La percepción de la toma de decisiones a través de inteligencia artificial cuando se produce daño a las personas

  1. Pablo Espinosa
  2. Miguel Clemente
Revista:
Estudios penales y criminológicos

ISSN: 1137-7550

Año de publicación: 2023

Número: 44

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Estudios penales y criminológicos

Resumen

La toma de decisiones en inteligencia artificial (IA) puede ocurrir en escenarios en los que se decide en una fracción de segundo sobre la vida o el bienestar de los individuos sin que medie supervisión humana. Los algoritmos de IA que se aplican en estos casos pueden basarse o bien en criterios deontológicos o utilitaristas. Incluso si hubiese un consenso ético sobre la toma de decisiones de la IA, si la gente no encontrase aceptables los criterios éticos de la IA, su rechazo dificultaría su implementación. Por ejemplo, si un coche autónomo siempre sacrificase la seguridad de sus pasajeros antes que poner en peligro a otras víctimas en un accidente inevitable, mucha gente no compraría un coche autónomo. En este artículo se realiza una revisión bibliográfica de artículos científicos del ámbito de la psicología social sobre las variables implicadas en la percepción de decisiones relacionadas con la IA. Esta percepción social de la IA puede tener relevancia en el desarrollo de criterios sobre la responsabilidad legal. Finalmente, se examinan aspectos relacionados con el ámbito jurídico con la utilización de la IA en el sistema judicial y en la comisión de delitos

Referencias bibliográficas

  • AWAD, E., DSOUZA, S., KIM, R., SCHULZ, J. et al., “The Moral Machine Experiment”, en Nature, 563(7729), 2018, pp. 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6.
  • BARTELS, D. M. y PIZARRO, D.A., “The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas”, en Cognition, 121(1), 2011, pp. 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010.
  • BONNEFON, J. F., SHARIFF, A., y RAHWAN, I., “The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles”, en Science, 352(6293), 2016, pp. 1573-1576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654.
  • BOSTYN, D. H., ROETS, A., y CONWAY, P., “Sensitivity to Moral Principles Predicts Both Deontological and Utilitarian Response Tendencies in Sacrificial Dilemmas”, en Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2021, pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211027031.
  • CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCING GUIDELINES, “Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Warning Before Use of Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Sentencing. - ‘State v. Loomis’, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).”, en Harvard Law Review, 130(5), 2017, pp. 1530–1537.
  • DE AGREDA, A. G. “Ethics of autonomous weapons systems and its applicability to any AI systems”, en Telecommunications Policy, 44(6), 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101953.
  • DE SILES, E.L. “AI, on the Law of the Elephant: Toward Understanding Artificial Intelligence”, en Buffalo Law Review, 69(5), 2021, pp.1389-1469.
  • DINIC, B. M., MILOSAVLJEVIC, M., y MANDARIC, D.J., “Effects of Dark Tetrad traits on utilitarian moral judgement: The role of personal involvement and familiarity with the victim”, en Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 2021, pp. 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12422.
  • ELLEUCH, M. A., BEN HASSENA, A., ABDELHEDI, M. y PINTO, F.S., “Real-time prediction of COVID-19 patients health situations using Artificial Neural Networks and Fuzzy Interval Mathematical modeling”, en Applied Soft Computing, 110, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107643.
  • EVERETT, J. A. G. y KAHANE, G., “Switching Tracks? Towards a Multidimensional Model of Utilitarian Psychology”, en Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 2020, pp. 124-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.012.
  • FEIER, T., GOGOLL, J., y UHL, M., “Hiding Behind Machines: Artificial Agents May Help to Evade Punishment”, en Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(2), Article 19, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00372-7.
  • FOOT, P., “The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect”, en Oxford Review, 5, 1967, pp. 5–15.
  • GAWRONSKI, B., ARMSTRONG, J., CONWAY, P., FRIESDORF, R., et al., “Consequences, Norms, and Generalized Inaction in Moral Dilemmas: The CNI Model of Moral Decision-Making”, en Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 2017, pp.343-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086.
  • GOGOLL, J. y MULLER, J.F., “Autonomous Cars: In Favor of a Mandatory Ethics Setting”, en Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(3), 2017, pp. 681-700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9806-x.
  • GRATCH, J. y FAST, N.J., “The power to harm: AI assistants pave the way to unethical behavior”, en Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101382.
  • HAIDT, J., “The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment”, en Psychological Review, 108(4), 2001, pp. 814-834. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814.
  • HARRIS, J., “The Immoral Machine”, en Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 29(1), 2020, pp. 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1017/s096318011900080x.
  • KAHANE, G., EVERETT, J.A.C., EARP, B.D., FARIAS, M. et al., “'Utilitarian' judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good”, en Cognition, 134, 2015, pp. 193-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005.
  • KING, T.C., AGGARWAL, N., TADDEO, M. y FLORIDI, L., “Artificial Intelligence Crime: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Foreseeable Threats and Solutions”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(1), 2020, pp. 89-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-00081-0.
  • LIU, P. y LIU, J.T., “Selfish or Utilitarian Automated Vehicles? Deontological Evaluation and Public Acceptance”, en International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(13), 2021, pp. 1231-1242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1876357.
  • MORITA, T. y MANAGI, S., “Autonomous vehicles: Willingness to pay and the social dilemma”, en Transportation Research Part C-Emerging Technologies, 119, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102748.
  • NAVARICK, D.J., “Question framing and sensitivity to consequences in sacrificial moral dilemmas”, en Journal of Social Psychology, 161(1), 2021, pp. 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1749019.
  • PLETTI, C., LOTTO, L., BUODO, G., y SARLO, M. “It's immoral, but I'd do it! Psychopathy traits affect decision-making in sacrificial dilemmas and in everyday moral situations”, en. British Journal of Psychology, 108(2), 2017, pp. 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12205.
  • STARKE, C., BALEIS, J., KELLER, B. y MARCINKOWSKI, F., “Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature”, en Big Data & Society, 9(2), 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221115189.
  • TAKAMATSU, R., “Personality correlates and utilitarian judgments in the everyday context: Psychopathic traits and differential effects of empathy, social dominance orientation, and dehumanization beliefs”, en Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 2019, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.029.
  • TIGARD, D.W., “Artificial Moral Responsibility: How We Can and Cannot Hold Machines Responsible”, en Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(3), 2021, pp. 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180120000985.
  • XU, Z.C., “Human Judges in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities”, en Applied Artificial Intelligence, 36(1), 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.2013652.
  • YOKOI, R. y NAKAYACHI, K., “Trust in Autonomous Cars: Exploring the Role of Shared Moral Values, Reasoning, and Emotion in Safety-Critical Decisions”, Human Factors, 63(8), 2021, pp. 1465-1484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820933041.
  • YOUNG, A.D., y MONROE, A.E., “Autonomous morals: Inferences of mind predict acceptance of AI behavior in sacrificial moral dilemmas”, en Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103870.
  • ZHANG, Z.X., CHEN, Z.S., y XU, L.Y., “Artificial intelligence and moral dilemmas: Perception of ethical decision-making in AI”, en Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104327.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet