Institut für Bildung, Arbeit und Gesellschaft

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hohpublica.uni-hohenheim.de/handle/123456789/28

Browse

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Autonomous weapons: considering the rights and interests of soldiers
(2025) Haiden, Michael; Richter, Florian
The development of autonomous weapons systems (AWSs), which would make decisions on the battlefield without direct input from humans, has the potential to dramatically change the nature of war. Due to the revolutionary potential of these technologies, it is essential to discuss their moral implications. While the academic literature often highlights their morally problematic nature, with some proposing outright banning them, this paper highlights an important benefit of AWSs: protecting the lives, as well as the mental and physical health of soldiers. If militaries can avoid sending humans into dangerous situations or relieve drone operators from tasks that lead to lifelong trauma, this obviously appears morally desirable – especially in a world where many soldiers are still drafted against their will. Nonetheless, there are many arguments against AWSs. However, we show that although AWSs are potentially dangerous, criticisms apply equally to human soldiers and weapons steered by them. The combination of both claims makes a strong case against a ban on AWSs where it is possible. Instead, researchers should focus on mitigating their drawbacks and refining their benefits.
Does a smarter ChatGPT become more utilitarian?
(2026) Pfeffer, Jürgen; Krügel, Sebastian; Uhl, Matthias; Pfeffer, Jürgen; Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Munich, Germany; Krügel, Sebastian; Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany; Uhl, Matthias; Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Hundreds of millions of users interact with large language models (LLMs) regularly to get advice on all aspects of life. The increase in LLMs’ logical capabilities might be accompanied by unintended side effects with ethical implications. Focusing on recent model developments of ChatGPT, we can show clear evidence for a systematic shift in ethical stances that accompanied a leap in the models’ logical capabilities. Specifically, as ChatGPT’s capacity grows, it tends to give decisively more utilitarian answers to the two most famous dilemmas in ethics. Given the documented impact that LLMs have on users, we call for a research focus on the prevalence and dominance of ethical theories in LLMs as well as their potential shift over time. Moreover, our findings highlight the need for continuous monitoring and transparent public reporting of LLMs’ moral reasoning to ensure their informed and responsible use.
Lernen, Lehren, Arbeiten und Leben mit Künstlicher Intelligenz
Schmerzhaftes Erwachen in neuen Lebenswelten verhindern!
(2025) Sembill, Detlef; Kärner, Tobias; Friederichs, Edgar; Seeber, Susan; Seifried, Jürgen
Der Beitrag beleuchtet die tiefgreifenden Veränderungen, die Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) für Bildung, Arbeit und Gesellschaft mit sich bringt, und versteht diese als zentrale Zivilisationsfrage. Er zeigt die Ambivalenzen der KI zwischen technologischem Fortschritt, gesellschaftlicher Kontrolle und humaner Verantwortung auf und warnt vor der Gefahr einer technokratischen Entmündigung des Menschen. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Bildung als Schlüssel zur Entwicklung von Reflexionsfähigkeit, ethischem Urteilsvermögen und demokratischer Teilhabe. Auf der Grundlage interdisziplinärer Analysen plädiert der Text für eine humanistisch-demokratische Neuausrichtung von Lern- und Arbeitswelten, die Technologie nicht als Selbstzweck, sondern als Werkzeug für ein menschenwürdiges Zusammenleben begreift. Ziel ist eine kritisch-reflektierte Gestaltung technologischer Zukunft, die Aufklärung, Verantwortung und Humanität in das Zentrum gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung rückt.
Navigating the social dilemma of autonomous systems: normative and applied arguments
(2025) Bodenschatz, Anja
Autonomous systems (ASs) become ubiquitous in society. For one specific ethical challenge, normative discussions are scarce: the social dilemma of autonomous systems (SDAS). This dilemma was assessed in empirical studies on autonomous vehicles (AVs). Many people generally agree to a utilitarian programming of ASs, but do not want to buy a machine that might sacrifice them deterministically. One possible way to mitigate the SDAS would be for ASs to randomize between options of action. This would bridge between a socially accepted program and the urge of potential AS users for some sense of self-protection. However, the normativity of randomization has not yet been evaluated for dilemmas between self-preservation and self-sacrifice for the “greater good” of saving several other lives. This paper closes this gap. It provides an overview of the most prominent normative and applied arguments for all three options of action in the dilemmas of interest: self-sacrifice, self-preservation, and randomization. As a prerequisite for inclusion in societal discussions on AS programming, it is ascertained that a normative argument can be elicited for each potential course of action in abstract thought experiments. The paper then progresses to discuss factors that may shift the normative claim between self-sacrifice, self-preservation, and randomization in the case of AV programming. The factors identified in this comparison are generalized into guiding dimensions for moral considerations along which all three options of action should be evaluated when programming ASs for dilemmas involving their users.
Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms
(2024) Winter, Kevin; Hornsey, Matthew J.; Pummerer, Lotte; Sassenberg, Kai
Misinformation campaigns target wind farms, but levels of agreement with this misinformation among the broader public are unclear. Across six nationally quota-based samples in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia (total N = 6008), over a quarter of respondents agree with half or more of contrarian claims about wind farms. Agreement with diverse claims is highly correlated, suggesting an underlying belief system directed at wind farm rejection. Consistent with this, agreement is best predicted (positively) by a conspiracist worldview (i.e., the general tendency to believe in conspiracy theories; explained variance Δ R² = 0.11–0.20) and (negatively) by a pro-ecological worldview (Δ R² = 0.04–0.13). Exploratory analyses show that agreement with contrarian claims is associated with lower support for pro-wind policies and greater intentions to protest against wind farms. We conclude that wind farm contrarianism is a mainstream phenomenon, rooted in people’s worldviews and that poses a challenge for communicators and institutions committed to accelerating the energy transition.

Browse

Browsing Institut für Bildung, Arbeit und Gesellschaft by Sustainable Development Goals "16"