From What to How. An Overview of AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices <s> Conclusion <s> The paper offers a solution to the problem of specifying computational systems that behave in accordance with a given set of ethical principles. The proposed solution is based on the concepts of ethical requirements and ethical protocols. A new conceptual tool, called the Control Closure of an operation, is defined and used to translate ethical principles into ethical requirements and protocols. The concept of Generalised Informational Privacy (GIP) is used as a paradigmatic example of an ethical principle. GIP is defined in such a way as to (i) discriminate specific cases in which an individual's GIP can be infringed without accessing the individual's data; (ii) separate unauthorised accesses to data that do not respect the right to GIP from access that do; and (iii) distinguish different degrees of GIP. Finally a camera phone is used to illustrate the proposed solution. <s> BIB001 </s> From What to How. An Overview of AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices <s> Conclusion <s> The paper offers an analysis of the problem of integrating ethical principles into the practice of software design. The approach is grounded on a review of the relevant literature from Computer Ethics and Professional Ethics. The paper is divided into four sections. The first section reviews some key questions that arise when the ethical impact of computational artefacts is analysed. The inner informational nature of such questions is used to argue in favour of the need for a specific branch of ethics called Information Ethics. Such ethics deal with a specific class of ethical problems and Informational Privacy is introduced as a paradigmatic example. The second section analyses the ethical nature of computational artefacts. This section highlights the fact that this nature is impossible to comprehend without first considering designers, users, and patients alongside the artefacts they create, use and are affected by. Some key ethical concepts are discussed, such as freedom, agency, control, autonomy and accountability. The third section illustrates how autonomous computational artefacts are rapidly changing the way in which computation is used an perceived. The description of the ethical challenges posed to software engineers by this shift in perspective closes the section. The fourth and last section of the paper is dedicated to a discussion of Professional Ethics for software engineers. After establishing the limits of the professional codes of practice, it is argued that ethical considerations are best embedded directly into software design practise. In this context, the Value Sensitive Design approach is considered and insight into how this is being integrated into current research in ethical design methodologies is given. <s> BIB002 </s> From What to How. An Overview of AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices <s> Conclusion <s> Toleration is one of the fundamental principles that inform the design of a democratic and liberal society. Unfortunately, its adoption seems inconsistent with the adoption of paternalistically benevolent policies, which represent a valuable mechanism to improve individuals’ well-being. In this paper, I refer to this tension as the dilemma of toleration. The dilemma is not new. It arises when an agent A would like to be tolerant and respectful towards another agent B’s choices but, at the same time, A is altruistically concerned that a particular course of action would harm, or at least not improve, B’s well-being, so A would also like to be helpful and seeks to ensure that B does not pursue such course of action, for B’s sake and even against B’s consent. In the article, I clarify the specific nature of the dilemma and show that several forms of paternalism, including those based on ethics by design and structural nudging, may not be suitable to resolve it. I then argue that one form of paternalism, based on pro-ethical design, can be compatible with toleration and hence with the respect for B’s choices, by operating only at the informational and not at the structural level of a choice architecture. This provides a successful resolution of the dilemma, showing that tolerant paternalism is not an oxymoron but a viable approach to the design of a democratic and liberal society. <s> BIB003 </s> From What to How. An Overview of AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices <s> Conclusion <s> This paper is the introduction to the special issue entitled: 'Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges'. Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly permeates every aspect of our society, from the critical, like urban infrastructure, law enforcement, banking, healthcare and humanitarian aid, to the mundane like dating. AI, including embodied AI in robotics and techniques like machine learning, can improve economic, social welfare and the exercise of human rights. Owing to the proliferation of AI in high-risk areas, the pressure is mounting to design and govern AI to be accountable, fair and transparent. How can this be achieved and through which frameworks? This is one of the central questions addressed in this special issue, in which eight authors present in-depth analyses of the ethical, legal-regulatory and technical challenges posed by developing governance regimes for AI systems. It also gives a brief overview of recent developments in AI governance, how much of the agenda for defining AI regulation, ethical frameworks and technical approaches is set, as well as providing some concrete suggestions to further the debate on AI governance.This article is part of the theme issue 'Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal, and technical opportunities and challenges'. <s> BIB004
The realisation that there is a need to embed ethical considerations into the design of computational, specifically algorithmic, artefacts is not new. Both Alan Turing and Norbert Weiner were vocal about this in the 1940s and 1960s BIB002 . However, as the complexity of algorithmic systems and our reliance on them increases (Cath and colleagues. 2017) , so too does the need to be critical of pro-ethical BIB003 AI governance BIB004 and design solutions. It is possible to design things to be better  , but this will require more coordinated and sophisticated approaches  to translating ethical principles into design protocols BIB001 . This call for increased coordination is necessary as this research has shown that there is a skewed distribution of effort across the 'Applied AI Ethics' typology. Furthermore, many of the tools included are relatively immature. This makes it difficult to assess the scope of their use (resulting in Arvan's 2018 'moral-semantic trilemma') and consequently hard to encourage their 15 adoption by the practically-minded ML developers, especially when the competitive advantage of more ethically-aligned AI is not yet clear. Constructive patience needs to be exercised, by society and by the ethical AI community, because the question of 'how' to meet the 'what' will not be solved overnight, and there will definitely be mistakes along the way. The ML research community will have to accept this, trust that everyone is trying to meet the same end-goal but also accept that it is unacceptable to delay any full commitment, when it is known how serious the consequences of doing nothing are. Only by accepting this can society be positive about the opportunities presented by AI to be seized, whilst remaining mindful of the potential costs to be avoided (Floridi and colleagues. 2018 ).