Smart home technologies embed values such as sustainability, comfort, privacy, and security, which can sometimes conflict with one another, considering the complexities of domestic environments. This paper investigates the potential implications of these value conflicts and the corresponding design challenges. Through an enactment session and co-speculations with professional actors, we explored what it means to navigate multiple values simultaneously, live with products that impose their own values, and manage value conflicts both with and among smart products. The findings challenge the seamless and harmonious vision of smart homes conceived by technologists, proposing shifts in the common narrative: from value alignment to value transparency, from service provision to mutual care, and from autonomy to responsiveness. We discuss that acknowledging value conflicts, rather than eliminating them, is an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of users and home environments and guide the design of smart home technologies.

Human values capture what people and societies perceive as desirable, transcend specific situations and serve as guiding principles for action. People’s value systems motivate their positions on issues concerning the economy, society and politics among others, influencing the arguments they make. Identifying the values behind arguments can therefore help us find common ground in discourse and uncover the core reasons behind disagreements. Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable performance across language generation and analysis. However, leveraging LLMs in sociotechnical systems that assist with discourse and argumentation necessitates systematically evaluating their ability to analyse and identify the values behind arguments, an under-explored research direction. Using a multi-level human value taxonomy inspired by the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values, we present a systematic and critical evaluation of GPT-3.5-turbo in human value identification from a dataset of multi-cultural arguments, across the zero-shot, few-shot and chain-of-thought prompting strategies, carrying forward from prior research on this task which leveraged a fine-tuned BERT model. We observe that prompting strategies exhibit performance levels close to, but still behind fine-tuning for value classification. We also detail some challenges associated with value classification with LLMs, offering potential directions for future research.

Understanding citizens’ values in participatory systems is crucial for citizen-centric policy-making. We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices, and AI agents estimate their value preferences by interacting with them. We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants’ choices and motivations, and propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants. We operationalize the philosophical stance that “valuing is deliberatively consequential.” That is, if a participant’s choice is based on a deliberation of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation the participant provides for the choice. Thus, we propose and compare value preferences estimation methods that prioritize the values estimated from motivations over the values estimated from choices alone. Then, we introduce a disambiguation strategy that combines Natural Language Processing and Active Learning to address the detected inconsistencies between choices and motivations. We evaluate the proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and motivations improves the estimation of an individual’s value preferences. The disambiguation strategy does not show substantial improvements when compared to similar baselines—however, we discuss how the novelty of the approach can open new research avenues and propose improvements to address the current limitations.

The expressive power and effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) is going to increasingly push intelligent agents towards sub-symbolic models for natural language processing (NLP) tasks in human–agent interaction. However, LLMs are characterised by a performance vs. transparency trade-off that hinders their applicability to such sensitive scenarios. This is the main reason behind many approaches focusing on local post-hoc explanations, recently proposed by the XAI community in the NLP realm. However, to the best of our knowledge, a thorough comparison among available explainability techniques is currently missing, as well as approaches for constructing global post-hoc explanations leveraging the local information. This is why we propose a novel framework for comparing state-of-the-art local post-hoc explanation mechanisms and for extracting logic programs surrogating LLMs. Our experiments—over a wide variety of text classification tasks—show how most local post-hoc explainers are loosely correlated, highlighting substantial discrepancies in their results. By relying on the proposed novel framework, we also show how it is possible to extract faithful and efficient global explanations for the original LLM over multiple tasks, enabling explainable and resource-friendly AI techniques.

With the growing capabilities and pervasiveness of AI systems, societies must collectively choose between reduced human autonomy, endangered democracies and limited human rights, and AI that is aligned to human and social values, nurturing collaboration, resilience, knowledge and ethical behaviour. In this chapter, we introduce the notion of self-reflective AI systems for meaningful human control over AI systems. Focusing on decision support systems, we propose a framework that integrates knowledge from psychology and philosophy with formal reasoning methods and machine learning approaches to create AI systems responsive to human values and social norms. We also propose a possible research approach to design and develop self-reflective capability in AI systems. Finally, we argue that self-reflective AI systems can lead to self-reflective hybrid systems (human + AI), thus increasing meaningful human control and empowering human moral reasoning by providing comprehensible information and insights on possible human moral blind spots.

This handbook presents the concept of ‘meaningful human control’ (MHC) over AI systems from the perspectives of (i) philosophy and ethics, (ii) law and governance, and (iii) design and engineering. The introductory chapter addresses the motivations and recent developments in MHC, introducing each perspective and related chapters. These three disciplinary perspectives scrutinize how MHC intertwines with philosophical debates on moral responsibility, societal concerns regarding control over technological advancements in legal frameworks, and the engineering complexities of designing and developing AI systems while ensuring human control and responsibility. Additionally, cross-cutting aspects on MHC over AI systems are also introduced and discussed through (iv) interdisciplinary and systemic perspectives. By offering a contextualized introduction to the perspectives considered in this handbook, this chapter aims to present the handbook’s various approaches and points of interest for a diverse audience, highlighting potential entry points into this multidisciplinary volume.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly prevalent in our daily lives, setting specific requirements for responsible development and deployment: The AI should be explainable and inclusive. Despite substantial research and development investment in explainable AI, there is a lack of effort into making AI explainable and inclusive to people with cognitive disabilities as well. In this paper, we present the first steps towards this research topic. We argue that three main questions guide this research, namely: 1) How explainable should a system be?; 2) What level of understanding can the user reach, and what is the right type of explanation to help them reach this level?; and 3) How can we implement an AI system that can generate the necessary explanations? We present the current state of the art in research on these three topics, the current open questions and the next steps. Finally, we present the challenges specific to bringing these three research topics together, in order to eventually be able to answer the question of how to make AI systems explainable also to people with cognitive disabilities.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the most dicussed topics of today and are being used to support solving complex problems. AI has given opportunities for efficiency, control, safety while raising issues around trust, optimism and responsibility. One of the prominent features of AI resides in the digitalization of the built environment. Optimizing the built environment to improve quality of life, adapt to climate change and respond to crises requires strategies to redesign, reproduce and manage the traditional ways the built environment has been shaped. In this chapter, we present demonstate how we can use AI for post-pandemic recovery. To do that, we first start with addressing digital transformation and the role of AI. We then discuss how we can accelerate this transformation in cities. We will reflect on the covid-19 crises and the impact of the crises in the built environment. We argue that the use of AI raises new possibilities, questions and problems around how we can better organize the built environment and more inclusive participation while supporting existing logics of the built environment.

Relevancy is a prevalent term in value alignment. We either need to keep track of the relevant moral reasons, we need to embed the relevant values, or we need to learn from the relevant behaviour. What relevancy entails in particular cases, however, is often ill-defined. The reasons for this are obvious, it is hard to define relevancy in a way that is both general and concrete enough to give direction towards a specific implementation. In this paper, we describe the inherent difficulty that comes along with defining what is relevant to a particular situation. Simply due to design and the way an AI system functions, we need to state or learn particular goals and circumstances under which that goal is completed. However, because of both the changing nature of the world and the varied wielders and users of such implements, misalignment occurs, especially after a longer amount of time. We propose a way to counteract this by putting contestability front and centre throughout the lifecycle of an AI system, as it can provide insight into what is actually relevant at a particular instance. This allows designers to update the applications in such a manner that they can account for oversight during design.

While Meaningful Human Control (MHC) is at the very heart of the Edward Elgar research handbook, this specific chapter addresses the questions how MHC is rooted in the history of human artefacts and human-machine systems, how it is related to the term control, ability, responsibility, authority, autonomy and finally accountability. The chapter sketches, step by step, a holistic, cybernetic model of the most important relationships between MHC and its related concepts interconnected over this holistic big picture map. Starting point are existing control systems and their evolution through history, followed by the interrelationship between the small-scale human-machine or human-AI system, and the increasingly bigger system of systems, organizations, societies and our global environment. The goal of this bow-tie shaped system map is to enable a better balance between global and local perspectives, and therefore enable a more efficient and better design, engineering and evaluation of such systems.

Automatic design tools are being developed to assist designers handle tedious work at scale. However, knowledge gaps still exist in harnessing deep learning models to learn from human experience for more efficient design generation while keeping the data understandable and interoperable. Moreover, human-in-the-loop approach is largely neglected, which are essential for more user-centered design. This research utilizes graph data to parametrically represent housing designs and graph-representative deep generative models for design generation, which provides an interactive design approach for the users at every step. This method would facilitate the human-centered design process by returning feasible and parametric housing design alternatives.

Although popular and effective, large language models (LLM) are characterised by a performance vs. transparency trade-off that hinders their applicability to sensitive scenarios. This is the main reason behind many approaches focusing on local post-hoc explanations recently proposed by the XAI community. However, to the best of our knowledge, a thorough comparison among available explainability techniques is currently missing, mainly for the lack of a general metric to measure their benefits. We compare state-of-the-art local post-hoc explanation mechanisms for models trained over moral value classification tasks based on a measure of correlation. By relying on a novel framework for comparing global impact scores, our experiments show how most local post-hoc explainers are loosely correlated, and highlight huge discrepancies in their results—their “quarrel” about explanations. Finally, we compare the impact scores distribution obtained from each local post-hoc explainer with human-made dictionaries, and point out that there is no correlation between explanation outputs and the concepts humans consider as salient.

This paper presents a decentralized Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) approach to an incentive-based Demand Response (DR) program, which aims to maintain the capacity limits of the electricity grid and prevent grid congestion by financially incentivizing residential consumers to reduce their energy consumption. The proposed approach addresses the key challenge of coordinating heterogeneous preferences and requirements from multiple participants while preserving their privacy and minimizing financial costs for the aggregator. The participant agents use a novel Disjunctively Constrained Knapsack Problem optimization to curtail or shift the requested household appliances based on the selected demand reduction. Through case studies with electricity data from 25 households, the proposed approach effectively reduced energy consumption's Peak-to-Average ratio (PAR) by 14.48% compared to the original PAR while fully preserving participant privacy. This approach has the potential to significantly improve the efficiency and reliability of the electricity grid, making it an important con-tribution to the management of renewable energy resources and the growing electricity demand.

In this paper, we problematize popular narratives of driving automation. Whether positive or negative, these propagate simplistic assumptions about human abilities and reinforce technocratic approaches to mobility innovation. We build on narrative approaches to participatory research and adversarial design, to explore how design-led confrontation can create opportunities for reflection on implicit assumptions and narratives that stakeholders may refer to when discussing and making decisions about automated driving technologies. Specifically, we discuss the results of four focus groups where we used contestational artifacts to promote critical discussions and confront taken-for-granted beliefs among stakeholders. We reflect on the results to distill methodological insight and design recommendations for conducting adversarial participatory design research as a way towards confronting dominant narratives. Together with the methodological approach, the main contribution of this work, we also provide a set of narrative tensions that can be used to question common beliefs surrounding automated driving futures.

Many technological systems these days interact with their environment with increasingly little human intervention. This situation comes with higher stakes and consequences that society needs to manage. No longer are we dealing with 404 pages: AI systems today may cause serious harm. To address this, we wish to exert a kind of control over these systems, so that they can adhere to our moral beliefs. However, given the plurality of values in our societies, which “oughts” ought these machines to adhere to? In this article, we examine Borda voting as a way to maximize expected choice-worthiness among individuals through different possible “implementations” of ethical principles. We use data from the Moral Machine experiment to illustrate the effectiveness of such a voting system. Although it appears to be effective on average, the maximization of expected choice-worthiness is heavily dependent on the formulation of principles. While Borda voting may be a good way of ensuring outcomes that are preferable to many, the larger problems in maximizing expected choice-worthiness, such as the capacity to formulate credences well, remain notoriously difficult; hence, we argue that such mechanisms should be implemented with caution and that other problems ought to be solved first.

Modelling causal responsibility in multi-agent spatial interactions is crucial for safety and efficiency of interactions of humans with autonomous agents. However, current formal metrics and models of responsibility either lack grounding in ethical and philosophical concepts of responsibility, or cannot be applied to spatial interactions. In this work we propose a metric of causal responsibility which is tailored to multi-agent spatial interactions, for instance interactions in traffic. In such interactions, a given agent can, by reducing another agent's feasible action space, influence the latter. Therefore, we propose feasible action space reduction (FeAR) as a metric of causal responsibility among agents. Specifically, we look at ex-post causal responsibility for simultaneous actions. We propose the use of Moves de Rigueur (MdR) - a consistent set of prescribed actions for agents - to model the effect of norms on responsibility allocation. We apply the metric in a grid world simulation for spatial interactions and show how the actions, contexts, and norms affect the causal responsibility ascribed to agents. Finally, we demonstrate the application of this metric in complex multi-agent interactions. We argue that the FeAR metric is a step towards an interdisciplinary framework for quantifying responsibility that is needed to ensure safety and meaningful human control in human-AI systems.

How can humans remain in control of artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems designed to perform tasks autonomously? Such systems are increasingly ubiquitous, creating benefits - but also undesirable situations where moral responsibility for their actions cannot be properly attributed to any particular person or group. The concept of meaningful human control has been proposed to address responsibility gaps and mitigate them by establishing conditions that enable a proper attribution of responsibility for humans; however, clear requirements for researchers, designers, and engineers are yet inexistent, making the development of AI-based systems that remain under meaningful human control challenging. In this paper, we address the gap between philosophical theory and engineering practice by identifying, through an iterative process of abductive thinking, four actionable properties for AI-based systems under meaningful human control, which we discuss making use of two applications scenarios: automated vehicles and AI-based hiring. First, a system in which humans and AI algorithms interact should have an explicitly defined domain of morally loaded situations within which the system ought to operate. Second, humans and AI agents within the system should have appropriate and mutually compatible representations. Third, responsibility attributed to a human should be commensurate with that human’s ability and authority to control the system. Fourth, there should be explicit links between the actions of the AI agents and actions of humans who are aware of their moral responsibility. We argue that these four properties will support practically minded professionals to take concrete steps toward designing and engineering for AI systems that facilitate meaningful human control.

People seem to hold the human driver to be primarily responsible when their partially automated vehicle crashes, yet is this reasonable? While the driver is often required to immediately take over from the automation when it fails, placing such high expectations on the driver to remain vigilant in partially automated driving is unreasonable. Drivers show difficulties in taking over control when needed immediately, potentially resulting in dangerous situations. From a normative perspective, it would be reasonable to consider the impact of automation on the driver’s ability to take over control when attributing responsibility for a crash. We, therefore, analyzed whether the public indeed considers driver ability when attributing responsibility to the driver, the vehicle, and its manufacturer. Participants blamed the driver primarily, even though they recognized the driver’s decreased ability to avoid the crash. These results portend undesirable situations in which users of partially driving automation are the ones held responsible, which may be unreasonable due to the detrimental impact of driving automation on human drivers. Lastly, the outcome signals that public awareness of such human-factors issues with automated driving should be improved.

The pursuit of values drives human behavior and promotes cooperation. Existing research is focused on general values (e.g., Schwartz) that transcend contexts. However, context-specific values are necessary to (1) understand human decisions, and (2) engineer intelligent agents that can elicit and align with human values. We propose Axies, a hybrid (human and AI) methodology to identify context-specific values. Axies simplifies the abstract task of value identification as a guided value annotation process involving human annotators. Axies exploits the growing availability of value-laden text corpora and Natural Language Processing to assist the annotators in systematically identifying context-specific values. We evaluate Axies in a user study involving 80 human subjects. In our study, six annotators generate value lists for two timely and important contexts: Covid-19 measures and sustainable Energy. We employ two policy experts and 72 crowd workers to evaluate Axies value lists and compare them to a list of general (Schwartz) values. We find that Axies yields values that are (1) more context-specific than general values, (2) more suitable for value annotation than general values, and (3) independent of the people applying the methodology.

We propose methods for an AI agent to estimate the value preferences of individuals in a hybrid participatory system, considering a setting where participants make choices and provide textual motivations for those choices. We focus on situations where there is a conflict between participants' choices and motivations, and operationalize the philosophical stance that 'valuing is deliberatively consequential.' That is, if a user's choice is based on a deliberation of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation the user provides for the choice. Thus, we prioritize the value preferences estimated from motivations over the value preferences estimated from choices alone. We evaluate the proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and motivations improves the estimation of an individual's value preferences. The proposed methods can be integrated in a hybrid participatory system, where artificial agents ought to estimate humans' value preferences to pursue value alignment.