정보교육학회논문지 (Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education)

  • 제25권6호
  • /
  • Pages.947-960
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1229-3245(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8428(eISSN)
한국정보교육학회 (Korea Association of Information Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

텍스트 마이닝으로 살펴본 대학생들의 인공지능 윤리 인식 연구

A Study on Artificial Intelligence Ethics Perceptions of University Students by Text Mining

  • 투고 : 2021.10.25
  • 심사 : 2021.11.20
  • 발행 : 2021.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 대학생의 인공지능 윤리 인식을 파악하여 대학 교양 인공지능 윤리 교육의 방향성을 탐색하고자 한다. 대학생 83명이 총 5개의 인공지능 윤리 토론 주제에 대한 의견을 작성하고, 작성된 텍스트를 기반으로 텍스트 마이닝 중 언어 네트워크를 이용하여 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 첫째, 인공지능 사회의 미래에 대해서 62.5%의 학생이 긍정적으로 바라보고 있었다. 둘째, 자율주행 자동차 사고 발생 시 39.2%의 학생이 현재 자율주행 수준으로는 차량 소유자의 책임으로 생각하였다. 셋째, 인공지능 발전의 역기능으로는 사생활 침해와 기술 악용, 정보편식을 꼽았다. 역기능 최소화 방안으로 인공지능 사용자와 개발자 모두의 윤리 교육이 필요하며 제도적인 준비도 병행되어야 한다고 언급하였다. 넷째, 얼굴 인식 기술이 보편화된 사회에 대해 19.2%의 학생만이 긍정적인 의견을 나타내었다. 마지막으로 데이터 수집 시 개인정보 이용 동의를 얻은 부분만 활용해야 할 뿐 아니라 도덕적인 기준이 없는 인공지능 활용 방안에 대해 사용자와 개발자 모두의 윤리적 소양을 강조하였다. 본 연구는 대학 교양 수준의 인공지능 윤리 교육을 설계할 때 시사점을 제공한다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

In this study, we examine the AI ethics perception of university students to explore the direction of AI ethics education. For this, 83 students wrote their thoughts about 5 discussion topics on online bulletin board. We analyzed it using language networks, one of the text mining techniques. As a result, 62.5% of students spoke the future of the AI society positively. Second, if there is a self-driving car accident, 39.2% of students thought it is the vehicle owner's responsibility at the current level of autonomous driving. Third, invasion of privacy, abuse of technology, and unbalanced information acquisition were cited as dysfunctions of the development of AI. It was mentioned that ethical education for both AI users and developers is required as a way to minimize malfunctions, and institutional preparations should be carried out in parallel. Fourth, only 19.2% of students showed a positive opinion about a society where face recognition technology is universal. Finally, there was a common opinion that when collecting data including personal information, only the part with the consent should be used. Regarding the use of AI without moral standards, they emphasized the ethical literacy of both users and developers. This study is meaningful in that it provides information necessary to design the contents of artificial intelligence ethics education in liberal arts education.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J. F. & Rahwan, I.. (2018). The Moral Machine experiment, Nature, 563(7729), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
  2. Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014). The ethics of artificial intelligence. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence, 1, 316-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139046855.020
  3. Byun, S. (2018). A Study on the Ethical Guideline for artificial intelligence robots - Focusing on 4 principles of artificial intelligence robot ethics -. Journal of Ethics Education Studies, 47, 233-252. https://doi.org/10.18850/JEES.2018.47.09
  4. Byun, S. (2020). A Study on the Necessity of AI Ethics Education, Korean Journal of Elementary Education, 31(3), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.20972/KJEE.31.3.202009.153
  5. Choi, H. & Byun, S. (2019). A Philosophical Project of Hybrid Approach to Artificial Moral Agents. Journal of Ethics: The Korean Association of Ethics, 1(124), 1-16.
  6. Choi, H. C., Byun, S. & Shin, H. J. (2016). The Ethical Principles for the Development of Artificial Moral Agent - Focusing on the Top-down Approach -, Journal of Ethics, 111. 31-53.
  7. Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., &Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication, (2020-1).
  8. Gianmarco, V., & Fiorella, O. (2008). Roboethics: Social and ethical implications of robotics. Springer Handbook of Robotics, 1499-1524.
  9. Google AI site by Google. https://ai.google/principles/
  10. Holmes, W., Bektik, D., Whitelock, D. and Woolf, B.P.(2018). Ethics in AIED: Who Cares?. AI in Education LNAI 10948. 551-553.
  11. Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell 1, 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
  12. Jung, C. (2018). Building an Ethical Intelligent Robot in the Intelligent Information Society: Alternative Approaches towards a Postmodern Reconstruction of Ethics. Northeast Asian law journal, 12(1), 87-121. https://doi.org/10.19035/nal.2018.12.1.4
  13. Kakao AI ethics site by Kakao. https://www.kakaocorp.com/page/responsible/detail/algorithm/
  14. Kim, H. (2019). AI and Ethics. CommunicationBooks.
  15. Kim, H. (2020). Education of AI Ethics as a Response to Decision Automation. Journal of Ethics Education Studies, 55, 277-308. https://doi.org/10.18850/jees.2020.55.10
  16. Kim, H. S. (2019). Exploring Information Ethics Issues based on Text Mining using Big Data from Web of Science. The Journal of Korean association of computer education, 22(3), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.32431/KACE.2019.22.3.006
  17. Kim, N., Lee, D., Choi, H., & Wong, W. X. S. (2017). Investigations on techniques and applications of text analytics. The Journal of Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences, 42(2), 471-492. https://doi.org/10.7840/kics.2017.42.2.471
  18. Ko, I. S. (2011). A Reappraisal of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics as Basic Principles for Roboethics, Journal of The Society of philosophical studies, 93, 97-120.
  19. Lee, H. (2021). AI Iruda, who suffered from sexual harassment, is worried about homophobic learnng. https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20210109055000017
  20. Lee, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence technology criticism. CommunicationBooks.
  21. Lee, J. (2021). 'Iruda Incident' litigation begins... 'Pacific vs Taerim', Tae family fight 'catch public's eyes'. https://biz.chosun.com/topics/law_firm/2021/05/09/FGX3WISL7FBENFANY2SXGLOU7Y/
  22. McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Shannon, C. E., Rochester, N., & Dartmouth College. (1955). A proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence.
  23. Ministry of Science and ICT. (2020). Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics Standards, Sejong, Ministry of Science and ICT.
  24. Moor J. H.(1985). What is Computer Ethics?, Metaphilosophy, 16(4), 266-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1985.tb00173.x
  25. Moral Machine site by MIT Media Lab. https://www.moralmachine.net/
  26. National Information Society Agency. (2018). Intelligent Information Society Ethics Guidelines, Daegu, National Information Society Agency.
  27. National Science and Technology Council. (2016). Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D.C., National Science and Technology Council.
  28. Neff, G., & Nagy, P. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics| talking to Bots: Symbiotic agency and the case of Tay. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4915-4931.
  29. Park, J. (2021). Needs Analysis of AI Education in Liberal Arts: Using IPA, The Korean Association Of Computer Education, 23(2), 75-84.
  30. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (1994). Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  31. Samuel, A. L. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation-a refutation. Science, 132(3429), 741-742. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.132.3429.741
  32. Shin, S. (2017). Can Artificial Intelligence be an Autonomous Moral Agent?, Philosophy, 132, 265-292.
  33. Turing, A. M., & Haugeland, J. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence (pp. 29-56). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  34. Yutaka, M. (2015). Does Artificial Intelligence surpass humans? - Things beyond deep learning, Tokyo: KADOKAWA.