Skip to main content

Manuscript for an Article Outlining the Refine and Revised Methodology

Deliverable
Societal Readiness Manuscript for an Article Outlining the Refined and Revised Methodology

Deliverable | 28 October 2023

In short

This report presents a manuscript detailing the revised ‘TechEthos’ Anticipatory Ethics Model (TEAeM) – useful for researchers, analysts, and policy-makers wanting to assess the ethical issues of emerging technologies and mitigate these risks.

The paper examines the concept of ethics of emerging technologies based on the analysis of a number of key ethical frameworks. Since all these approaches lacked some elements, this paper attempts to improve the ethical analysis with the integration of policy and empirical content, and therefore shape the TEAeM framework – based on the analysis of the three emerging technology families in focus.

Authors

Brooks L, Bhalla N, Cannizzaro S, and Richardson K.

Date of publication

30 August 2023

Status

Draft version submitted to the European Commission for review

Cite this resource

Brooks, L., Bhalla, N., Cannizzaro, S., and Richardson, K., (2023). Manuscript for an article outlining the refined and revised methodology. TechEthos Project Deliverable 2.3. Available at: www.techethos.eu.

Share:

go to top

Continue reading

TechEthos Anticipatory ethics Matrix (TEAeM)

Tool

Enhancement of ethical frameworks and outline of detailed ethics framework

The enhanced ethical framework, known as the ‘TechEthos Anticipatory ethics Matrix’ (TEAeM), offers a systematic approach for researchers, academics, and policy makers to assess and address ethical concerns related to emerging technologies by combining empirical studies from the TechEthos methodology.

Have a closer look at the enhanced ethical framework:
‘TechEthos Anticipatory ethics Matrix’ (TEAeM)

What is an ethical framework?

An ethical framework is a set of principles that can provide a solid base for the development of applications that are consistent with the accepted social norms and moral principles and values in society. Agreeing on an ethical framework or a combination of frameworks will help to guide the developers and users of these technologies.

Why the need for an ethical framework?

The central problem for the ethics of emerging technologies is that we humans cannot predict the future, and therefore do not know which ethical issues will play out once the technology is fully developed and entrenched in society. As the emerging technology is still evolving, many questions can arise about its nature, its future use, and its social consequences. However, if an ethical framework is to be useful in an area of emerging technology, it needs to be accepted by researchers/academics and policy makers prior to any activity that uses the technology or during the technology’s development phase. Furthermore, the framework should be used in consultation at every stage of development and not just considered as an afterthought.

Audience – who is this framework for?

The ‘TechEthos Anticipatory ethics Matrix’ (TEAeM) will be useful for researchers, academics and policy makers wanting to assess the ethical issues of emerging technologies and to mitigate these risks. The ordering of the various matrix elements in the TEAeM framework can be done in a range of ways, depending on the specific emerging technology under scrutiny.

The TechEthos Anticipatory ethics Matrix (TEAeM)

In order to achieve an outcome capable of being applied across a range of emerging technologies, we have chosen to take one approach, which uses a combination of empirical studies carried out as part of the method used within TechEthos.

Share:

Continue reading

Enhancement of ethical frameworks and outline of detailed ethics framework

Deliverable

Enhancement of ethical frameworks and outline of detailed ethics framework

In short

This report outlines the enhanced ethical framework, known as the ‘TechEthos Anticipatory ethics Matrix’ (TEAeM). TEAeM offers a systematic approach for researchers, academics, and policy makers to assess and address ethical concerns related to emerging technologies by combining empirical studies from the TechEthos methodology.

The methodology for ethical framework development is discussed, outlining the ethical frameworks to be considered for enhancement. Next the ethical frameworks are selected to be enhanced for emerging technologies following an ATE approach, Future Studies approach, and an Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA). Lastly, the framework that supports the ethical governance of new technologies is presented.

Author

Nitika Bhalla (DMU), Sara Cannizzaro (DMU) Kathleen Richardson (DMU), Laurence Brooks (Sheffield/DMU)

Date of publication

30 June 2023

Status

Draft version submitted to the European Commission for review

Cite this resource

Bhalla, N., Cannizzaro, S., Richardson, K., and Brooks, L., (2023), TechEthos Deliverable D5.1: Enhancement of Ethical Frameworks and Outline of Detailed Ethics Framework. Available at: www.techethos.eu

Deliverable | 30 June 202

Share:

go to top

Continue reading

Newsletter #5: Spotlight on policy briefs for European policymakers

Newsletter #5
Spotlight on policy briefs for European policymakers

News | 17 may 2023

In short

Welcome to the fifth instalment of the TechEthos newsletter. In this issue, we share policy briefs with recommendations on enhancing EU law on new and emerging technologies, as well as a suggested approach to transition from values and principles to norms and standards. You will also  learn about our national legal case studies and discover our serious game. Finally, this issue contains a reflection about fair employment for data labelers

Date of publication

17 May 2021

Share:

go to top

Continue reading

Multi-stakeholder evolution of TechEthos scenarios

Deliverable
Multi-stakeholder evolution of TechEthos scenarios on ethical issues in climate engineering, digital extended reality and neurotechnologies

Publication | 26 May 2023

In short

In this report, scenarios are used to explore ethical implications of emerging technologies, engaging stakeholders’ awareness and values. The report outlines a multi-stage, multi-stakeholder methodology applied in climate engineering, digital extended reality, and neurotechnologies. Scenarios stimulate reflections, while experts and citizens contribute their perspectives. Three stages involve scenario creation, expert enrichment, and citizen enrichment via game-based methodology and workshops. Findings are categorized by STEEPV dimensions, guiding ethical guidelines for each technology family. Addressing equity, reliability, and environmental sustainability, the report adds to the empirical study of ethical concerns at the intersection of foresight and ethical assessment of emerging technologies.

Authors

Eva Buchinger, Wenzel Mehnert, Alexandra Csábi, Masafumi Nishi, Michael J. Bernstein (AIT), Gustavo Gonzales, Andrea Porcari (AIRI), Alexei Grinbaum, Laurynas Adomaitis (CEA), Dominic Lenzi (UT), Stephen Rainey, Steven Umbrello, Pieter Vermaas (TUD), Cristina Paca, Greta Alliaj, Andrew Whittington-Davis (ECSITE) 

Date of publication

26 May 2023

Status

Final version submitted to the European Commission for review as D3.1

Cite this resource

Buchinger E, Mehnert W, Csabi A, Nishi M, Bernstein MJ, Gonzales G, Porcari A, Grinbaum A, Adomaitis L, Lenzi D, Rainey S, Umbrello S, Vermaas P, Paca C, Alliaj G, Whittington-Davis A (2023). D3.1 Evolution of advanced TechEthos scenarios. TechEthos Project Deliverable to the European Commission. Available at: www.techethos.eu

Share:

go to top

Continue reading

Enhancing legal frameworks at the national and international level

Deliverable

Enhancing legal frameworks at the national and international level

Publication | 30 July 2022

In short

Recommendations for enhancing national and international legal frameworks are provided in this report. The regulatory challenges discussed were identified through the TechEthos legal analysis of international and European Union (EU) law, as well as national legal case studies. The report aims to inform policymakers at the international level, such as the United Nations (UN), and national governments on necessary changes in existing legal frameworks.

The recommendations are based on legal principles, ethical considerations, and input from TechEthos consortium partners and the Advisory and Impact Board (ADIM Board). The report also outlines the conditions required for implementing the suggested changes.

Author

Julie Vinders, Trilateral Research (TRI)

Date of publication

29 June 2023

Status

Draft version submitted to the European Commission for review

Cite this resource

Vinders, J. (2023). Enhancing legal frameworks at the national and international level. Deliverable 5.2 for the European Commission. TechEthos Project Deliverable. Available at: www.techethos.eu

Share:

go to top

Continue reading

Can you change the world with 12.5 euros a day?

Can you change the world with 12.5 euros?

07 April 2023

Authored by: Ivan Yamshchikov
Reviewed by: Greta Alliaj and Cristina Paca

Opinion Piece | 07 April 2023

On January 18th 2023, Time Magazine published a story that put ChatGPT back in the news. Anybody interested in Artificial and Natural Intelligence couldn’t miss a headline like that:  “Exclusive: OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic”. If you did not read this work, please, do. Here’s the link. You need to know and think about it since you are using Artificial Intelligence daily, which will hardly change in the foreseeable future. For example, this text that you are reading right now might have appeared in your newsfeed because a “recommendation algorithm” found it for you, or because you found it while searching for something online. Somebody developed and trained these algorithms, while somebody else labelled the data for this training. 

This is not the first publication from Time Magazine about those people that tend to remain invisible whenever AI is mentioned: data labellers. In February 2022, Time published another great piece, “Inside Facebook’s African Sweatshop“. You can probably get the main message from the headlines, but I encourage you to read both articles before returning to this text.  I know it’s a lot to ask – we live with constantly divided attention, which is worsened by permanent time deficit. Nevertheless, it’s time well spent.

I hope you followed my advice, but in case you did not, here are several vital facts. Big Tech outsources data labelling to countries with lower levels of income. Data labellers have to deal with horrible content. I cannot put it mildly. The articles mention “sexual abuse, bestiality, rape, sexual slavery, graphic detail of death, violence, or serious physical injury”. People who label this content get around 1.5 dollars an hour working at least nine hours daily. Their mental health suffers and they do not always get proper counselling. Let these facts sting because they should. If you read this from the comfort of your home or office desk, those things take time to sink in.

One of my favourite books of all time is “Factfullness” by the late Hans Rosling. I remember seeing his talk “The best stats you’ve ever seen” and feeling an incredible surge of hope. I read “Factfullness”, published after he passed away, and learned one important lesson: context matters. We are used to the context we live in. This includes every little detail of our daily routine: from the price of coffee to our vacation plans. This defines what we find funny and what we find offensive. If you want to understand something, you have to put it into context. If you want to understand something far from your daily experience, you must try to reconstruct the context relevant to the issue you are trying to understand. We, as a species, are terrible at this task. Yet we make swift moral judgments that might affect our decisions. Moreover, we make moral judgments predicated on our daily experience and rarely consider the consequences of those judgments for the people who live lives very different from ours. Since both articles mentioned Kenya, let’s talk about it. 

You probably heard about the Big Mac index. It is one of the ways to estimate purchasing power in different regions of the world. I could not find the Big Mac index for Kenya, but thanks to McDonald’s eternal nemesis, Burger King, I managed to find a Whopper Index, which is fine with me. A whopper costs 590 Kenyan shillings, which is approximately 4.35 euros. A whopper in the local Burger King in Leipzig will cost me 8.69. Nine hours a day for 1.5 dollars per hour makes something like 12 Euros and 50 cents daily for Kenyan data labellers. If we adjust that salary for Kenyan purchasing power (assuming that the same amount of money buys you twice as many whoppers in Nairobi than in Berlin), we get 25 euros a day. You can tell me that 25 euros are still not a lot of money, especially if the person has to get that money at the price of their mental health. What difference does it make? The difference is that now you might better understand the data labellers’ actual condition. What if we add one more data point to this context?

The United Nations’ World Food Programme estimates that between October and December 2022, almost three and a half million people in Kenya were facing emergency levels of food scarcity. Five per cent of the country’s population is “in urgent need of food assistance”’. 25 euros buys you more than eight kilos of rice in Germany. When a human being has to choose between starving or watching harmful content nine hours a day, the choice is a no-brainer. 

How about some more facts to put the news into perspective? 1.5 dollars an hour,  a nine-hour-day and a five-day work week pay a salary comparable to the one that members of the “most trained and highly skilled with tactics police” get in Kenya. According to data by Payscale, this is approximately what an administrative assistant or office administrator makes in Nairobi. It is also approximately a quarter of what a Member of a County Assembly makes

Yes, 1.5 dollars an hour is a meagre wage. Yes, data labellers should be entitled to help from mental health practitioners. Yes, we can do better and we need high-quality journalists to tell these stories. We need to know about them. However, to do better globally, we also need to put these stories into perspective and remember that the only thing that makes people choose between mental health and starvation is poverty. And nothing in the known human history lifts the global population out of poverty faster than an alliance of science, technology, and free market competition. How do we balance those aspects? Can we ensure that the benefits of AI could improve the human condition globally and eventually change the economic situation for data labelers as well?

One possible path forward is to use regulation on the developed markets to encourage global collaboration but under two major conditions. First, we need to advocate for fair wages and mental health support. Companies should be held accountable for the working conditions of their employees, regardless of where they are based. Second, we can invest a part of AI’s productivity surplus globally into education and training. Developing local talent is crucial for economic growth. This investment in education should be understood in a broader sense. Companies need global talent, but we also need global founders. Modern education should encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. By investing in education and vocational training, countries can create a skilled workforce that attracts higher-paying jobs and reduces poverty. If we do it right, we can change the world with twelve euros and fifty cents a day. It will be a long and bumpy ride, but it’s worth trying. 

Share:

go to top

Continue reading

Enhancing EU legal frameworks for neurotechnologies

Policy brief
Enhancing EU legal frameworks for Neurotechnologies

Policy brief | 28 February 2023

In short

Neurotechnologies refers to devices and procedures used to access, monitor, investigate, assess, manipulate, and/or emulate the structure and function of the neural systems of natural persons.

This policy brief sets out recommendations based on the regulatory priorities related to neurotechnologies that were identified in our analysis of EU laws and policies. We address them to EU policymakers and officials involved in the preparation of legislative or policy initiatives related to neurotechnologies, medical devices, dual-use items, privacy and data protection, and AI systems.

To protect and uphold ethical, legal and fundamental rights considerations in the development and deployment of neurotechnologies, TechEthos encourages policy makers to:

  • Recognise and define neurorights within the EU’s existing fundamental rights frameworks;
  • Clarify the legal status of brain and other neural data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR);
  • Address justice, equality and discrimination gaps in neurotechnology applications and use cases;
  • Monitor and evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks governing emerging use cases of neurotechnologies, such as consumer and dual-use applications;
  • Consider the appropriate types of legal or policy instruments for the regulation of neurotechnologies in the EU;
  • Clarify the regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based neurotechnologies and consider specific use cases in the classification of neurotechnologies under the proposed AI Act.

Find out more about each recommendation by downloading the policy brief below.

Author

Julie Vinders, Trilateral Research (TRI), Ben Howkins, TRI.

Date of publication

28 February 2023

Cite this resource

Vinders, J., Howkins, B. (2023). Enhancing EU legal frameworks for Neurotechnologies. Extract from Deliverable 6.2 for the European Commission. TechEthos Project Deliverable. Available at: www.techethos.eu

Share:

go to top

Continue reading

Enhancing EU legal frameworks for Digital Extended Reality

Policy brief
Enhancing EU legal frameworks for Digital Extended Reality

Policy brief | 28 February 2023

In short

Digital Extended Reality (XR) technologies technologies combine advanced computing systems (hardware and software) that can change how people connect with each other and their surroundings and influence or manipulate human actions through interactions with virtual environments.

This policy brief sets out recommendations based on the regulatory priorities – including privacy and data protection, the regulation of AI and harmful online content, freedom of expression, non-discrimination, and the protection of special categories of persons, especially children – identified in our analysis of EU laws and policies. We address them to EU policymakers and officials involved in the preparation of legislative or policy initiatives related to XR, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), the metaverse, natural language processing (NLP), privacy and data protection, and AI systems.

To protect and uphold ethical, legal and fundamental rights and sustainability considerations in the development and deployment of XR, TechEthos encourages policy makers to:

  • Promote EU fundamental rights and encourage the adoption of ethics-by-design approaches;
  • Broaden the scope of Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by removing the purpose requirement for biometric data to be classified as special category personal data;
  • Develop appropriate instruments to tackle and regulate harmful online content in XR technologies;
  • Consider specific use cases in the classification of XR technologies under the proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act;
  • Promote the effective enforcement, monitoring and compliance with EU laws related to XR technologies, such as the GDPR, Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the proposed AI Act.

Find out more about each recommendation by downloading the policy brief below.

Author

Julie Vinders, Trilateral Research (TRI), Ben Howkins, TRI.

Date of publication

28 February 2023

Cite this resource

Vinders, J., Howkins, B. (2023). Enhancing EU legal frameworks for Digital Extended Reality. Extract from Deliverable 6.2 for the European Commission. TechEthos Project Deliverable. Available at: www.techethos.eu

Share:

go to top

Continue reading

Enhancing EU legal frameworks for Solar Radiation Modification

Policy brief
Enhancing EU legal frameworks for Solar Radiation Modification

Policy brief | 28 February 2023

In short

Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) refers to a type of climate engineering technique that aims to reflect sunlight and heat back into space to reduce warming.

This policy brief sets out recommendations based on the regulatory challenges related to SRM that were identified in our analysis of EU laws and policies. We address them to EU policymakers and officials involved in the preparation of legislative or policy initiatives related to climate action, climate technologies, climate engineering, geoengineering, and SRM specifically.

To protect and uphold ethical, fundamental rights and sustainability considerations in the research and development of SRM, TechEthos encourages policy makers to:

  • Clarify the definition and various types of research activities that constitute SRM research;
  • Determine the conditions under which – if any – research into various types of SRM may be conducted;
  • Clarify the role – if any – of various types of SRM in alleviating the impacts of climate change;
  • Evaluate the effects of SRM research activities on EU fundamental rights and principles;
  • Collaborate internationally and evaluate existing international governance regimes

Find out more about each recommendation by downloading the policy brief below.

Author

Julie Vinders, Trilateral Research (TRI), Ben Howkins, TRI.

Date of publication

28 February 2023

Cite this resource

Vinders, J., Howkins, B. (2023). Enhancing EU legal frameworks for Solar Radiation Modification. Extract from Deliverable 6.2 for the European Commission. TechEthos Project Deliverable. Available at: www.techethos.eu

Share:

go to top

Continue reading