Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Human autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence

Nature Machine Intelligence volume 4, pages 99–101 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Current AI policy recommendations differ on what the risks to human autonomy are. To systematically address risks to autonomy, we need to confront the complexity of the concept itself and adapt governance solutions accordingly.

It is hard to overstate the important role that autonomy plays for our moral and political institutions. A cornerstone of human dignity and a prerequisite of liberal democracy, autonomy is often considered a fundamental human value1,2,3,4. Progress in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) opens up new opportunities for supporting and fostering autonomy, but it simultaneously poses significant risks. Recent incidents of AI-facilitated deception, manipulation or coercion suggest that AI technologies could seriously interfere with human autonomy on a large scale. Cambridge Analytica’s attempt to manipulate voters is just one example5. Facebook’s “emotional contagion” experiment, in which users were swayed towards adopting certain emotional states, is another6.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Raz, J. The Morality of Freedom (Clarendon Press, 1986).

  2. Korsgaard, C. M., Cohen, G. A., Geuss, R., Nagel, T. Williams, T. & O’Neilk, O. The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).

  3. Christman, J. in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E. N.) (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Univ., 2020); https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/

  4. Roessler, B. Autonomy: An Essay on the Life Well-Lived (John Wiley, 2021).

  5. Susser, D., Roessler, B. & Nissenbaum, H. Technology, Autonomy, and Manipulation (Technical Report) (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, 2019).

  6. Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E. & Hancock, J. T. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 8788–8790 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. European Commission High-Level Experts Group (HLEG). Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (Technical Report B-1049) (EC, Brussels, 2019).

  8. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (ACM, 2018).

  9. Université de Montréal. Montreal Declaration for a Responsible Development of AI (Forum on the Socially Responsible Development of AI (Université de Montréal, 2017).

  10. European Committee of the Regions. White Paper on Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (EC, 2020).

  11. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (Technical Report OECD/LEGAL/0449) (OECD 2019); https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles

  12. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. Statement on artificial intelligence, robotics and ‘autonomous’ systems (EC, 2018).

  13. Floridi, L. & Cowls, J. Harvard Data Sci. Rev 1, 1–13 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A. & Srikumar, M. Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-Based Approaches to Principles for AI (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3518482) (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, 2020); https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3518482

  15. Milano, S., Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. Recommender Systems and their Ethical Challenges (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3378581) (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, 2019).

  16. Calvo, R. A., Peters, D. & D’Mello, S. Commun. ACM 58, 41–42 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mik, E. Law Innov. Technol. 8, 1–38 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Helberger, N. Profiling and Targeting Consumers in the Internet of Things – A New Challenge for Consumer Law (Technical Report) (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, 2016).

  19. Burr, C., Morley, J., Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc. 1, 21–33 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Morley, J. & Floridi, L. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 1159–1183 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brownsword, R. in Law, Human Agency and Autonomic Computing (eds Hildebrandt., M. & Rouvroy, A.) 80–100 (Routledge, 2011).

  22. Calvo, R., Peters, D., Vold, K. V. & Ryan, R. in Ethics of Digital Well-Being (Philosophical Studies Series, vol. 140) (eds Burr, C. & Floridi, L.) 31–54 (Springer, 2020).

  23. Rubel, A., Castro, C. & Pham, A. Algorithms and Autonomy: The Ethics of Automated Decision Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  24. Dworkin, G. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy (Cambridge Univ. Press. 1988).

  25. Mackenzie, C. Three Dimensions of Autonomy: A Relational Analysis (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

  26. Noggle, R. Am. Philos. Q. 33, 43–55 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Elster, J. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985).

  28. Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J. C., Curley, S. P. & Zhang, J. Info. Syst. Res 24, 956–975 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ledford, H. Nature 574, 608–609 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dworkin, G. in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E. N.) (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Univ. Press, 2020; https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/paternalism/

  31. Kühler, M. Bioethics 36, 194–200 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Christman, J. The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-Historical Selves (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009.)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks J. Tasioulas, M. Philipps-Brown, C. Veliz, T. Lechterman, A. Dafoe and B. Garfinkel for their helpful comments. Funding: No external funding sources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Carina Prunkl

Authors
  1. Carina Prunkl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carina Prunkl.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Machine Intelligence thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prunkl, C. Human autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence. Nat Mach Intell 4, 99–101 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00449-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00449-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing