Search

Recently, attention has been drawn to the sustainability of artificial intelligence (AI) in terms of environmental costs. However, sustainability is not tantamount to the reduction of environmental costs. By shifting the focus to intergenerational justice as one of the constitutive normative pillars of sustainability, the paper identifies a reductionist view on the sustainability of AI and constructively contributes a conceptual extension. It further develops a framework that establishes normative issues of intergenerational justice raised by the uses of AI. The framework reveals how using AI for decision support to policies with long-term impacts can negatively affect future persons. In particular, the analysis demonstrates that uses of AI for decision support to policies of environmental protection or climate mitigation include assumptions about social discounting and future persons’ preferences. These assumptions are highly controversial and have a significant influence on the weight assigned to the potentially detrimental impacts of a policy on future persons. Furthermore, these underlying assumptions are seldom transparent within AI. Subsequently, the analysis provides a list of assessment questions that constitutes a guideline for the revision of AI techniques in this regard. In so doing, insights about how AI can be made more sustainable become apparent.

In this paper, we address the question of whether AI should be used for suicide prevention on social media data. We focus on algorithms that can identify persons with suicidal ideation based on their postings on social media platforms and investigate whether private companies like Facebook are justified in using these. To find out if that is the case, we start with providing two examples for AI-based means of suicide prevention in social media. Subsequently, we frame suicide prevention as an issue of beneficence, develop two fictional cases to explore the scope of the principle of beneficence and apply the lessons learned to Facebook’s employment of AI for suicide prevention. We show that Facebook is neither acting under an obligation of beneficence nor acting meritoriously. This insight leads us to the general question of who is entitled to help. We conclude that private companies like Facebook can play an important role in suicide prevention, if they comply with specific rules which we derive from beneficence and autonomy as core principles of biomedical ethics. At the same time, public bodies have an obligation to create appropriate framework conditions for AI-based tools of suicide prevention. As an outlook we depict how cooperation between public and private institutions can make an important contribution to combating suicide and, in this way, put the principle of beneficence into practice.