Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Arguments for Ethical Systems Design
Today’s AI applications are so successful that they inspire renewed concerns about AI systems becoming ever more powerful. Addressing these concerns requires AI systems that are designed as ethical systems, in the sense that their choices are context-dependent, valueguided and rule-following. It is shown how techniques connecting qualitative and quantitative primitives recently developed for ev...
متن کاملSome design guidelines for practical argumentation systems
We give some design guidelines for argumentation systems. These guidelines are meant to indicate essential features of argumentation when used to support “practical reasoning”. We express the guidelines in terms of postulates. We use a notion of redundancy to provide a formal counterpart of these postulates. We study the satisfaction of these postulates in two existing argumentation frameworks:...
متن کاملArgumentation and the Design of Emergent Systems
An emergent system, here, is taken to be a collection of components, which individually have some simple state and behaviour. When the collection is located in an appropriate environment, then some macro-scale emergent behaviour can be observed or otherwise detected. The emergent behaviour can also be considered to be a system with state and behaviour. Typical examples of emergent systems in re...
متن کاملValue Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation Frameworks
Hierarchical argumentation frameworks organise Dung argumentation frameworks into a hierarchy so that argumentation over preference information in a level n Dung framework is used to resolve conflicts between arguments in a level n1 framework. In this paper we formalise and extend value based argumentation [1] in a hierarchical argumentation framework and illustrate application of the resulting...
متن کاملFrom systems for defeasible argumentation to dialogical systems of argumentation
Nonmonotonic reasoning is a reasoning in which temporary conclusions can be drawn on the basis of incomplete information but which might be withdrawn when more information becomes available. Systems for defeasible argumentation capture this kind of reasoning in terms of interactions between conflictual arguments. Nonmonotonic reasoning is explained in terms of defeasibility since arguments can ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Artificial Intelligence and Law
سال: 2016
ISSN: 0924-8463,1572-8382
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-016-9189-y