We present a moral reasoner, Moral Coppélia, which combines connectionism, utilitarianism, and ethical theory about the moral duties autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice with affective states and personality traits. We, moreover, treat human autonomy in the sense of self-determination as well as making a meaningful choice. Our system combines bottom-up with top-down approaches, calculating the effect of an act on the total moral utility in the world. Moral Coppélia can reproduce the verdicts of medical ethicists and health judges in real-life cases and can handle the emotional differences between logically identical problems such as the Trolley and Footbridge dilemma. It also deals with properties of character and personality such as honesty and humility to explain why logic reasoning is not always descriptive of actual human moral behavior. Apart from simulating known cases, we performed a split-half experiment with the responses of 153 participants in a criminal justice experiment. While fine-tuning the parameters to the first half of the data, the encompassing version of Moral Coppélia was capable of forecasting criminal decisions, leading to a better fit with the second half of the data than either of the loose component parts did. In other words, we found empirical support for the integral contribution of ratio, affect, and personality to moral decision making, which, additionally, could be acceptably simulated by our extended version of the Moral Coppélia system.
Moral Coppélia - Combining Ratio with Affect in Ethical Reasoning - Slides I...Matthijs Pontier
Similar to Moral Coppélia: Affective moral reasoning with twofold autonomy and a touch of personality - Presentation at MEMCA14 Symposium at AISB50 (20)
Vector Search -An Introduction in Oracle Database 23ai.pptx
Moral Coppélia: Affective moral reasoning with twofold autonomy and a touch of personality - Presentation at MEMCA14 Symposium at AISB50
1. Moral Coppélia:
Affective moral reasoning
with twofold autonomy and
a touch of personality
Matthijs Pontier
MatthijsPon@gmail.com
2. Overview of this presentation
• SELEMCA
• Moral Reasoning
• Silicon Coppelia: Model of Emotional Intelligence
• Moral Reasoning + Silicon Coppelia = Moral Coppelia
• Predicting Crime with Moral Coppelia
• Conclusion
• Future Work
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 2
3. SELEMCA
• Develop ‘Caredroids’: Robots or Computer Agents
that assist Patients and Care-deliverers
• Focus on patients who stay in long-term care facilities
3London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
4. Possible functionalities
• Care-broker: Find care that matches need patient
• Companion: Become friends with the patient to
prevent loneliness and activate the patient
• Coach: Assist the patient in making healthy choices:
Exercising, Eating healthy, Taking medicine, etc.
4London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
7. Background Machine Ethics
• Machines are becoming more autonomous
Rosalind Picard (1997): ‘‘The greater the freedom of
a machine, the more it will need moral standards.’’
• Machines interact more with people
We should manage that machines do not harm us or
threaten our autonomy
• Machine ethics is important to establish perceived
trust in users
7London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
8. Domain: Medical Ethics
• Within SELEMCA, we develop caredroids
• Patients are in a vulnerable position.
Moral behavior of robot is extremely important.
We focus on Medical Ethics
• Conflicts between:
1. Beneficence
2. Non-maleficence
3. Autonomy
4. Justice
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 8
9. Moral reasoning system
We developed a rational moral reasoning system that
is capable of balancing between conflicting moral goals.
9London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
10. Positive vs Negative Autonomy
• Negative Autonomy = Self-determination
• Freedom of others
• Autonomy is more than self-determination
• Being able to make a meaningful choice
• Act in line with well-considered preferences
• Positive Autonomy =
Freedom to make a meaningful choice
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
11. Typical moral dilemmas
Caredroids will encounter
• Positive vs Negative Autonomy:
• Accept unhealthy choice vs Persuade reconsider
• Binding to previous agreement vs Giving up
Expand moral principle of Autonomy
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
14. Results
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
• New moral reasoning system matches decisions
previous moral reasoning system
• Simulation of 2008-2012 NL law cases:
• Case 1: Assertive outreach to prevent judicial coercion
• Patient in demise. Aggression Assertive Outreach
• Case 2: Inform care deliverers, not parents of adult
• Patient in alarming situation. No good contact with parents.
• Case 3: Neg. autonomy constrained to enhance pos. autonomy
• Self-binding declaration addict due to relapses in alcohol
use
• Conditions were met Judicial Coercion
15. Conclusions Autonomy Model
• We created moral reasoning system including twofold
approach of autonomy
• System matches decisions medical ethical experts
• System matches decisions law cases
• By using theories of (medical) ethics, we can build
robots that stimulate autonomy
15London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
16. Limitations rational moral reasoning
• Only moral reasoning results in very cold decision-
making, only in terms of rights and duties
• Wallack, Franklin & Allen (2010): “Ethical agents
require emotional intelligence as well as other ‘supra-
rational’ faculties, such as a sense of self and a
‘Theory of Mind”
• Tronto (1993): “Care is only thought of as good care
when it is personalized”
16London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
17. Problem: Not Able to Simulate
Trolley Dilemma vs Footbridge Dilemma
• Greene et al. (2001) find that moral dilemmas vary
systematically in the extent to which they engage
emotional processing and that these variations in
emotional engagement influence moral judgment.
• Their study was inspired by the difference between
two variants of an ethical dilemma:
Trolley dilemma (moral impersonal)
Footbridge dilemma (moral personal)
17London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
18. Solution: Add Emotional Processing
• Previously, we developed Silicon Coppelia,
a model of emotional intelligence.
• This can be projected in others for Theory of Mind
• Learns from experience Personalization
Connect Moral Reasoning to Silicon Coppelia
• More human-like moral reasoning
• Personalize moral decisions and communication
about moral reasoning
18London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
20. Silicon Coppelia
• We developed Silicon Coppelia, with the goal to create
emotionally human-like robots
• Simulation experiments:
System behaves consistent with Theory and
Intuition
• Compare performance model with
performance real human in speeddating experiment
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 20
21. Turing Test
• Turing Test was originally text-based
• We enriched test with affect-laden communication
• Facial expressions showing emotions
• Capable of vocal speech
• Afterwards questionnaire:
How do you think Tom perceived you?
Measure made continuous and more elaborated
than simply yes/no
• Analysis: Bayesian structural equation modeling
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 21
23. Results
• Participants did not detect differences on single
variables
• Participants did not recognize significant differences
on cognitive-affective structure
• Model in which conditions (1: human, 2: robot) were
assumed equal explained data better than model in
which conditions were assumed different
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 23
24. Conclusions Speed-Date
• We created simulation of affect so natural that young
women could not discern dating a robot from a man
• Important for:
• Understanding human affective communication
• Developing communication technologies
• Developing emotionally human-like robots
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 24
25. Silicon Coppelia + Moral Reasoning:
Decisions based on:
1. Rational influences
• Does action help me to reach my goals?
2. Affective influences
• Does action lead to desired emotions?
• Does action reflect Involvement I feel towards user?
• Does action reflect Distance I feel towards user?
3. Moral reasoning
• Is this action morally good?
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 25
26. Results Trolley & Footbridge
Kill 1 to Save 5 Do Nothing
Moral system
Trolley X
Footbridge X
Moral Coppelia
Trolley X
Footbridge X
26London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
27. Background Criminology
Study
• Substantial evidence emotions are fundamental in
criminal decision making
• But emotions rarely in criminal choice models
Study relation Ratio+Emotions+Moral
Apply Moral Coppelia to criminology data
Predict criminal decisions participants
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 27
28. Matching data to model
Match:
• Honesty/Humility to Weightmorality
• Perceived Risk to Expected Utility
• Negative State Affect to EESA
Parameter Tuning:
1. Find optimal fits for initial sample
2. Predict decisions for holdout sample
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 28
30. Conclusions
• We created an affective moral reasoning system
• System matches decisions medical ethical experts
• System matches decisions law cases
• By using theories of (medical) ethics,
we can build robots that stimulate autonomy
• System can simulate trolley and footbridge dilemma
• System can predict human criminal choices
30London, 03-04-2014
MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
31. Discussion
• The introduction of affect in rational ethics is
important when robots communicate with humans
• Combination Ratio + Affect + Morals useful for
applications that simulate human decision making
for example, when agent systems or robots provide
healthcare support, or in entertainment settings
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50 31
32. Future Work: Apply in politics
London, 03-04-2014 MEMCA-14 Symposium at AISB50
• Personal freedom
• Privacy
• Human rights
• Transparency
• Citizen participation
• Evidence-based policy
• Science & Education
• Freedom of information
• Open access / Open data / Open source
• Elections European Parliament: 22.05.2014
Science + Health Care + Creative Industry
Triangle Patient / Care-deliverer / Robot
Robot: Repetitive tasks, so that
Care-deliverer has time for: Medical + Social tasks
Functionalities can all be in the same robot
Same functionality can be in different kind of robots (physical robot, agent, app)
Care-droids = care-agents, care-robots, assist care-deliverers and patients
Results: Able to match decisions medical ethical experts
Behavior system matches experts medical ethics
Negative autonomy is freedom of others
Positive autonomy is freedom to make a well-reflected choice
For example, when a patient goes into rehab his freedom can be limited for a limited period of time to achieve better cognitive functioning and self-reflection in the future.
Risk on aggression, fire. Assertive Outreach prevented worsening of the situation prevented JC
Less impact on privacy, more potential to prevent worsening.
During detox, restore cognitive functioning and reflection
1: Robot tries to convince elder to take pills
2:
Wallach, Franklin & Allen: Ratio / Logic alone is not enough for ethical behavior towards humans
Silicon Coppelia emotional intelligence, theory of mind, personalization (through adaptation / learning from interaction)
Moral personal = more emotionally engaging
Model from media perception to let medium perceive user
Ga door model, ook emotie-regulatie uitleggen
Moral and Affective Decision
Personalized User-centered
Silicon Coppelia, based on how humans affectively perceive each other and communicate
More elaborated, because measure on several appraisal dimensions
Yes/no problematic, because if Tom not human-like on only one aspect, everyone says no
Robot (mijn modellen) vs Mens
Multiple Choice & Emoties
Wat vond dit mannetje nou van jou?
Proefpersonen zien geen verschil
Je zou kunnen spreken van een geslaagde Turing Test
Cognitive structure How variables are related (as in Silicon Coppelia)
Communication technologies: helping autistic patients with recognizing emotions
Moral Reasoning system alone could not simulate difference trolley dilemma and footbridge dilemma.
Moral Reasoning system combined with Silicon Coppélia could simulate these human moral decision making processes
1: Robot tries to convince elder to take pills
2: Entertainment Bad can also be interesting.
Bring back moral reasoning in politics and stimulate autonomy of civilians