XR4Human D2.3: The Moral Programming of XR, and What We can Learn from the AI Experience

Extended Reality (XR) technology is on the rise. The technology becomes more complex, is applied in countless contexts (as a professional instrument, a research tool or in the field of leisure), and its use becomes more widespread amongst citizens. It can be considered as the ‘next big thing’ to Artificial Intelligence. As with each new technology, its development comes with new moral problems, and new moral problems urge new moral solutions. Usually, these solutions are found in the short term in ethical frameworks or codes of conducts and on the long term in (enforceable) laws. In this contribution, we propose to not step in the pitfalls of the past and learn from the AI experience in the context of setting moral boundaries for technology development. We propose a moral procedure called ‘moral programming’ that should enable technology developers and tech-policy makers to recognize and identify moral issues that need to be answered by those who are to be affected by the new technology, equip them with a meta-method to establish a bottom-up crowd sourced ethics approach (including feedback loops) in their design process, to align values of those whom it concerns and those who develop/govern. To this end we reflect on 1) when are moral issues high stake moral issues that need the ‘special treatment’ of a moral programming approach? 2) how can we decide who should be the moral authority on the moral programming in itself? And 3) what does moral programming look like, and how can it be done? In conclusion, we will focus on several particular challenges that are exemplary for XR (and in particular AIXR) technology.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2024-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14045197
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

XR4Human D2.3: The Moral Programming of XR, and What We can Learn from the AI Experience

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

XR4Human D2.3: The Moral Programming of XR, and What We can Learn from the AI Experience

article en

Abstract

Extended Reality (XR) technology is on the rise. The technology becomes more complex, is applied in countless contexts (as a professional instrument, a research tool or in the field of leisure), and its use becomes more widespread amongst citizens. It can be considered as the ‘next big thing’ to Artificial Intelligence. As with each new technology, its development comes with new moral problems, and new moral problems urge new moral solutions. Usually, these solutions are found in the short term in ethical frameworks or codes of conducts and on the long term in (enforceable) laws. In this contribution, we propose to not step in the pitfalls of the past and learn from the AI experience in the context of setting moral boundaries for technology development. We propose a moral procedure called ‘moral programming’ that should enable technology developers and tech-policy makers to recognize and identify moral issues that need to be answered by those who are to be affected by the new technology, equip them with a meta-method to establish a bottom-up crowd sourced ethics approach (including feedback loops) in their design process, to align values of those whom it concerns and those who develop/govern. To this end we reflect on 1) when are moral issues high stake moral issues that need the ‘special treatment’ of a moral programming approach? 2) how can we decide who should be the moral authority on the moral programming in itself? And 3) what does moral programming look like, and how can it be done? In conclusion, we will focus on several particular challenges that are exemplary for XR (and in particular AIXR) technology.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Utrecht University (NL), Fontys University of Applied Sciences (NL), Bronovo Hospital (NL)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
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.