McAleenan, P (2020) Moral responsibility and action in the use of artificial intelligence in construction. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 173(4), pp. 166-174. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Rapid increases in processing power and speed of computing coupled with development of self-learning algorithms capable of autonomous decision making are central to current technological developments. This has fed dystopian visions of either out-of-control robots malevolently destroying humanity or benevolent robots enslaving humanity as a result of acting for its own good. A more nuanced assessment demonstrates that inherent in any benevolent intent is the unintended potential for harm, which must be addressed in parallel with if not in advance of developments in the field. This paper examines the hazards and challenges presented by artificial intelligence in respect of construction. In conjunction with developments and guidelines on machine ethics, it outlines the issues and posits how they may be addressed by governments, designers, contractors and worker organisations to access the growth potential of the sector as a socially responsible industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | codes of practice & standards; corporate responsibility; social impact |
| Index terms: | codes of practice, social impact, artificial intelligence, designer, ethics, computing, decision-making, corporate responsibility, learning algorithm |
| Subjects: | ethical practice, algorithms, computing systems, business, profession, artificial intelligence, regulatory law, sociology, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Risk Management, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Governance, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here