Assessing the artificially intelligent workplace: an ethical framework for evaluating experimental technologies in workplace settings.

Ethics of technology Meaningful work New technologies Social experiments Workplaces

Journal

AI and ethics
ISSN: 2730-5961
Titre abrégé: AI Ethics
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9918284169806676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 15 09 2022
accepted: 29 01 2023
entrez: 27 2 2023
pubmed: 28 2 2023
medline: 28 2 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Experimental technologies, including AI and robots, are revolutionising many types of work. For example, the logistics warehouse sector is witnessing a wave of new technologies, such as automated picking tools, collaborative robots and exoskeletons, affecting jobs and employees. Notably, it is not always possible to predict the effects of such new technologies, since they have inherent uncertainties and unintended consequences. Hence, their introduction into workplaces can be conceived as a social experiment. This paper aims to sketch a set of ethical guidelines for introducing experimental technologies into workplaces. It builds on Van de Poel's general framework for assessing new experimental technologies and translates that framework into a more specific context of work. We discuss its five principles: non-maleficence, beneficence, responsibility, autonomy, and justice. Each of these principles is applied to workplaces in general, and specifically to the logistics warehouse setting as a case study. A particular focus in our discussion is put on the distinctive potential harms and goods of work.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36846834
doi: 10.1007/s43681-023-00265-w
pii: 265
pmc: PMC9942061
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1-13

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2023.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interestAll five authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Références

Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2169-2188
pubmed: 31872366
Hum Factors. 2014 Feb;56(1):112-30
pubmed: 24669547
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Jun;22(3):667-86
pubmed: 26573302
J Appl Psychol. 2017 Mar;102(3):403-420
pubmed: 28182465
Hastings Cent Rep. 2019 Jan;49(1):15-21
pubmed: 30790315
Ergonomics. 2014;57(3):289-94
pubmed: 24670142
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Dec;26(6):3229-3247
pubmed: 32996058

Auteurs

Ziagul Hosseini (Z)

Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Sven Nyholm (S)

Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, and Religious Studies, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Pascale M Le Blanc (PM)

Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, and Religious Studies, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sustainable Productivity and Employability, TNO-Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Paul T Y Preenen (PTY)

Sustainable Productivity and Employability, TNO-Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Evangelia Demerouti (E)

Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, and Religious Studies, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sustainable Productivity and Employability, TNO-Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH