Smart Technology & Ethics

By Colin Harrison

Dr. Harrison is an IBM Distinguished Engineer Emeritus and was most recently the inventor of IBM’s Smarter Cities technical programme. He was previously Director of Strategic Innovation in IBM Europe and Director of Global Services Research. He is an IBM Master Inventor and a Member of the IBM Academy of Technology. He retired in January 2013 from the IBM Corporation.

Jul 12, 2016 | Smart Cities | 0 comments


Who will you meet?

Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.

Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.


 

How would you feel if your Autonomous Vehicle decided it was best for you to die?

The June 23, 2016 edition of Science magazine, a prestigious journal of general science including in recent years the science of cities, carries an article entitled “The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles“. This explores, in the context of Autonomous Vehicles, the familiar ethical debate about a decision to save the lives of several people, probably strangers, by taking an action that will cost the life of an otherwise safe person, possibly a family member of oneself. The article describes research on how individuals would respond to such challenges depending on the size of the at-risk group, the individual’s relationship to these people, and the individual’s relationship to alternate victim.

Such dramatic events are rare in individual lives, but with vehicle populations of tens or hundreds of millions they will not be infrequent. Humans deal with them in various, often heroic, ways. In the future, such real-time decision-making will often be in the hands of a smart system, such as an Autonomous Vehicle. Depending on the ethical model built into the vehicle it might decide that the best outcome is for the passenger or the driver to be killed. The article reports on surveys conducted to explore both attitudes on how such vehicles should behave and also on the responder’s propensity to buy vehicles having different ethical policies.

While such life and death scenarios are rare, smart systems for managing traffic, water supplies, building temperatures, and so forth are increasingly common and, in lesser ways, they embed implicit ethical models for their decision-making. I began my work in smart cities, almost ten years ago, starting from the premise that by applying machine analytics and modeling (we did not then refer to it as Artificial Intelligence) to the operation of city infrastructure and systems, we could help the city to work “better” in a utilitarian fashion, causing the least harm and doing the most good.

Here’s the problem with that. When confronted on the BBC programme, The Brains Trust, with a question of the form “What would be the best….?”, Professor Jacob Bronowski would immediately respond: “First you have to tell me what “best” means.” Our first scenario of this type, devised by Michael Kehoe and Perry Hartswick, considered how to allocate stored energy, both electricity and chilled water at the City of Masdar in Abu Dhabi during an extended sandstorm. Our suggestion for the “best” policy was to prioritise air conditioning and electrical power over transportation and desalination of water.

But there may always be exceptions. Suppose that a citizen of such a city had a heart attack and needed to be transported urgently to a hospital. Then at least some part of the transportation system would have to be operated. In that first scenario, at least, we did not think about such exceptions. And this seems to be a key difference between deciding ethical problems using human judgment and embedding those decisions in machine logic. The generality of human intelligence allows us in most cases to find, sometimes instantaneously , if not the “best” decision, at least a “fair” decision without having to pre-define all possible exceptions.  But we may fear the rigidity of machine intelligence in reaching such decisions; John Thomas has written on this in his book, “Turing’s Nightmares” and his blog. And the list of exceptions may be very long and complex; suppose the person at risk were a pregnant woman, or an escaped murderer, or a senior politician or business person….. In the vehicle scenario above even human intelligence will not be able to deal effectively with every possible exception and hence some outcomes will be unfair.

Such an issue arose during the recent Meeting of the Minds Design Forum, in which one speaker proposed to designate for-fee priority lanes for people who wanted to drive more quickly on congested roads. Objections were raised on grounds that this would disadvantage those who could not afford to pay the priority fee and thus increase inequality.

As humans we recognise that life is often not fair over large ranges of spatio-, temporal-, and moral scales. At the trivial end of such scales we have evolved protocols that generally enable us to resolve such unfairness. As a foreigner living now many years in the United States, I have always been astonished that hyper-competitive Americans behave so politely at four-way road junctions, calmly waiting their turn based on time of arrival and resolving simultaneous arrival conflicts by resort to “priorité à droit“. And so we fear the Kafkaesque horrors of unyielding bureaucracies and AI.

Even as humans, our search for the “best” decision may focus too much on avoiding harm and thereby miss some of the dimensions of doing good. I am reminded of a workshop I ran in the spring of 2012 to consider how “smart” might benefit the resilience of cities. One of our speakers was the Chief Risk Officer of Swiss Re in the United States. He began by describing the horrors of tenement living in American cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, and San Francisco and in similar cities throughout the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries. He noted the many tens of thousands of deaths that occurred each year in the massive fires that repeatedly broke out in such wooden buildings.

And then in the late 19th century, a miracle material was introduced into building construction. A material that is naturally occurring, that has been mined for several thousand years, and that has the valuable property of being completely fire-resistant. That material is, of course, asbestos. In the latter part of the 20th century it became notorious as one of the major causes of silicosis, a respiratory disease that leads ultimately to an unpleasant death, and its earlier use was the subject of great acrimony.

Yet the Chief Risk Officer’s point was: “Yes, silicosis was a terrible outcome from the use of asbestos in buildings. But consider also the tens of thousands of people who did not die terrible deaths by fire as a result. Would it have been “better” at that time to decide not to use asbestos?”

Technologies change society, as I am fond of reminding this community. We introduce them for their ability to solve specific problems and make our lives “better” and often only later do we discover the new problems they have created for us. These emergent problems are often very important and in many cases they raise ethical problems that engineers and planners are ill-equipped to resolve. As we begin to embed ethical decisions, such as those of Autonomous Vehicles, into our engineering, we must seek out the voices of those who are trained in this profession.

Discussion

Leave your comment below, or reply to others.

Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org

Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology

The Pandemic, Inequality, Housing Affordability, and Urban Land

The Pandemic, Inequality, Housing Affordability, and Urban Land

Since the Great Recession of 2008, the housing wealth gap has expanded to include not just Black and Brown Americans, but younger White Americans as well. Millennials and Generation Z Whites are now joining their Black and Brown peers in facing untenable housing precarity and blocked access to wealth. With wages stuck at 1980 levels and housing prices at least double (in inflation adjusted terms) what they were 40 years ago, many younger Americans, most with college degrees, are giving up on buying a home and even struggle to rent apartments suitable for raising a family.

What makes it hard for policy people and citizens to accept this truth is that we have not seen this problem in a very long time. Back in the 1920s of course, but not really since then. But this is actually an old problem that has come back to haunt us; a problem first articulated by Adam Smith in the 1700s.

Multi-modal Transit and the Public Realm

Multi-modal Transit and the Public Realm

More than ever, urban transit services are in need of sustainable and affordable solutions to better serve all members of our diverse communities, not least among them, those that are traditionally car-dependent. New mobility technologies can be a potential resource for local transit agencies to augment multi-modal connectivity across existing transit infrastructures.

We envision a new decentralized and distributed model that provides multi-modal access through nimble and flexible multi-modal Transit Districts, rather than through traditional, centralized, and often too expensive Multi-modal Transit Hubs. Working in collaboration with existing agencies, new micro-mobility technologies could provide greater and seamless access to existing transit infrastructure, while maximizing the potential of the public realm, creating an experience that many could enjoy beyond just catching the next bus or finding a scooter. So how would we go about it?

Cross Sectoral Partnerships Can Fight Human Trafficking

Cross Sectoral Partnerships Can Fight Human Trafficking

Dedicated anti-trafficking actors across the nation are trying to build better systems in big jurisdictions like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and in smaller but scrappy jurisdictions like Waco, Texas and Boaz, Alabama. They all share the same need, for stronger interconnectedness as an anti-trafficking field, and more collaboration.

The Forging Freedom Portal is a one-stop shop where a police officer planning a victim-centered operation can connect with their law enforcement counterparts, and the right service providers ahead of time, collaborating to make sure they’re planning for the language skills, social services, and legal support that victims may need. The portal is a place where the people who care most about ending human trafficking, who are doing the hard work every day on the ground, can learn from each other and share best practices to raise the collective standard of this work.

The Future of Cities

Mayors, planners, futurists, technologists, executives and advocates — hundreds of urban thought leaders publish on Meeting of the Minds. Sign up below to follow the future of cities.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Wait! Before You Leave —

Wait! Before You Leave —

Subscribe to receive updates on the Executive Cohort Program!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This