Ethical design of social simulations
Resumo
Computer simulations of social phenomena are used in academic and non-academic contexts as tools for decision-aiding. By combining social scientific knowledge, computational power, and large data sets, those systems may be involved in decisions that affect people who are not even aware of the existence of a simulation. This paper reviews topics from the philosophy of technology and computer ethics literatures in order to identify salient ethical issues related to computer simulations and the steps on the software design cycle on which they can be addressed, offering a checklist that can guide how the ethical concerns of stakeholders are listened to and incorporated into the proposed simulation system.
Referências
Alvarez, R. M. (2016). Introduction. In: Alvarez, R. M. (ed.) Computational Social Science. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
ACM US Public Policy Council. (2017). Statement on Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability.
Brykczynski, B. (1999) A survey of software inspection checklists. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 24(1), 82.
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 2053951715622512.
Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2014). Introduction to computational social science. London and Heidelberg: Springer.
Davis, J. (2009). Design methods for ethical persuasive computing. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. ACM.
De Marchi, S. (2005). Computational and Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Di Paolo, E., Noble, J., and Bullock, S. (2000) Simulation Models as Opaque Thought Experiments. In: Seventh International Conference on Artificial Life. Cambridge: MIT Press, 497-506.
Doshi-Velez, F. and Kortz, M. (2017). Accountability of AI Under the Law: The Role of Explanation. Berkman Klein Center Working Group on Explanation and the Law.
Elsenbroich, C. and Gilbert, N. (2014). Modelling Norms. Springer, 2014.
Eubanks, V. (2018) Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press.
Floridi, L., and Sanders, J. W. (2002). Mapping the foundationalist debate in computer ethics. Ethics and information Technology, 4(1), 1-9.
Gilbert, N. and Troitzsch, K. G. (2005). Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press.
Hvistendahl, M. (2018) You are a number. Wired 26(1): 48-59.
Kaner, C. and Swenson, S. J. (2008). Good Enough V&V for Simulations: Some Possibly Helpful Thoughts from the Law & Ethics of Commercial Software. In Proc. Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
Koabel, G. (2017) Simulating the Ages of Man: Periodization in Civilization V and Europa Universalis IV. Loading..., 10(17).
Mackenzie, D. and Spears, T. (2014) ‘The Formula That Killed Wall Street’: The Gaussian Copula and Modelling Practices in Investment Banking. Social Studies of Science, v. 44, 393–417.
Ohm, P. and Reid, B. (2016). “Regulating Software When Everything Has Software,” 84 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1672-1702.
O'Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Broadway Books.
Ören, T. I., Elzas, M. S., Smit, I., and Birta, L. G. (2002). A code of professional ethics for simulationists. Proc. 2002 Summer Computer Simulation Conf. (San Diego CA).
Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (2011). The Idea of Justice. Belknap Press.
Siegfried, R. (2014). Modeling and Simulation of Complex Systems: A Framework for Efficient Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation. Springer Viehweg.
Sommerville, I. (2011). Software Engineering, 9th ed. Addison-Wesley.
Stahl, B. C., Timmermans, J., and Mittelstadt, B. D. (2016). The ethics of computing: A survey of the computing-oriented literature. ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 4.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do; philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania University Press.
Williamson, T. J. (2010). Predicting building performance: the ethics of computer simulation. Building Research & Information, 38(4), 401-410.
Yu, L., Li, X., Tang, L., Zhang, Z., and Kou, G. (2015). Social credit: a comprehensive literature review. Financial Innovation, 1(1), 6.
ACM US Public Policy Council. (2017). Statement on Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability.
Brykczynski, B. (1999) A survey of software inspection checklists. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 24(1), 82.
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 2053951715622512.
Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2014). Introduction to computational social science. London and Heidelberg: Springer.
Davis, J. (2009). Design methods for ethical persuasive computing. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. ACM.
De Marchi, S. (2005). Computational and Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Di Paolo, E., Noble, J., and Bullock, S. (2000) Simulation Models as Opaque Thought Experiments. In: Seventh International Conference on Artificial Life. Cambridge: MIT Press, 497-506.
Doshi-Velez, F. and Kortz, M. (2017). Accountability of AI Under the Law: The Role of Explanation. Berkman Klein Center Working Group on Explanation and the Law.
Elsenbroich, C. and Gilbert, N. (2014). Modelling Norms. Springer, 2014.
Eubanks, V. (2018) Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press.
Floridi, L., and Sanders, J. W. (2002). Mapping the foundationalist debate in computer ethics. Ethics and information Technology, 4(1), 1-9.
Gilbert, N. and Troitzsch, K. G. (2005). Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press.
Hvistendahl, M. (2018) You are a number. Wired 26(1): 48-59.
Kaner, C. and Swenson, S. J. (2008). Good Enough V&V for Simulations: Some Possibly Helpful Thoughts from the Law & Ethics of Commercial Software. In Proc. Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
Koabel, G. (2017) Simulating the Ages of Man: Periodization in Civilization V and Europa Universalis IV. Loading..., 10(17).
Mackenzie, D. and Spears, T. (2014) ‘The Formula That Killed Wall Street’: The Gaussian Copula and Modelling Practices in Investment Banking. Social Studies of Science, v. 44, 393–417.
Ohm, P. and Reid, B. (2016). “Regulating Software When Everything Has Software,” 84 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1672-1702.
O'Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Broadway Books.
Ören, T. I., Elzas, M. S., Smit, I., and Birta, L. G. (2002). A code of professional ethics for simulationists. Proc. 2002 Summer Computer Simulation Conf. (San Diego CA).
Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (2011). The Idea of Justice. Belknap Press.
Siegfried, R. (2014). Modeling and Simulation of Complex Systems: A Framework for Efficient Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation. Springer Viehweg.
Sommerville, I. (2011). Software Engineering, 9th ed. Addison-Wesley.
Stahl, B. C., Timmermans, J., and Mittelstadt, B. D. (2016). The ethics of computing: A survey of the computing-oriented literature. ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 4.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do; philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania University Press.
Williamson, T. J. (2010). Predicting building performance: the ethics of computer simulation. Building Research & Information, 38(4), 401-410.
Yu, L., Li, X., Tang, L., Zhang, Z., and Kou, G. (2015). Social credit: a comprehensive literature review. Financial Innovation, 1(1), 6.
Publicado
22/07/2018
Como Citar
ALMADA, Marco; ATTUX, Romis.
Ethical design of social simulations. In: WORKSHOP SOBRE ASPECTOS SOCIAIS, HUMANOS E ECONÔMICOS DE SOFTWARE (WASHES), 3. , 2018, Natal.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2018
.
p. 11-20.
ISSN 2763-874X.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/washes.2018.3471.
