---
# System prepended metadata

title: Title of the Ethics Paper Goes here

---

---
title: Title of the Ethics Paper Goes here
mainfont: DejaVuSerif.ttf
sansfont: DejaVuSans.ttf
monofont: DejaVuSansMono.ttf 
mathfont: texgyredejavu-math.otf 
---

Introduction
============

This article proposes an ethics of "Human Computer Interaction". We bring together philosophical sources and references to ethical thinking within HCI. In the process, we contextualise ongoing discipline-specific work such as the efforts of the [ACM SIGCHI Research Ethics Committee](https://sigchi.org/ethics-committee/) --- and broaden the scope of that work to reflect on human interaction with computers *tout court*.

Our project stems from a documented need to further develop the existing understanding of the pro-social use of computational technologies.  "Interaction" becomes a central theme in this work insofar as the perspective that we develop hinges on various forms and conceptions of interaction *with* and *within* information systems.

Our reason for taking such a theoretically-broad stance is the awareness that humanity has entered into a new historical era, variously referred to as the anthropocene, the information age, the fourth Industrial Revolution, and, indeed, the dawn of the Novacene (Lovelock). Many of the historically-novel and existentially-salient aspects of life in the early 21st Century have a legacy going back to the industrial revolution and the Enlightenment. Others date further back. Nevertheless, the theoretical structures left to us by the Enlightenment age are as ill-adapted to our current concerns as the steam engine and the guillotine.

To ameliorate the harms and capitalise on the benefits of our present post-modern condition, we need a way to understand human-computer interaction 'at scale'. The *philosophy of technology* will run throughout our work here, especially as regards our methods. We offer a brief recapitulation of key points from this tradition in the section on Related Work. Emphatically, in this paper we are applying the philosophy of technology and have no pretentions to make original contribution to that field.

The paper as a whole focuses on the following questions:

1.  How are notions of 'ethics' used and applied in contemporary
    information systems?
2.  How do the systems we engage with 'react back' on our ways of
    thinking?
3.  How do computational systems apply or enact the ethics that we
    apply, or indeed develop ethics of their own?
4.  And, lastly: what is the overall narrative or genre in which these
    questions can be discussed and pursued further?

**Further notes:**

- [How do we use ethics](https://logseq.com/#/page/How%20do%20we%20use%20ethics)
- [Motivation](https://logseq.com/#/page/Motivation)

Method
------

We survey references to ethics and philosophy within computing literature --- along with references to technology, machinery, and computing within philosophy. Based on aligning this material we propose first a taxonomy and then a set of ethical guidelines.

Our aim is not completeness but robustness. On the one hand we attempt to account for the pervasive use of information and communication technology (ICT), and the potential future development of artificial intelligence.

At the outset, our initial framework-for-the-framework recapitulates the division mentioned in the Introduction, which mirrors the major sections of the article. We consider:

1.  The interfaces in which ethics can be applied (species and robots).
2.  The change in behavior that comes from the \'benefit\' to make
    people interconnected as a global mind.
3.  Until what point social interaction can change and exist?
4.  We reference and on existing surveys, including "Machine
    Implementations of Ethics" and "[Peer Production: A Modality of Collective Intelligence](https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/peer-production-a-modality-of-collective-intelligence)".

Scope
-----

Corresponding to the broad aims outlined above, alongside HCI, *Human-Computer Cocreativity* (HCCC) and *Computational Social Creativity* (CSC) are inspiring domains. In HCCC, creativity is attributed to collectives; CSC embeds models of social creativity within computational systems. Our aim will be to look in more detail at what humans co-create with computational media. While our focus is on modern computing machinery, in order to cast a wide net we think about computers as 'effective systems' or even just as tools or machinery.  Tools and language have been with us since the dawn of humankind.

1.0 Philosophical foundation for a contemporary ethical practice
====================================================================================

> **How are notions of 'ethics' used and applied to contemporary information systems?**
>
> **The interfaces in which ethics can be applied (species and robots).**

To address this question properly we need to understand the key concepts.

1.1 Western philosophy and ethics definition
--------------------------------------------

Human beings have always been interested in categorizing their behaviour. Classification and criticism, personal and interpersonal, about actions taken towards the world. When this happens, there is no way that it will not be realized subjectively (lens argument), even if it embraces generalization. This recursive feedback to ourselves has allowed the analysis and assessment of actions that we deem meaningful, or that others consider significant in us. It originates fundamental positions towards global human understanding. It is not in vain that *ethics* derives from the Greek \"ēthikós\" (ἠθικός) that means \"relating to one\'s character\" - as a relational loop. Indeed, a deeper etymology points to both habit and environment; ἤθεα meaning \"accustomed place\" (as in ἤθεα ἵππων --- \"the habitat of horses\", Iliad, 6.51115.265). This points to an \"ethological\" side of \"ethics\", which is pursued, e.g., by Spinoza (as per Deleuze\'s reading). Importantly, our environments include *others* and provide grounds for interaction or collaboration. Just as we *consider* ourselves, we imagine the way others consider us. We consider them, and even develop collaborative processes for all this. In these exact moments, ethical maps come in. Maps that fundamentally define society. Paul and Elder (2003) define *ethics* as: a nondetermined set of concepts, principles and metarules that guide us in determining what behavior (acting towards) helps and/or harms sentient creatures. Taking this as our working definition of 'ethics' allows us to create a relationship structure.

**Further notes:**

- [1.A](https://logseq.com/page/1.a)
- [Phenomenology and being](https://logseq.com/page/phenomenology%20and%20being)
- [Ethics and Ethology in Homer](https://logseq.com/page/ethics%20and%20ethology%20in%20homer)

### 1.1.1 Responses in computing literature

These days, given the transmutation of information and increased reception of things around us, technology can even help us to revive and rethink the way these thoughts affect us culturally. For example the work of Kantosalo and Schneiderman: using computers to help us \"think\" about creativity. (Anna Kantosalo and Ben Schneiderman (using computers to think about 'creativity')).

1.2 Holistic views of philosophy
--------------------------------

Philosophy is inherent in the complexity and uniqueness of each culture.  When applied from a broad point of view and not only focused on the human, it can conquer and integrate as its baggage other types of entities such as artificial intelligences or non-human organisms. As is the example of russellian monism (Alter) and contemporary panpsychism (Koch) applications. To have a naturalistic, inclusive and open account of the world helps build a more universal and foundational understanding of ethics. Human *philosophy* has always a starting position, the human. It is the starting point for philosophy to begin with. It may anthropomorphize and humanize. One can even say that all human views are human centered (POM). But even if we make our peace with the fact that this view has limits, we should never forget that it points somewhere. We can hope to open the angle and see the world globally, as long as we can. We can try to grasp everything there is, biological organisms and metal robots, and build a theory that makes *sense*. This brings an architectural point of view into the argument. We start to understand the world as structures of structures. As a universal environment in which there are entities that act, exist and interact. For this, a global ethical framework forces us to consider computers as a specific *type* of structure inside that world. If the ethical map allows, maybe as *creatures*.

**Further notes:**

- [Holistic views of philosophy](https://logseq.com/page/holistic%20views%20of%20philosophy)

### 1.2.1 Responses in the computing literature

Given the open, universal and inclusive point of view - which in itself is linked to space and context - the reflections made today often map the past. The way we relate to each other, to artificial elements and the environment, is what has been driving us. We might want not only to map but also revisit past. The embodiment demonstrates that, the *what does it feel like* (Nagel). That is something we only know when we know, and comes exactly from that relation.

2.0 Embodied cognition, social intelligence, collective intelligence
========================================================================================

> **How do the systems we engage with 'react back' on our ways of thinking?**
>
> **The change in behavior that comes from the \'benefit\' to make people interconnected as a global mind.**

The survey of the philosophy in the previous sections gave a general outline of the role of the being in nature. Here, we focus on this being's knowledge, and how this being --- he, she, or it --- can inform the development of 'thinking machines', and to what extent some of these terms are intrinsically social.

Certain landmarks in the evolution of contemporary perspectives on these themes include:

1.  Kant\'s take on about interpersonal relationship;
2.  The way intrapersonal evolution is seen through Freud\'s eyes;
3.  The extent to which we should and can be analytical in developing an
    ethical stance towards \'the whole\', with Carl Jung;
4.  Ongoing developments of with tools like the Helmholtz Machine and
    active inference.

The fields of cognitive science and philosophy express one others' limits. In the capsule history outlined in points 1-4 above, the work of the thinkers mentioned increasingly intersect with science. In the process their work begins to articulate what 'mind' means in practical terms: what it means to have one; how can we catalog various species of minds for the future; how these interact; and the various points of view on 'mind' that exist (functionalists, patternists, etc.). We can use this material as starting point to articulate our relationship with the taxonomy of ethical perspectives.

Responses in the computing literature
-------------------------------------

In contemporary computing:

1.  the activities which are referred as *creative* are typically seen
    as social and socially computational (mention Anna\'s paper here)
2.  virtual distributed agency and behavior is exactly what is happening
    in the physical world
3.  current approaches draw on, e.g., bioinformatics and computational
    neuroscience
4.  the theory of the Cyborg manifestos as an ethical proposal (Donna
    Haraway)
5.  current work on computers and interaction.

AI and interaction with computers more generally is understood as a potential force for \"good\" --- if that is understood as *pro-social* and *evolutionary* --- and also as a source of risks.

3.0 Reprise: Evolution regarding all of these 
=================================================================

> **How do computational systems apply or enact the ethics that we apply, or indeed develop ethics of their own?**
>
> **Until what point social interaction can change and exist?**

This section repeats this reflective movement from Section 2.0, through the sphere of artificial intelligence (AI). When we think about ethics and AI, what is lost in translation? What could potentially change for the better? In order to address these questions we take a running leap, building momentum with thinking about evolution more broadly.

Histories of the evolution of intelligence (sociality & tools being key focal points). Theories of evolution, e.g., Baldwin (and later derived work by Hinton and others). Derrida\'s concept of [différance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance#Life_and_technics).

Based on the points raised as discussion in the previous sections mention until what point evolution plays a or the major role. How future AIs will encompass some of the evolutionary paradigms we faced and how our ethics project will not be ruined in future decades - getting to the point where evolution might be quicker virtually (as a *type* of evolution).

**Further notes:**

- [Language is mapping thinking](https://logseq.com/#/page/Language%20is%20mapping%20thinking)
- [Evolution](https://logseq.com/#/page/Evolution)

Responses in the computing literature
-------------------------------------

The mapping of evolutionary techniques and parallel thinking (social behavior also mapped and check if this doesnt exist elsewhere).  Metacognition as assessment and metamemory as understanding if we remember is true and the access we can have. Cognitive psychology approaches to AI (maybe connect this to reinforcement learning and behavior?) Current approaches to model ethics in computers as values and the ones that model only the environment that will give rise to the values in the first place (2021 literature): Predictive Processing and Active Inference (bring embodiment to the discussion here); if \"Ethical AI\" is important or a more globalist perspective: Notice that now that computers are involved, the way we think about ethics and so on is likely to change.

4.0 Narratives, genres, and disciplines: How do we talk about HCI ethics?
=============================================================================================

> **What is the overall narrative or genre in which these questions can be discussed and pursued further?**
>
> **We reference and on existing surveys, including "Machine Implementations of Ethics" and "Peer Production: A Modality of Collective Intelligence".**

E.g., are these considretainos in fact proper to Philosophy, after all?  Or are these themes that can be addressed within Computing? Or should we refer to Law? Or Religion? Or Science Fiction? Or Art? Or something else?

Responses in the computing literature
-------------------------------------

We see how mediatic engagement with ethics is scaffolded by directing attention to: (1) Ethical impact agents; (2) Implicit ethical agents; (3) Explicit ethical agents; (4) Fully ethical agents; (5) How are ethics really used in systems - that in itself.

Ethics Taxonomy
===============

An ethics taxonomy is presented as a mapping of values and positions we and machines can take now and in the future regarding the questions raised such as: **1)** how can we and machines establish a true and *positive* relationship with each other in points such as **1.1)** designing other machines or (artificial) humans; **1.2)** impact other elements of the society; **1.3)** change ourselves; **2)** what does it mean to be ethical towards something using an abstract definition; **2.1)** what being means comes from above; **2.2)** towards something also comes from above; **2.3)** abstract definition comes from language also from above; **3)** define and utilize this taxonomy based on interaction, social behavior, design and engineering, be computing␣platform-agnostic and topic-agnostic, and how machine ethics is right or wrong as a separare domain, how to imply ethics works and doesn\'t work; propose meta-ethics guidelines on how can we create ethical guidelines that create ethics.

Discussion
==========

Have we learned anything that\'s relevant for practice? Maybe here is a good time to return to some of the debates that look at \"creativity\" in a more mainstream sense, e.g., Anna Kantosalo and Ben Schneiderman about creative systems and social inclusion vs exclusion? From the point of view of \"Methods\", hopefully we will have clarified at the start why we think this sort of activity could lead to new insights! We will build a thought experiment in the text to utilize the raised taxonomy.

As related work we should specifically engage with **Floridi**:

> With distributed agency comes distributed responsibility. Existing ethical frameworks address individual, human responsibility, with the goal of allocating punishment or reward based on the actions and intentions of an individual. They were not developed to deal with distributed responsibility.

This is clearly germane, and we can go further with reference to \"systems with emergent properties\"; so, if distributed agents produce e.g., environmental degradation, that\'s not \"ethical\", and the system as a whole \"should\" find ways to improve its behaviour. This sort of thing is thought about in Elinor Ostrom\'s economics. A particular concern of Taddeo & Floridi here seems to be \"autonomy\" of AI, and \"self-determination\" of humans. But in the case of HCI/HCCC it\'s not totally clear that either of these criteria apply. In HCCC it\'s much closer to [anthropotechnics](https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2015/09/peter-sloterdijk-anthropotechnics/).

Hopefully we can provide some new insights here.

**Further notes:**

- [Case studies reprise](https://logseq.com/#/page/Case%20studies%20reprise)

Related work
------------

Alongside philosophers of technology mentioned in the Introduction, we can point to more popularly-oriented books such as (\"Creativity and Ethics\", \"Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting\", \"Made by Humans\", \"Machines that Think\", \"How AI can be a force for good\" --- and connect all these topics with political, scientific and visionary points that authors made in time.

**Further notes:**

- [Philosophy of technology](https://logseq.com/#/page/Philosophy%20of%20technology)
- <https://sigchi.org/ethics-committee/>

Conclusions and Future work
===========================

In addition to the questions in the introduction, as a result of the theoretical work developed here we should be able to offer at least tentative answers to the following questions: **1)** **How can I practically engage with these issues as a computer science researcher?**; **2)** What are future steps and possibilities to research ethics, to practice ethics and relate this to other ethics roles (as we did in all the text) (e.g maybe also at the governmental level; **3)** **How do interfaces and other concrete-relationships-between-people-and-things** embodied behavior and its limits for ethics (where our theory becomes virtual and link to haraway); **4)** *How do I relate to knowledge*, what it means to know or to cognise; with/to the whole body of historical philosophy, science, inquiry, and maybe AI and tech systems?

If nothing else this should be seen as an alternative to \"Ethical AI\" as it is currently practiced (either as governance of real-world systems or imagining the future). By focusing on interaction we mean to develop a route to ongoing improvementment to HCI ethics overall (in an eternal golden braid!).

**Further notes:**

- [Conclusion](https://logseq.com/#/page/Conclusion)




Introduction (OLD)
==================

This article proposes an ethics of “Human Computer Interaction”. We bring sources from **philosophy**, **cognitive science**, and **anthropology** together with existing references to *ethical thinking* within **HCI**. The development of this project stems from *the need to cement the existing understanding of the pro-social use of computational technologies*. "Interaction" is the key concept that allows us to develop *a position that can be used to theorise and structure interaction with and within intelligent systems*.  The impetus for our work is the awareness that humanity has entered into a new historical era, whether we address it as the anthropocene, the information age, a new Industrial Revolution, or, indeed the beginning of the Novacene (Lovelock). Many of the historically-novel and existentially-salient aspects of life in the early 21st Century have a legacy going back to the industrial revolution and the Enlightenment. However, the theoretical from the age of the steam engine and the guillotine can hardly apply without some updates. To ameliorate the harms and capitalise on the benefits of our post-modern condition, we need a way to understand human-computer interaction ‘at scale’. 

**We focus on the following questions:** (1) How are ethics used and applied to contemporary information systems? (2) How do the systems 'react back' on our ways of thinking about things? (2) And, vice versa, because of AI: how do computationaly systems apply the ethics that I applied, or develop ethics of their own? What is lost in the middle? What could change for the better? (3) Lastly, what is the overal narrative or genre in which these questions can be discussed and pursued further? (E.g.,  Philosophy? Computing? Law? — or perhaps Religion? Science Fiction?)

==Further notes: [How do we use ethics](https://logseq.com/#/page/how%20do%20we%20use%20ethics), [Motivation](https://logseq.com/#/page/motivation)==

Method
======

We survey references to computing and machinery within philosophy, cognitive science, and anthropology, as well as references to ethical thinking within computing literature and references. Based on aligning this material we propose ethical guidelines - which in themselves present a worldview (although it is often only implicit). The central contribution of this article is an ethical taxonomy that works for the future given the massive development of artificial intelligence and its pervasiveness. It will take into account: **1)** the interfaces in which ethics can be applied (species and robots); **2)** the change in behavior that comes from the 'benefit' to make people interconnected as a global mind; **3)** until what point social interaction can change and *exist*; **4)** reference and build on top of existing surveys (e.g. **Machine Implementations of Ethics** and **[Peer Production: A Modality of Collective Intelligence](https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/peer-production-a-modality-of-collective-intelligence)**).

We will build on the proposed terminology: *(1) Of ethical impact agents; (2) Implicit ethical agents; (3) Explicit ethical agents; (4) Fully ethical agents; (5) How are ethics really used in systems - that in itself.*

Scope
=====

*Human-computer cocreativity* (HCCC) is a motivating domain. In HCCC, creativity is attributed to collectives.  Here, we want to look in more detail at what what humans co-create computational media.  While our focus is on modern computing machinery, in order to cast a wide net we think about computers as ‘effective systems’, or even just as machinery.  Our survey will look both philosophical and computing work within the following thematic areas (*Why do we need this?*) **1)**  What should we understand by ‘an ethical use of computer technology’ (e.g., the so-named *slave/master paradigm* — which terminology has itself been criticised recently)? and **2)** How can our reflections on HCI and HCCC build a foundation for the ethical uses of intelligence that work in the future?  The "philosophy of technology" informs our work here, though we do not re-theorise it here (rather, we provide a brief recap of Simondon, Heidegger (criticize being from the greeks below), Steigler, et al., in the appropriate place).

# 1.0 Philosophical foundation for a contemporary ethical practice 

The search for what is fundamental is somewhat human. The search for what is reality, *ours* and universal, for what is to be, as well as what is the starting point to all of this. From situating the *self* in contemporary ethics (Benhabib 1992) to the moral enhancement that we as human beings seek and foster (see Lara and Deckers (2020) for an essay on AI as a Socratic assistant for moral enhancement) there is a search for and consideration of truth and what is true. Human beings categorise their behaviour, try to understand each other, explain themselves empathically, seek and represent the limit of their reality, and even if they do not achieve any of these points they live with the doubt. 



Human beings have always been interested in categorizing their behaviour. Classification and criticism, personal and interpersonal, about actions taken towards the world. When this criticism is made, there is no way that it will not be realized subjectively (lens argument), even if it embraces generalization.

## 1.1 Western philosophy and ethics definition


The central concept in Western scientific and philosophic thought is that of *substance* (emphasis added, Wienpahl 1971). *Substance*, as aligned with a fundamental, objectivated search for the reality of a system. As posed by Robinson (2004), the philosophical term corresponds to the Greek *ousia*, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin *substantia*, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’. This *substance*, over time, has often been treated as something *independent* starting in Aristotle's thinking (Zimmerman 1999).

 This recursive feedback to outselves has allowed the analysis and assessment of actions that we deem meaningful - or that others consider significant in us - originating fundamental positions for human understanding from the human. It is not in vain that *ethics* derives from the Greek "ēthikós" (ἠθικός) that means "relating to one's character" - as a relational loop. Indeed, a deeper etymology points to both habit and environment; ἤθεα meaning “accustomed place” (as in ἤθεα ἵππων “the habitat of horses”, Iliad, 6.51115.265).  This points to an "ethological" side of "ethics", which is pursued, e.g., by Spinoza (as per Deleuze's reading). Importantly, our environments include *others* and provide grounds for interaction. Just as I consider myself, I can imagine the way others consider me, consider them, and develop collaborative processes for all this. Right here comes ethics and the way it will happen in society. Paul and Elder (2003) define *ethics* as: **a nondetermined set of concepts, principles and metarules that guide us in determining what behavior (acting towards) helps and/or harms sentient creatures.** Taking this as our "working definition" allows us to develop ethics helps to create a relationship structure.





==Further notes: [1.A](https://logseq.com/#/page/1.a), [Phenomenology and being](https://logseq.com/#/page/phenomenology%20and%20being), [Ethics and Ethology in Homer](https://logseq.com/#/page/ethics%20and%20ethology%20in%20homer)==

HOW DOES THIS EVOLVE

### 1.1.1 Responses in computing literature

These days, given the transmutation of information and increased reception of things around us, technology can even help us to revive and rethink the way these thoughts affect us culturally. For example the work of Kantosalo and Schneiderman: using computers to help us "think" about creativity. (Anna Kantosalo and Ben Schneiderman (using computers to think about ‘creativity’))

## 1.2 Holistic views of philosophy 

Philosophy is inherent in the complexity and uniqueness of each culture. When applied from a broad point of view and not only focused on the human, it can conquer and integrate as its baggage other types of entities such as artificial intelligences or non-human organisms. As is the example of panpsychism (Seager 2006), where it is common to have a naturalistic account of the world, for
only from the point of view of some such account
can the issue of mind’s place within the natural
world arise. Even the *philosophy of mind* has in itself a position. Not only as a philosophy, but as a starting point for philosophy to begin. There is a beginning that points to a vision in which all the positions taken before that thought make sense. When using positions that are global in terms of beings that exist, an ethical framework forces us to consider computers as *creatures*. 

==Further notes: [Holistic views of philosophy](https://logseq.com/#/page/holistic%20views%20of%20philosophy)==

### 1.2.1 Responses in the computing literature ☞

Given the holistic point of view, which in itself is linked to space and context - the reflections made today often map the past. The way we relate - to each other, to artificial elements and the environment - is what has been driving us, we might want not only to map but also revisit past. 


# 2.0 Embodied cognition, social intelligence, collective intelligence 
> []hi! i am back - found the content! this is the section i will work on- I come from a persepctive of "other intelligence" as to what theory of the mind is and could be - likely references to Hayles; Bennet; Hofstadter; Bergson.. others as historical scaffold etc

Given the survey of the philosophy in the previous sections, structured the role of the being in nature, we focus on his knowledge, how he can inform the development of thinking machines and to what extent some of these terms are always intrinsically social. It is based on 1) the work on Kant's interpersonal relationship; the way evolution is seen through Freud's eyes; 3) the extent to which we should and can be analytical in developing an ethical stance towards 'the whole', with Carl Jung; 4) focusing on recent developments like the Helmholtz Machine and active inference - as well as the work done in 2021 in these mentioned fields.

By focusing on cognitive science and its limits, the limits of philosophy are established, while often based solely on perception, and a body of arguments is created to serve as a starting point for taxonomy. Where given recent discoveries, the thinkers mentioned intersect with science. Here a starting point is defined for what mind means; what it means to have one; how can we catalog various species of minds for the future; how these interact; what points of view exist (functionalists, patternists, etc.) that we can use as starting point to justify our relationship with the taxonomy (position towards) - also listing relationships between them.

## Responses in the computing literature

How today's computing uses our position: 1) how what we call as *creativity* is social and socially **computational**; 2) how virtual distributed agency and behavior is exactly what is happening int he physical world; 3) how are current approaches to building thinking machines that can approach this (e.g. bioinformatics and computational neuroscience); 3) how Cyborg manifestos are like this ethical proposal, e.g. Donna Haraway, and current work on computers and interaction (mention Anna's paper here). How really, AI is truly social and exists as a potential force for "good" (if that is understood as *pro-social* and *evolutionary*).

# 3.0 Reprise: Evolution regarding all of these 

Histories of the evolution of intelligence (sociality & tools being key focal points). Theories of evolution, e.g., Baldwin (and later derived work by Hinton and others). Derrida's concept of [différance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance#Life_and_technics). Based on the points raised as discussion in the previous sections mention until what point evolution plays a or the major role. How future AIs will encompass some of the evolutionary paradigms we faced and how our ethics project will not be ruined in future decades - getting to the point where evolution might be quicker virtually (as a *type* of evolution).

==Further notes: [Language is mapping thinking](https://logseq.com/#/page/language%20is%20mapping%20thinking), [Evolution](https://logseq.com/page/evolution)==

## Responses in the computing literature

The mapping of evolutionary techniques and parallel thinking (social behavior also mapped and check if this doesnt exist elsewhere). Metacognition as assessment and metamemory as understanding if we remember is true and the access we can have. Cognitive psychology approaches to AI (maybe connect this to reinforcement learning and behavior?) Current approaches to model ethics in computers as values and the ones that model only the environment that will give rise to the values in the first place (2021 literature): Predictive Processing and Active Inference (bring embodiment to the discussion here); if "Ethical AI" is important or a more globalist perspective: Notice that now that computers are involved, the way we think about ethics and so on is likely to change.

# Ethics Taxonomy

An ethics taxonomy is presented as a mapping of values and positions we and machines can take now and in the future regarding the questions raised such as: **1)** how can we and machines establish a true and *positive* relationship with each other in points such as **1.1)** designing other machines or (artificial) humans; **1.2)** impact other elements of the society; **1.3)** change ourselves; **2)** what does it mean to be ethical towards something using an abstract definition; **2.1)** what being means comes from above; **2.2)** towards something also comes from above; **2.3)** abstract definition comes from language also from above; **3)** define and utilize this taxonomy based on interaction, social behavior, design and engineering, be computing␣platform-agnostic and topic-agnostic, and how machine ethics is right or wrong as a separare domain, how to imply ethics works and doesn't work; propose meta-ethics guidelines on how can we create ethical guidelines that create ethics.

# Discussion

Have we learned anything that's relevant for practice? Maybe here is a good time to return to some of the debates that look at "creativity" in a more mainstream sense, e.g., Anna Kantosalo and Ben Schneiderman about creative systems and social inclusion vs  exclusion? From the point of view of "Methods", hopefully we will have clarified at the start why we think this sort of activity could lead to new insights! We will build a thought experiment in the text to utilize the raised taxonomy. 

As related work we should specifically engage with **Floridi**:

> With distributed agency comes distributed responsibility. Existing
> ethical frameworks address individual, human responsibility, with the
> goal of allocating punishment or reward based on the actions and
> intentions of an individual. They were not developed to deal with
> distributed responsibility.

This is clearly germane, and we can go further with reference to "systems with emergent properties"; so, if distributed agents produce e.g., environmental degradation, that’s not "ethical", and the system as a whole "should" find ways to improve its behaviour. This sort of thing is thought about in Elinor Ostrom’s economics. A particular concern of Taddeo & Floridi here seems to be "autonomy" of AI, and "self-determination" of humans. But in the case of HCI/HCCC it\'s not totally clear that either of these criteria apply. In HCCC
it\'s much closer to [anthropotechnics](https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2015/09/peter-sloterdijk-anthropotechnics/). Hopefully we can provide some new insights here.

==Further notes: [Case studies reprise](https://logseq.com/#/page/case%20studies%20reprise)==

## Related work

Alongside philosophers of technology mentioned in the Introduction, we can point to more popularly-oriented books such as ("Creativity and Ethics", "Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting", "Made by Humans", "Machines that Think", "How AI can be a force for good" — and connect all these topics with political, scientific and visionary points that authors made in time.

# Conclusions and Future work

In addition to the questions in the introduction, as a result of the theoretical work developed here we sohuld be able to offer at least tentative answers to the following questions: **1)** **How can I practically engage with these issues as a computer science researcher?**; **2)** What are future steps and possibilities to research ethics, to practice ethics and relate this to other ethics roles (as we did in all the text) (e.g maybe also at the governmental level; **3)** **How do interfaces and other concrete-relationships-between-people-and-things** embodied behavior and its limits for ethics (where our theory becomes virtual and link to haraway); **4)** *How do I relate to knowledge*, what it means to know or to cognise; with/to the whole body of historical philosophy, science, inquiry, and maybe AI and tech systems?

If nothing else this should be seen as an alternative to "Ethical AI" as it is currently practiced (either as governance of real-world systems or imagining the future). By focusing on interaction we mean to develop a route to ongoing improvementment to HCI ethics overall (in an eternal golden braid!).

==Further notes: [Conclusion](https://logseq.com/#/page/conclusion)==


# References

## [1]

Benhabib, Seyla. Situating the self: Gender, community, and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. Psychology Press, 1992.

Lara, Francisco, and Jan Deckers. "Artificial intelligence as a socratic assistant for moral enhancement." Neuroethics 13.3 (2020): 275-287.

Robinson, Howard. "Substance." (2004). Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Wienpahl, Paul. "Ch'an Buddhism, western thought, and the concept of substance." Inquiry 14.1-4 (1971): 84-101.

Zimmerman, Dean W. "Substance: Its Nature and Existence." The Philosophical Review 108.1 (1999): 118-122.

## [2]
## [3]
## [4]


