Search

In the era of generative AI and specifically large language models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, the intersection of artificial intelligence and human reasoning has become a focal point of global attention. Unlike conventional search engines, LLMs go beyond mere information retrieval, entering into the realm of discourse culture. Its outputs mimic well-considered, independent opinions or statements of facts, presenting a pretense of wisdom. This paper explores the potential transformative impact of LLMs on democratic societies. It delves into the concerns regarding the difficulty in distinguishing ChatGPT-generated texts from human output. The discussion emphasizes the essence of authorship, rooted in the unique human capacity for reason - a quality indispensable for democratic discourse and successful collaboration within free societies. Highlighting the potential threats to democracy, this paper presents three arguments: the Substitution argument, the Authenticity argument, and the Facts argument. These arguments highlight the potential risks that are associated with an overreliance on LLMs. The central thesis posits that widespread deployment of LLMs may adversely affect the fabric of a democracy if not comprehended and addressed proactively and properly. In proposing a solution, we advocate for an emphasis on education as a means to mitigate risks. We suggest cultivating thinking skills in children, fostering coherent thought formulation, and distinguishing between machine-generated output and genuine, i.e. human, reasoning. The focus should be on responsible development and usage of LLMs, with the goal of augmenting human capacities in thinking, deliberating and decision-making rather than substituting them.

Digitalization efforts are rapidly spreading across societies, challenging new and important ethical issues that arise from technological development. Software developers, designers and managerial decision-makers are ever more expected to consider ethical values and conduct normative evaluations when building digital products. Yet, when one looks for guidance in the academic literature one encounters a plethora of branches of applied ethics. Depending on the context of the system that is to be developed, interesting subfields like big data ethics, machine ethics, information ethics, AI ethics or computer ethics (to only name a few) may present themselves. In this paper we want to offer assistance to any member of a development team by giving a clear and brief introduction into two fields of ethical endeavor (normative ethics and applied ethics), describing how they are related to each other and, finally, provide an ordering of the different branches of applied ethics (big data ethics, machine ethics, information ethics, AI ethics or computer ethics etc.) which have gained traction over the last years. Finally, we discuss an example in the domain of facial recognition software in the domain of medicine to illustrate how this process of normative analysis might be conducted.

In this article we focus on the structural aspects of the development of ethical software, and argue that ethical considerations need to be embedded into the (agile) software development process. In fact, we claim that agile processes of software development lend themselves specifically well for this endeavour. First, we contend that ethical evaluations need to go beyond the use of software products and include an evaluation of the software itself. This implies that software engineers influence peoples' lives through the features of their designed products. Embedded values are thus approached best by software engineers themselves. Therefore, we put emphasis on the possibility to implement ethical deliberations in already existing and well established agile software development processes. Our approach relies on software engineers making their own judgments throughout the entire development process to ensure that technical features and ethical evaluation can be addressed adequately to transport and foster desirable values and norms. We argue that agile software development processes may help the implementation of ethical deliberation for five reasons: 1) agile methods are widely spread, 2) their emphasis on flat hierarchies promotes independent thinking, 3) their reliance on existing team structures serve as an incubator for deliberation, 4) agile development enhances object-focused techno-ethical realism, and, finally, 5) agile structures provide a salient endpoint to deliberation.

The transfer of tasks with sometimes far-reaching moral implications to autonomous systems raises a number of ethical questions. In addition to fundamental questions about the moral agency of these systems, behavioral issues arise. This article focuses on the responsibility of agents who decide on our behalf. We investigate the empirically accessible question of whether the production of moral outcomes by an agent is systematically judged differently when the agent is artificial and not human. The results of a laboratory experiment suggest that decision-makers can actually rid themselves of guilt more easily by delegating to machines than by delegating to other people. Our results imply that the availability of artificial agents could provide stronger incentives for decision makers to delegate morally sensitive decisions.

Software systems play an ever more important role in our lives and software engineers and their companies find themselves in a position where they are held responsible for ethical issues that may arise. In this paper, we try to disentangle ethical considerations that can be performed at the level of the software engineer from those that belong in the wider domain of business ethics. The handling of ethical problems that fall into the responsibility of the engineer have traditionally been addressed by the publication of Codes of Ethics and Conduct. We argue that these Codes are barely able to provide normative orientation in software development. The main contribution of this paper is, thus, to analyze the normative features of Codes of Ethics in software engineering and to explicate how their value-based approach might prevent their usefulness from a normative perspective. Codes of Conduct cannot replace ethical deliberation because they do not and cannot offer guidance because of their underdetermined nature. This lack of orientation, we argue, triggers reactive behavior such as "cherry-picking", "risk of indifference", "ex-post orientation" and the "desire to rely on gut feeling". In the light of this, we propose to implement ethical deliberation within software development teams as a way out.