304
14 Summary: What’s Wrong with AI?
the right to be involved in decisions and affairs concerning them, including the
right of informational self-determination. Exposing people to surveillance, while
not giving them the possibility to easily control the use of their personal data is
a significant violation of human dignity. Moreover, human dignity implies certain
kinds of freedoms that serve to protect not only individual interests, but also to avoid
the abuse of power and to ensure the functioning and well-being of society altogether.
Of course, freedoms should be exercised with responsibility and accountability,
and this is where our current economic system fails. It diffuses, reduces and dissolves
responsibility, in particular with regard to the environment. So-called externalities,
i.e. external (often unwanted, negative) [side] effects are not sufficiently considered
in current pricing and production schemes. This is what has driven our world to the
edge, as the current environmental crisis shows in many areas of the world.
Furthermore, human dignity, like consciousness, creativity and love, cannot be
quantified well. In other words: what makes us human is not well reflected by Big
Data accumulated about our world. Therefore, a mainly data-driven and AI-controlled
world largely ignores what is particularly important for us and our well-being. This
is not expected to lead to a society that serves humans well.
While many people are talking about human-centric AI and a human-centric
society, they often mean personalized information, products and services, based
on profiling and targeting. This is getting things wrong. The justification of such
targeting is often to induce behavioral change towards better environmental and
health conditions, but it is highly manipulative, often abused, and violates privacy
and informational self-determination. In the ASSET project [EU Grant No. 688364],
instead, we have shown that behavioral change (e.g. towards the consumption of
more sustainable and healthy products) is possible also based on informational selfdetermination and on respect of privacy.
83 I do, therefore, urge public and private
actors to push informational self-determination forward quickly.
14.3.4 Informational Self-determination
Informational self-determination is a human right that follows directly from human
dignity, and this cannot be given away under any circumstances (in particularly not
by accepting certain Terms of Use). Nevertheless, in times of Big Data and AI, we
have largely lost self-determination, little by little. This must be corrected quickly.
Figure 14.4 summarizes a proposed platform for informational self-determination,
which would give control over our personal data and our digital doubles back to us.
With this, all personalized services and products would be possible, but companies
would have to convince us to share some of our data with them for a specific purpose,
period of time, and perhaps price. The resulting competition for consumer trust would
eventually promote a trustable digital society.
83 Asikis et al. [24].
14 Summary: What’s Wrong with AI?
the right to be involved in decisions and affairs concerning them, including the
right of informational self-determination. Exposing people to surveillance, while
not giving them the possibility to easily control the use of their personal data is
a significant violation of human dignity. Moreover, human dignity implies certain
kinds of freedoms that serve to protect not only individual interests, but also to avoid
the abuse of power and to ensure the functioning and well-being of society altogether.
Of course, freedoms should be exercised with responsibility and accountability,
and this is where our current economic system fails. It diffuses, reduces and dissolves
responsibility, in particular with regard to the environment. So-called externalities,
i.e. external (often unwanted, negative) [side] effects are not sufficiently considered
in current pricing and production schemes. This is what has driven our world to the
edge, as the current environmental crisis shows in many areas of the world.
Furthermore, human dignity, like consciousness, creativity and love, cannot be
quantified well. In other words: what makes us human is not well reflected by Big
Data accumulated about our world. Therefore, a mainly data-driven and AI-controlled
world largely ignores what is particularly important for us and our well-being. This
is not expected to lead to a society that serves humans well.
While many people are talking about human-centric AI and a human-centric
society, they often mean personalized information, products and services, based
on profiling and targeting. This is getting things wrong. The justification of such
targeting is often to induce behavioral change towards better environmental and
health conditions, but it is highly manipulative, often abused, and violates privacy
and informational self-determination. In the ASSET project [EU Grant No. 688364],
instead, we have shown that behavioral change (e.g. towards the consumption of
more sustainable and healthy products) is possible also based on informational selfdetermination and on respect of privacy.
83 I do, therefore, urge public and private
actors to push informational self-determination forward quickly.
14.3.4 Informational Self-determination
Informational self-determination is a human right that follows directly from human
dignity, and this cannot be given away under any circumstances (in particularly not
by accepting certain Terms of Use). Nevertheless, in times of Big Data and AI, we
have largely lost self-determination, little by little. This must be corrected quickly.
Figure 14.4 summarizes a proposed platform for informational self-determination,
which would give control over our personal data and our digital doubles back to us.
With this, all personalized services and products would be possible, but companies
would have to convince us to share some of our data with them for a specific purpose,
period of time, and perhaps price. The resulting competition for consumer trust would
eventually promote a trustable digital society.
83 Asikis et al. [24].