Koch, C; Shayboun, M and Kifokeris, D (2024) AI risks: An organisational practice approach to trustworthiness. In: Thomson, C (ed.) Proceedings of 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2024, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is in need for a framework that balances the opportunities it represents with its risks. But while there is a broad consensus on this, and public regulative initiatives are taken; there is far less knowledge about how these dilemmas/opportunities/risks are played out in practice. The interest into ethics in organisation driven by a discourse on “Trustworthy AI”; makes us wonder whether an ethical approach to AI in organisation is purposeful; or needs modification. We investigate this by viewing the development and use of AI as structuration of practices. The empirical material is our own development of an AI system. Using studies of ethics in moral engineering design; AI is a question of structuration processers with unintended consequences. It is a “slide” from ethics of virtue to ethics of benefit as corroborated by engineers/designers referring ethical dilemmas to managers and politicians. The EU framework of Trustworthy AI for designing and using more accountable AI systems - considering ethics; human autonomy; harm prevention; fairness etc., conflicts with contemporary construction organisations. We propose an extension of the EU guidelines.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | artificial intelligence; accident prevention; contemporary organisation; ethics; explainable AI; EU guidelines; trustworthy AI |
| Index terms: | fairness, engineering design, artificial intelligence, prevention, unintended consequence, accident prevention, construction organization, manager, designer, ethics, engineer |
| Subjects: | environmental health, leadership, design process, financial risk, artificial intelligence, ethical practice, organization, profession, risk assessment, practitioner |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Organizational Design |
| 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