For many areas of artificial intelligence, explainability provides assurance that a decision sits within an acceptable range of possible decisions. In the field of chatbots, however, the function of an AI is to provide an explanation to the user. Users may assume that the purpose of the chatbot is defined by this function. Before we consider the explanatory function of an AI chatbot, we should examine this assumption of purpose. In this research we consider two chatbot cases, the first being where the purpose may not be to inform the user, and secondly, where this should be the purpose. In the commercial sphere we identify two perspectives of AI chatbot purpose: that of the provider, and that of the user. No necessary commonality exists between these two perspectives of purpose. In the government services sphere, methods of increasing the alignment between requested information and appropriate response include “law as code” as a mechanism for simplifying the automation of regulation.

Humans in the 21st century engage in technology mediated communication much of our lives. It has become a dimension of human existence, and since the COVID-19 pandemic is found increasingly in work, study, and leisure. If we search for a meaning in this communication message, we may describe the totality of this communication technology as cyberspace. Cyberspace is a combination of mass media and technology in a new form. Complete with its own practices, behaviors, and manifestos, functioning cyberspace can be considered a global basis of human existence in the same way as unpolluted air or the absence of a pandemic. While cyberspace is resistant to totalizing control, it is nevertheless fragile, and requires protection if humans are to achieve its benefits. Cybersecurity can be considered simply the protection of immediate, practical and ongoing technology elements. Yet to protect any part of cyberspace, it is necessary to protect all of cyberspace.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology receiving significant attention from lawmakers, courts, and regulators. An aspect of this attention is an interest in understanding how AI works when applied to a process of law, or to a regulated application of technology such as driverless vehicles. One approach is to seek to understand what the AI technology does, with goals including “transparency” and “explainability”. This paper considers these concepts from a law and technology perspective. Research in this area commonly examines the challenge of “black box” technologies, particularly the approach of “post hoc explainability”. This paper points out that the post hoc approach provides an inference, rather than an actual description of AI behavior. It considers circumstances in which the post hoc approach may be satisfactory, and those involving arbitrary power in which it should not be used, as inconsistent with the principle of regularity in the rule of law. It recommends that the output of non-transparent AI technologies should necessarily be viewed critically. It concludes that human attention is required in determining whether or not to accept AI technology explanations.

Codes of ethics provide a critical foundation for an organization to define the tenets that best reflect their values. These codes provide a touchstone for employees to follow that establishes trust between an organization and their customers and key stakeholders. The rapid acceleration of autonomous and intelligent systems (A/IS) has created an imperative for technologists to complement these codes with new methodologies focused on the widespread implementation of ethical considerations in all levels of design and manufacture. This paper describes IEEE's work in this arena, including the IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, the IEEE TechEthics program, the IEEE P7000 Standards Series focused on A/IS issues, Digital Inclusion through Trust and Agency, and the ongoing work of the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology. This paper also includes a table of approximately 50 activities within the IEEE related to ethics.

The 21st century is witnessing unprecedented automation in many areas of life. As a result, tasks previously undertaken by a person are now done by a machine. Humans who previously undertook these tasks brought particular views and approaches to each task. These or alternative views or approaches are now embodied in the machine. Rather than entirely removing humans from the process, however, replacement of human by machine has meant that the direct engagement of a person in a task has been replaced by the indirect engagement of the technologist who creates the machine. Among other things this has meant that the ethical responsibilities of the original human operator have devolved to the technologist. This raises questions of substantive ethics, and the responsibility of the technologist, including as "whistle-blower". This paper examines three areas of technology development which highlight the growing ethical responsibility of technologists: the automation of work; the mechanization of humans; and autonomous warfare. The three areas selected have implications today, even in an early stage of development. Soon the responsibilities these technologies engender will confront technologists in their professional life.

Presents the work of Norbert Wiener and explores his cybernetics legacy as well as his strong support for interdisciplinary research.

For an engineer, a good technology is one which is 'fit for purpose'. For the wider community there is a broader judgement, summed up in the IEEE tag-line 'Advancing Technology for Humanity'. Technology may be developed for socially beneficial purposes, addressing challenges such as clean drinking water or environmental protection. Nevertheless, given the phenomenon of unintended consequences, its practical effect may be different. This paper considers whether 'socially beneficial technology' is a valid concept. It briefly examines the experience of specific projects to deliver social benefits from technology.

Technologies service many human needs. Socially beneficial technologies can also assist in resolving some of the world's most pressing problems: climate change; access to safe drinking water; quality housing; universal health care. Often a technology already exists, awaiting to be applied. In other cases it is within grasp given appropriate prioritisation. This paper considers approximately 100 theories of and approaches to technology innovation and adoption regarding the question, How is the failure of socially beneficial technology explained? Approaches include legal, regulatory, political, philosophical, sociological, usage, psychological, technical, economic, commercial, and marketing. This paper creates a framework of six categories in order to classify and compare the theories. It then proposed further research steps to examine the question.

In this polemical paper we present a Socratian dialogue that both critiques privacy and addresses its value. The purpose of this dialogue is to address questions that are often begged in the contemporary discourse around privacy, surveillance and technology - a discourse that assumes that privacy is a personal and social good without necessarily arguing the case. To prosecute the debate we have Aspicio - who will argue that privacy is a condition that is not only limited as a personal and social good, but is undesirable in many important respects. Aspicio is confronted by Occulto, who will argue that privacy is a condition that can and should be obtained and defended. In the course of the dialogue our interlocutors discuss privacy as a right; privacy and modernity; privacy, the public sphere and the private sphere; privacy and individualism; the value of surveillance; and privacy, embarrassment and shame.