A Survey of the General Public's Views on the Ethics of Using AI in Education

被引:9
|
作者
Latham, Annabel [1 ]
Goltz, Sean [2 ]
机构
[1] Manchester Metropolitan Univ, Manchester M1 5GD, Lancs, England
[2] Edith Cowan Univ, Business & Law Sch, Perth, WA, Australia
关键词
Ethics; Trust; GDPR; INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1007/978-3-030-23204-7_17
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Recent scandals arising from the use of algorithms for user profiling to further political and marketing gain have popularized the debate over the ethical and legal implications of using such 'artificial intelligence' in social media. The need for a legal framework to protect the general public's data is not new, yet it is not clear whether recent changes in data protection law in Europe, with the introduction of the GDPR, have highlighted the importance of privacy and led to a healthy concern from the general public over online user tracking and use of data. Like search engines, social media and online shopping platforms, intelligent tutoring systems aim to personalize learning and thus also rely on algorithms that automatically profile individual learner traits. A number of studies have been published on user perceptions of trust in robots and computer agents. Unsurprisingly, studies of AI in education have focused on efficacy, so the extent of learner awareness, and acceptance, of tracking and profiling algorithms remains unexplored. This paper discusses the ethical and legal considerations for, and presents a case study examining the general public's views of, AI in education. A survey was recently taken of attendees at a national science festival event highlighting state-of-the-art AI technologies in education. Whilst most participants (77%) were worried about the use of their data, in learning systems fewer than 8% of adults were 'not happy' being tracked, as opposed to nearly two-thirds (63%) of children surveyed.
引用
收藏
页码:194 / 206
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Is Pain "All in your Mind"? Examining the General Public's Views of Pain
    Salomons, Tim V.
    Harrison, Richard
    Hansen, Nat
    Stazicker, James
    Sorensen, Astrid Grith
    Thomas, Paula
    Borg, Emma
    REVIEW OF PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 13 (03) : 683 - 698
  • [32] Are the Health of the Nation's targets attainable? Postal survey of general practitioners' views
    Cheung, P
    Hungin, APS
    Verrill, J
    Russell, AJ
    Smith, H
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 314 (7089): : 1250 - 1251
  • [33] From Artificial General Intelligence to Artificial General Universe: Metaverse Ethics as an Amplification of AI/AGI Ethics
    Yasuda, Arisa
    Maruyama, Yoshihiro
    ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCE, AGI 2024, 2024, 14951 : 228 - 237
  • [34] Octagon Measurement: Public Attitudes toward AI Ethics
    Ikkatai, Yuko
    Hartwig, Tilman
    Takanashi, Naohiro
    Yokoyama, Hiromi M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION, 2022, 38 (17) : 1589 - 1606
  • [35] Octagon Measurement: Public Attitudes toward AI Ethics
    Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe , The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan
    不详
    不详
    不详
    Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 17 (1589-1606):
  • [36] Secular ethics education as an alternative to religious education - Finnish teachers' views
    Zilliacus, Harriet
    Kallioniemi, Arto
    JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES-STUDIES IN RELIGION & EDUCATION, 2016, 37 (02): : 140 - 150
  • [37] Ethics assessment in a general education programme
    Quesenberry, Le Gene
    Phillips, Jamie
    Woodburne, Paul
    Yang, Chin
    ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2012, 37 (02) : 193 - 213
  • [38] A survey of general practitioners' views on autopsy reports
    Karunaratne, S
    Benbow, EW
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 1997, 50 (07) : 548 - 552
  • [39] CHURCH ADVERTISING - VIEWS OF THE CLERGY AND GENERAL PUBLIC
    MCDANIEL, SW
    JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 1986, 15 (01) : 24 - 29
  • [40] ETHICS AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT - EDUCATION AND TRAINING
    WORTHLEY, JA
    PUBLIC PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 1981, 10 (01) : 41 - 47