A sociotechnological-system approach to AI ethics

Abstract AI algorithms require human input to achieve technological aims. This fact is often overlooked in discussions of autonomous systems and AI safety, to the detriment of both philosophical discourse and practical progress. One potential remedy is to ground our theorizing more fundamentally in the idea that AI technologies are sociotechnological systems with human and artifactual components. In this article, I pursue this strategy, aiming to shift the focus in AI ethics from artifacts and their intrinsic properties—what I refer to as the robotic conception of AI—to the relationships among elements embedded in AI-involving sociotechnological systems. First, I defend the claim that the sociotechnological-system perspective provides an accurate description of some of our most advanced AI. Second, I argue that the dominance of the robotic conception has steered AI safety research down unproductive paths, while the sociotechnological perspective has the capacity to set us right. Specifically, the robotic conception encourages the development of artificial moral agents—whose creation we should avoid if possible—and distracts researchers with hypothetical trolley cases. In contrast, the sociotechnological approach coheres with actual progress being made on AI safety (e.g., networking, shared user-artifact control, and value alignment) and makes vivid solutions to the safety problem that do not require the creation of humnanlike moral decision-makers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AI & Society
Published
2025-04-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02335-5
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.10
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A sociotechnological-system approach to AI ethics

Erich Riesen
3 citations
AI & Society
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
7.10
article

A sociotechnological-system approach to AI ethics

Erich Riesen
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract AI algorithms require human input to achieve technological aims. This fact is often overlooked in discussions of autonomous systems and AI safety, to the detriment of both philosophical discourse and practical progress. One potential remedy is to ground our theorizing more fundamentally in the idea that AI technologies are sociotechnological systems with human and artifactual components. In this article, I pursue this strategy, aiming to shift the focus in AI ethics from artifacts and their intrinsic properties—what I refer to as the robotic conception of AI—to the relationships among elements embedded in AI-involving sociotechnological systems. First, I defend the claim that the sociotechnological-system perspective provides an accurate description of some of our most advanced AI. Second, I argue that the dominance of the robotic conception has steered AI safety research down unproductive paths, while the sociotechnological perspective has the capacity to set us right. Specifically, the robotic conception encourages the development of artificial moral agents—whose creation we should avoid if possible—and distracts researchers with hypothetical trolley cases. In contrast, the sociotechnological approach coheres with actual progress being made on AI safety (e.g., networking, shared user-artifact control, and value alignment) and makes vivid solutions to the safety problem that do not require the creation of humnanlike moral decision-makers.

AI & SocietyVol. 40(8)
Texas A&M University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
7.10
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.