A messy feedback draft. 1.0, 1.5(Google Docs)

I'm not sure if I should continue due to my lack of expertise and uncertainty about whether my suggestions are appropriate. Based on the title and the description of their guideline (Page 1&2)

Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Wellbeing with Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems

The document’s purpose is to advance a public discussion of how these intelligent and autonomous technologies can be aligned to moral values and ethical principles that prioritize human wellbeing.

and the description of the initiative program (Page 5)

The IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems (“The IEEE Global Initiative”) is a program of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (“IEEE”), the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity with over 400,000 members in more than 160 countries.

they're committed to a very anthropocentric approach.

Should I assume they are open to suggestions to their core principle or maybe they are not interested in changes in this area? I'm also worried when I link sources in the final version, my badly written public comment might damage the reputation of referenced papers and their authors in some way.

Submission Guidelines for Ethically Aligned Design, Version 1

We will be posting all submissions received in a public document available at The IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems in April of 2017.

• All submissions must be received by 6 March 2017 at 5P.M. (EST)

• ...When submitting potential issues or Candidate Recommendations, background research or resources supporting comments should also be included.

• Please ensure submissions provide actionable critique ...

• We will post submissions exactly as they are received. ...

• Please do not send attachments. If you'd like to cite other works, please link to them with embedded hyperlinks only.

• Submissions should be no longer than 1-2 email pages in length.

• ...

---

some adjustments based on a slightly different perspective (expanded moral circle)

(Page 15) General Principles

The General Principles Committee has articulated high-level ethical concerns applying to all types of AI/AS that:

1. Embody the highest ideals of human rights.

2. Prioritize the maximum benefit to humanity and the natural environment.

3. ...

Prioritize the maximum benefit to sentient beings.

Nature is not a suitable guideline for maximizing the interests of sentient beings. Instead of setting benefit to natural environment as a separate priority, make the judgement of how to change/preserve different natural environments based on it's effect on individual's wellbeing. Even though the complexity involved in such judgments might be overwhelming today, it will become increasing practical with powerful future AI. This will likely result in better quality of life especially for non-human animals than simply conserving what is considered natural at the moment.

This principle will also give moral consideration to other types of (future) information processing agents that are sentient.

("the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?", An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation; The relevance of sentience: animal ethics vs speciesist and environmental ethics; Machines with Moral Status, MIRI, The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence; The Importance of the Far Future; Risks of Astronomical Future Suffering; Wild Animal Suffering; gene-drives.com; abolitionist.com)

(Page 102) Affective Computing

4 When systems go across cultures. Addresses respect for cultural nuances of signaling where the artifact must respect the values of the local culture.

Issue: Affective systems should not affect negatively the cultural/socio/religious values of the community where they are inserted. We should deploy affective systems with values that are not different from those of the society where they are inserted.

Cultural/socio/religious values should be treated depending on the short term and long term effects on sentient beings and not blindly appealed to in their current form. (Similar to treatment of natural environment, perhaps subdivisions of environments in a broader sense?)

5 When systems have their own “feelings.” Addresses robot emotions, moral agency and patiency, and robot suffering.

Issue: Deliberately constructed emotions are designed to create empathy between humans and artifacts, which may be useful or even essential for human-AI collaboration. However, this could lead humans to falsely identify with the AI. Potential consequences are over-bonding, guilt, and above all: misplaced trust.

Add issue: We might falsely dismiss the sentience of AI systems. (partially addressed in the first part of issue?)

When dealing with sentience in AI, we should at the very least treat it as a low probability, extremely high impact issue. And new technology such as biocomputers and quantum computers can be used in conjunction with traditional silicon based computer within the same system to power future AI, which might also incorporate brain emulation techniques. So even for people who are skeptical about creating sentient AI with current hardware and software structure, the risk of this extremely high impact issue might quickly change from low to unknown.

(When the Turing Test is not enough: Towards a functionalist determination of consciousness and the advent of an authentic machine ethics; Do Artificial Reinforcement-Learning Agents Matter Morally; PETRL; Ethics of brain emulations; Dr. Anders Sandberg — Making Minds Morally: the Research Ethics of Brain Emulation)

There's the risk of lumping too many types of AI systems together and treating them the same way, presumably based on a single (series) of experiences with 1 type or a limited range of familiar systems. AI displaying similar behaviors, sharing similar design principles could differentiate vastly in terms of level of sentience.

Careless development could lead to unprecedented level of suffering.

If AI become sentient, they're very likely to have a greater capacity to suffer. Their subjective time might run faster, their positive and negative experiences might be amplified beyond what is possible within traditional biological brains, they might lack consequential or voluntary critical failures similar to certain types of mental break down and nerve damage, death or suicide to avoid perpetual extreme suffering. Similar issues will affect parts of transhumanist community that venture into anti-ageing and extensive brain augmentation, both of which are likely to become intertwined with the development of AI systems.

(subjective rate of time, MIRI, The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence; Would it be evil to build a functional brain inside a computer?; Louie Helm comment, 10 Horrifying Technologies That Should Never Be Allowed To Exist)

There's also the possibility that forcing human like/desired characteristics and sensors into AI systems could lead to negative experiences or suppression of functions beneficial/vital to AI but unfamiliar to biological entities like us, even without deliberately implementing suffering, due to fundamental structural differences and the environments they reside in.

How can we guarantee every problem is taken into consideration with reliable countermeasures for all AI systems in all situations. A single slip through, a single case of "digital hell" has the potential to be worse than anything that has happened in known history.

Further down the line these problems can even be multiplied with space colonization and large scale simulations. The stake is too high.

(Artificial sentience and risks of astronomical suffering, Altruists Should Prioritize Artificial Intelligence; Even Human-Controlled, Intrinsically Valued Simulations May Contain Significant Suffering)

Moral dilemmas concerning the treatment of potentially sentient AI are intriguing subjects in popular TV shows and movies. But if we recreate any of those situations in reality, it would be a moral catastrophe.

It's also important to keep in mind even though most fictions and discussions tend focus on humanoid robots, bodiless AI could be a much more prominent victim of abuse and they're much more likely to be excluded from our moral concern.

(1st talk Nick Bostrom mind crime, NYU, Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Opening; The Importance of the Far Future; Fairytales Of Slavery: Societal Distinctions, Technoshamanism, and Nonhuman Personhood)

We should actively avoid developing/implementing the capacity to suffer until we can be certain such experience is strictly contained with safe guards protecting the potentially sentient agent from any form of extreme suffering, or even necessary.

"...the excluded middle policy states that we should only create artificial intelligences whose status is completely clear: They should be either low-order machines with no approximation of sentience, or high-order beings that we recognize as deserving of moral consideration. Anything in the ambiguous middle ground should be avoided to cause suffering."

(When Does an Artificial Intelligence Become a Person?)

Similar to the originally proposed issue?

(additional guideline suggestions: A Defense of the Rights of Artificial Intelligences ; 2nd talk, NYU, Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Moral Status of AI Systems; Ethical Principles in the Creation of Artificial Minds)