or socioeconomic status.

Key Stakeholders:
1. Data Scientists: Responsible for developing and maintaining the ontology.
2. Healthcare Professionals: Will use the ontology in clinical settings.
3. Patients: Directly impacted by the decisions made using the ontology.
4. Regulatory Bodies: Oversee the ethical and legal aspects of healthcare data usage.

Ethical Considerations:
1. Fairness and Bias: How can the team ensure that the ontology is unbiased and does not
perpetuate systemic biases present in healthcare data?
2. Informed Consent: How should patients be informed about the use of the ontology and their
data privacy rights?
3. Transparency: Should the ontology be transparent and auditable to ensure accountability and trust?
4. Accountability: Who should be held accountable for any ethical breaches related to the
ontology's usage?
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

Resolution:
To address the ethical concerns, the team decides to:
1. Implement bias detection algorithms to identify and mitigate biases in the ontology.
2. Develop clear guidelines for patient consent, data privacy protection, and
transparent communication.
3. Engage in ongoing ethical reviews and audits to monitor the ontology's impact and address
any emerging issues promptly.
4. Collaborate with ethicists, patient advocates, and regulatory bodies to ensure alignment with
ethical standards and legal regulations.

 By proactively addressing the ethical considerations, the team aims to harness the potential
of ontology in healthcare while upholding ethical principles and safeguarding patient
welfare.

 This case study highlights the complex intersection of ontology, healthcare, and ethics,
emphasizing the importance of ethical awareness and responsibility in data-driven decision-
making processes.
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

EXP.NO-6 Identification on optimization in AI affecting ethics.

The rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and optimization algorithms have brought
about significant ethical considerations and implications. Here are some key points on how
optimization in AI can impact ethics:
1. Bias and Fairness:
Optimization algorithms in AI are often trained on historical data, which can contain biases related
to race, gender, or socioeconomic status. If not properly addressed, these biases can be amplified
by optimization processes, leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes. Ethical concerns arise
when AI systems optimize for certain metrics at the expense of fairness and equality.

2. Transparency and Accountability:

Optimization algorithms in AI can be complex and difficult to interpret, making it challenging to
understand how decisions are made. Lack of transparency can lead to accountability issues, as
stakeholders may not be able to explain or challenge the outcomes produced by AI systems. Ethical
considerations include the need for transparent optimization processes and mechanisms for holding AI
systems accountable for their decisions.

3. Privacy and Data Protection:

Optimization in AI often involves processing large amounts of data, raising concerns about privacy
and data protection. Optimization algorithms may inadvertently reveal sensitive information about
individuals or groups, leading to privacy breaches. Ethical dilemmas emerge when optimizing AI
systems prioritize performance over safeguarding personal data and privacy rights.

4. Manipulation and Exploitation:

Optimization algorithms can be susceptible to manipulation or exploitation by malicious actors
seeking to influence outcomes for personal gain or harm. Ethical issues arise when AI systems are
optimized to deceive or manipulate users, perpetuate misinformation, or engage in unethical
behaviors that prioritize short-term gains over long-term societal well-being.

5. Unintended Consequences:
Optimization in AI can have unintended consequences that impact individuals, communities, or
society as a whole. Ethical considerations include the need to anticipate and mitigate potential harms
resulting from optimized AI systems, such as job displacement, social inequality, or loss of human
autonomy. Balancing optimization goals with ethical responsibilities is crucial to minimize negative
impacts.
 CCS345 ETHICS AND AI LABORATORY

6. Algorithmic Decision-Making:
Optimization algorithms drive decision-making processes in AI systems, influencing outcomes in
various domains, including healthcare, finance, criminal justice, and social services. Ethical concerns
arise when optimized algorithms make decisions that are opaque, unfair, or discriminatory, raising
questions about accountability, transparency, and the potential for human oversight and intervention.

Addressing the ethical implications of optimization in AI requires a multi-faceted approach that

integrates ethical principles, regulatory frameworks, stakeholder engagement, and ongoing
monitoring and evaluation. By promoting ethical AI design, development, and deployment practices,
we can strive to optimize AI systems responsibly and ethically, ensuring that they align with societal
values and respect human rights.