IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v72y2023ics0160791x22003347.html

Ethics as an enabler and a constraint – Narratives on technology development and artificial intelligence in military affairs through the case of Project Maven

Author

Listed:
  • Malmio, Irja

Abstract

Project Maven is an AI-induced information technology for military applications initiated by the United States Department of Defence (DoD) in 2017 and originally signed on to a civilian contractor, namely Google. However, this initiative raised massive resistance from a substantial amount of Google employees, eventually leading to the contract's annulation. This article uses narrative analysis to investigate enabling and constraining arguments of AI for military purposes that appeared in the debate following the public announcement of Project Maven. In addition, the article highlights the co-production of ethics, technology, and the complex issues that arise from civilian-military exchanges in technology development. Enabling arguments associated with consequentialist ethics are identified as narratives of accuracy and maintenance. Accuracy constitutes a guiding principle for saving civilian lives, while maintenance is directed at keeping the power balance intact. In contrast, constraining arguments proceed from deontological ethics that emphasize disengagement and ambivalence. Disengagement amplifies a civilian/military divide, while ambivalence exhibits conflicting views concerning the prospect of supplementing technological solutions that have the potential to contribute to war and civilian casualties. Conclusively, security narratives and technological storytelling are important aspects to consider since they hold a performative function that influences the framing and mobilization of security and technology development.

Suggested Citation

  • Malmio, Irja, 2023. "Ethics as an enabler and a constraint – Narratives on technology development and artificial intelligence in military affairs through the case of Project Maven," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:72:y:2023:i:c:s0160791x22003347
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X22003347
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102193?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nelson, Jake & Gorichanaz, Tim, 2019. "Trust as an ethical value in emerging technology governance: The case of drone regulation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. Eric Luis Uhlmann & David A. Pizarro & David Tannenbaum & Peter H. Ditto, 2009. "The motivated use of moral principles," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 479-491, October.
    3. Robert V. Kozinets, 2008. "Technology/Ideology: How Ideological Fields Influence Consumers' Technology Narratives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(6), pages 865-881, October.
    4. Neubert, Mitchell J. & Montañez, George D., 2020. "Virtue as a framework for the design and use of artificial intelligence," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 195-204.
    5. Heinrich, Thomas, 2002. "Cold War Armory: Military Contracting in Silicon Valley," Enterprise & Society, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 247-284, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lavazza, Andrea & Farina, Mirko, 2023. "Leveraging autonomous weapon systems: realism and humanitarianism in modern warfare," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Kelman & Tamar Admati Kreps, 2014. "Playing with Trolleys: Intuitions About the Permissibility of Aggregation," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 197-226, June.
    2. Carmela Milano, 2015. "Democratization or else vulgarization of cultural capital? The role of social networks in theater’s audience behavior," Working Papers CEB 15-004, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Carmela Milano & Sandra Rothenberger, 2018. "Democratization or Vulgarization - The Impact of Facebook on Cultural Capital," Post-Print CEB, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles, vol. 5(1), pages 129-144, February.
    4. Morteza Ghobakhloo & Mohammad Iranmanesh & Manuel E. Morales & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Azlan Amran, 2023. "Actions and approaches for enabling Industry 5.0‐driven sustainable industrial transformation: A strategy roadmap," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1473-1494, May.
    5. Giorgia Ponsi & Maria Serena Panasiti & Salvatore Maria Aglioti & Marco Tullio Liuzza, 2017. "Right-wing authoritarianism and stereotype-driven expectations interact in shaping intergroup trust in one-shot vs multiple-round social interactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Watson, Graeme J. & Desouza, Kevin C. & Ribiere, Vincent M. & Lindič, Jaka, 2021. "Will AI ever sit at the C-suite table? The future of senior leadership," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 465-474.
    7. Hong, Soonkwan & Vicdan, Handan, 2016. "Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 120-136.
    8. Kozinets, Robert V., 2019. "YouTube utopianism: Social media profanation and the clicktivism of capitalist critique," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 65-81.
    9. Angelina Hawley-Dolan & Liane Young, 2013. "Whose Mind Matters More—The Agent or the Artist? An Investigation of Ethical and Aesthetic Evaluations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-7, September.
    10. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    11. Vujičić, Miroslav D. & Kennell, James & Stankov, Uglješa & Gretzel, Ulrike & Vasiljević, Đorđije A. & Morrison, Alastair M., 2022. "Keeping up with the drones! Techno-social dimensions of tourist drone videography," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    12. Aysha Fleming & Claire Mason & Gillian Paxton, 2018. "Discourses of technology, ageing and participation," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Magno, Francesca, 2017. "The influence of cultural blogs on their readers’ cultural product choices," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 142-149.
    14. Lee, Dasom & Hess, David J. & Heldeweg, Michiel A., 2022. "Safety and privacy regulations for unmanned aerial vehicles: A multiple comparative analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Yang, Xue, 2021. "Determinants of consumers’ continuance intention to use social recommender systems: A self-regulation perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Kimmo Eriksson & Brent Simpson & Pontus Strimling, 2019. "Political double standards in reliance on moral foundations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 440-454, July.
    17. Hugo Mercier, 2011. "What good is moral reasoning?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 10(2), pages 131-148, December.
    18. Zhu, Xun & Pasch, Timothy J. & Bergstrom, Aaron, 2020. "Understanding the structure of risk belief systems concerning drone delivery: A network analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    19. Paolo Franco, 2023. "Older consumers and technology: A critical systematic literature review," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 13(1), pages 92-121, June.
    20. Ayamga, Matthew & Akaba, Selorm & Nyaaba, Albert Apotele, 2021. "Multifaceted applicability of drones: A review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:72:y:2023:i:c:s0160791x22003347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.