W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2016

RE: Moral Reasoning Systems

From: John Flynn <jflynn12@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:39:16 -0500
To: <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, "'Adam Sobieski'" <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>, "'John Flynn'" <jflynn12@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <010b01d2498d$943540a0$bc9fc1e0$@net>
Automating moral/ethical behavior by machines/software is a very complicated issue, just as it is for humans to define. However, the best fundamental rule I have seen is to take no action that would intentionally harm another. Generally, the term "another" applies to another human, but should it also apply to animals? If so, which animals - how about cows? Should it apply to other software programs? What if the person is really evil? What if the action harms one, or a few people, but is done for the good of a larger number of people. Semantic modeling (ontologies) can formally (logically) represent domains of interest. Generally, the narrower the scope of the domain - the easier it is to model. Semantic modeling of something as complex as morals/ethics is extremely challenging. An interesting challenge would be to create a straw man morals/ethics ontology and make it available for review and comment so that it might be refined over time. 
 
John Flynn
http://semanticsimulations.com
 
From: paoladimaio10@gmail.com [mailto:paoladimaio10@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paola Di Maio
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 4:25 AM
To: Adam Sobieski
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Re: Moral Reasoning Systems
 
Hay Adam
 
Thanks a lot for this note. It tackles an important topic, which I have been working on for some time. mostly trying to figure out how to tell machine to be good. How to do that .... an ontology and a bunch of rules should do but... 
Humanity has not yet been able to set a good example for machine.
on the other hand machine can be simpler to programme than humanity.
 
But let me start by 'objecting' to the choice of term 'moral'. I use the term 'ethical' and inclined to think that it is far wiser choice.
Simple argument made here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UylwnWzYWfITyTsNUctELncVxatYUKx74RjwtWgpyP4/edit?usp=sharing
 
Thoughts?
 
Secondly, I d very much like to see address the relevance to the semantic web (and web in general) and some suggestion of how to work on this important topic in the most pervasive way
How to advance this topic sensibly and ostensibly
 
Chirps
 
PDM
 
Received on Monday, 28 November 2016 15:39:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 28 November 2016 15:39:57 UTC