Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Artificial intelligence assistants and risk: framing a connectivity risk narrative

  • Martin CunneenEmail author
  • Martin Mullins
  • Finbarr Murphy
Open Forum

Abstract

Our social relations are changing, we are now not just talking to each other, but we are now also talking to artificial intelligence (AI) assistants. We claim AI assistants present a new form of digital connectivity risk and a key aspect of this risk phenomenon is related to user risk awareness (or lack of) regarding AI assistant functionality. AI assistants present a significant societal risk phenomenon amplified by the global scale of the products and the increasing use in healthcare, education, business, and service industry. However, there appears to be little research concerning the need to not only understand the changing risks of AI assistant technologies but also how to frame and communicate the risks to users. How can users assess the risks without fully understanding the complexity of the technology? This is a challenging and unwelcome scenario. AI assistant technologies consist of a complex ecosystem and demand explicit and precise communication in terms of communicating and contextualising the new digital risk phenomenon. The paper then argues for the need to examine how to best to explain and support both domestic and commercial user risk awareness regarding AI assistants. To this end, we propose the method of creating a risk narrative which is focused on temporal points of changing societal connectivity and contextualised in terms of risk. We claim the connectivity risk narrative provides an effective medium in capturing, communicating, and contextualising the risks of AI assistants in a medium that can support explainability as a risk mitigation mechanism.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence assistants Risk Connectivity Narratology Risk communication Risk perception Explainability Informed consent Data commodification Data monetisation 

Notes

References

  1. Albrecht JP (2016) How the GDPR will change the world. Eur Data Prot L Rev 2:287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alzahrani H (2016) Artificial intelligence: uses and misuses. Glob J Comput Sci Technol 16(1)Google Scholar
  3. Amazon.com Help: Alexa Terms of Use (2019) https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201809740. Accessed July 2019
  4. Andrejevic M, Gates K (2014) Big data surveillance: introduction. Surveill Soc 12(2):185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Awad N, Krishnan M (2006) The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Q 30(1):13–28.  https://doi.org/10.2307/25148715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellet T, Cunneen M, Mullins M, Murphy F, Pütz F, Spickermann F, Braendle C, Baumann MF (2019) From semi to fully autonomous vehicles: new emerging risks and ethico-legal challenges for human-machine interactions. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 63:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barth S, De Jong MD (2017) The privacy paradox–investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior—a systematic literature review. Telemat Inform 34(7):1038–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barth A, Datta A, Mitchell JC, Nissenbaum H (2006) Privacy and contextual integrity: framework and applications. In: 2006 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (S&P'06). IEEE, p 15Google Scholar
  9. Bates DW, Saria S, Ohno-Machado L, Shah A, Escobar GJ (2014) Big data in health care: using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health Aff 33(7):1123–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berson IR, Ferron JM, Berson MJ (2002) Emerging risks of violence in the digital age. J Sch Violence 1(2):51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bologa R, Bologa R, Florea A (2013) Big data and specific analysis methods for insurance fraud detection. Database Syst J 4(4):30–39Google Scholar
  12. Bottis MC, Bouchagiar G (2018) Personal data v. Big data: challenges of commodification of personal data. Open J Philos 8(3):206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canbek NG, Mutlu ME (2016) On the track of artificial intelligence: learning with intelligent personal assistants. J New Results Sci 13(1):592–601Google Scholar
  14. Cate FH (2014) The big data debate. Science 346(6211):818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chung H, Park J, Lee S (2017) Digital forensic approaches for Amazon Alexa ecosystem. Digital investigation, vol 22. https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1742287617301974. Retrieved 22 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crandall J, Song P (2013) A pointillism approach for natural language processing of social media. arXiv (Information Retrieval) Google Scholar
  17. Cunneen M, Mullins M, Murphy F, Shannon D, Furxhi I, Ryan C (2019) Autonomous vehicles and avoiding the trolley (dilemma): vehicle perception, classification, and the challenges of framing decision ethics. Cybern Syst 1–22Google Scholar
  18. Dale R (2015) The limits of intelligent personal assistants. Nat Lang Eng 21(2):325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dale R (2017) The pros and cons of listening devices. Nat Lang Eng 23(6):969–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Wit JB, Das E, Vet R (2008) What works best: objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychol 27(1):110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dhar V (2016) Equity, safety, and privacy in the autonomous vehicle era. IEEE Comput 49(11):80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Downs JS (2014) Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:13627–13633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Doyle T (2011) Helen Nissenbaum, privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. J Value Inq 45(1):97–102MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Floridi L (2019) Translating principles into practices of digital ethics: five risks of being unethical. Philos Technol 1–9Google Scholar
  25. Fumero A, Marrero RJ, Voltes D, Penate W (2018) Personal and social factors involved in internet addiction among adolescents: a meta-analysis. Comput Human Behav 86:387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Golding D, Krimsky S, Plough A (1992) Evaluating risk communication: narrative vs. Technical presentations of information about radon. Risk Anal 12(1):27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gray S (2016) Always on: privacy implications of microphone-enabled devices. In: Future of privacy forumGoogle Scholar
  28. Gunkel D (2014) Social contract 2.0: terms of service agreements and political theory. J Media Crit 1:145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guzman A (2017) Making AI safe for humans: a conversation with Siri. Routledge, London, pp 69–85Google Scholar
  30. Hasebrink U, Goerzig A, Haddon L, Kalmus V, Livingstone S (2011) Patterns of risk and safety online: in-depth analyses from the EU Kids Online survey. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/221597.pdf. Accessed Apr 2019
  31. Helbing D, Frey BS, Gigerenzer G, Hafen E, Hagner M, Hofstetter Y, Zwitter A (2019) Will democracy survive big data and artificial intelligence? Towards digital enlightenment. Springer, Cham, pp 73–98Google Scholar
  32. Henwood K, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Simmons P (2011) Researching risk: Narrative, biography, subjectivity. Hist Soc Res/Historische Sozialforschung 36(4):251–272Google Scholar
  33. Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P (2013) Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual Quant 47(2):659–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hildebrandt M (2013) Slaves to big data. Or are we? Rev Internet Derecho Política 17:7–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hildebrandt M (2015) Smart technologies and the end (s) of law: novel entanglements of law and technology. Edward Elgar Publishing, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hildebrandt M, O’Hara K, Waidner M (2013) The value of personal data. Digital enlightenment yearbook 2013. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. Janeček V (2018) Ownership of personal data in the internet of things (December 1, 2017). Comput Law Secur Rev 34(5):1039–1052.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3111047
  38. Kshetri N, Voas J (2018) Cyberthreats under the Bed. Computer 51(5):92–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lopatovska I, Rink K, Knight I, Raines K, Cosenza K, Williams H, Sorsche P, Hirsch D, Li Q, Martinez A (2018) Talk to me: exploring user interactions with the Amazon Alexa. J Librariansh Inf Sci 96100061875941Google Scholar
  40. Lupton D (2016) Digital risk society. In: Burgess A, Alemanno A, Zinn J (eds) The Routledge hand-book of risk studies. Routledge, London, pp 301–309Google Scholar
  41. Mairal G (2008) Narratives of risk. J Risk Res 11(1):41–54MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marchant GE, Allenby BR, Herkert JR (2011) The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: the pacing problem. In: The international library of ethics, law and technologyGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin A (2008) Digital literacy and the digital society. Digit Literacies Concepts Policies Pract 30:151–176Google Scholar
  44. Matzner T (2014) Why privacy is not enough privacy in the context of “ubiquitous computing” and “big data”. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 12(2):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McLean G, Osei-Frimpong K (2019) Hey Alexa… examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Comput Hum Behav 99:28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Middleton CA (2007) Illusions of balance and control in an always-on environment: a case study of BlackBerry users. Continuum 21(2):165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitchell MC, Egudo M (2003) A review of narrative methodology (no. DSTO-GD-0385). Def Sci Technol Organ Edinb (Australia) Land Oper DivGoogle Scholar
  48. Mote K (2012) Natural language processing - a survey. Computation and language. arXiv:1209.6238
  49. Nadkarni PM, Ohno-Machado L, Chapman WW (2011) Natural language processing: an introduction. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18(5):544–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nissenbaum H (2004) Privacy as contextual integrity. Wash Law Rev 79(1):119–157Google Scholar
  51. Nissenbaum H (2017) Deregulating collection: must privacy give way to use regulation? Soc Sci Res NetwGoogle Scholar
  52. Otway H, Thomas K (1982) Reflections on risk perception and policy 1,2. Risk Anal 2(2):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paefgen J, Staake T, Thiesse F (2013) Evaluation and aggregation of pay-as-you-drive insurance rate factors. Decis Support Syst 56:192–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Papacharissi Z (2010) Privacy as a luxury commodity. First Monday 15(8):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parthasarathy S (2004) Regulating risk: defining genetic privacy in the United States and Britain. Sci Technol Hum Values 29(3):332–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pierson J, Heyman R (2011) Social media and cookies: challenges for online privacy. Info 13(6):30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Preece A (2018) Asking ‘Why’ in AI: explainability of intelligent systems—perspectives and challenges. Intell Syst Account Financ Manag 25:63–72.  https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.1422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosen J (2012) The right to be forgotten. Stanford Law Review. Available from http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten. Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  59. Sciutti A, Mara A, Tagliasco V, Sandini G (2018) Humanizing human–robot interaction: on the importance of mutual understanding. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 37(1):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turkle S (2006) Always-on/Always-on-you: the tethered self. Handbook of mobile communication studies, 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turkle S (2010) In good company? On the threshold of robotic companions. Close engagements with artificial companions: key. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  62. Turkle S (2011) The tethered self: technology reinvents intimacy and solitude. Contin High Educ Rev 75:29Google Scholar
  63. Van Loon J (2003) Risk and technological culture: towards a sociology of virulenceGoogle Scholar
  64. Venkatadri G, Andreou A, Liu Y, Mislove A, Gummadi KP, Loiseau P, Goga O (2018) Privacy risks with facebook’s PII-based targeting: auditing a data broker’s advertising interface. In: 2018 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP). IEEE, pp 89–107Google Scholar
  65. Weizenbaum J (1966) ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun ACM 9(1):36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zuboff S (1988) Dilemmas of transformation in the age of the smart machine. PUB TYPE 81Google Scholar
  67. Zuboff S (1996) The emperor’s new information economy. In: Information technology and changes in organizational work. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zuboff S (2019) Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. In: New labor forum, vol 28, No. 1. SAGE Publications, Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp 10–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Cunneen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Mullins
    • 1
  • Finbarr Murphy
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations