Using Edge Cases to Disentangle Fairness and Solidarity in AI Ethics

TL;DR

This paper uses edge cases in AI medical ethics and judicial debates to clarify the distinct roles of fairness and solidarity, revealing deeper insights into AI ethics principles and their justification.

Contribution

It introduces a novel approach of using irregular cases to disentangle fairness and solidarity in AI ethics, with applications to real-world disputes.

Findings

Distinction between fairness and solidarity clarified through case analysis

Broader model for resolving fairness and solidarity debates

Implications for understanding AI ethics principles

Abstract

Principles of fairness and solidarity in AI ethics regularly overlap, creating obscurity in practice: acting in accordance with one can appear indistinguishable from deciding according to the rules of the other. However, there exist irregular cases where the two concepts split, and so reveal their disparate meanings and uses. This paper explores two cases in AI medical ethics, one that is irregular and the other more conventional, to fully distinguish fairness and solidarity. Then the distinction is applied to the frequently cited COMPAS versus ProPublica dispute in judicial ethics. The application provides a broader model for settling contemporary and topical debates about fairness and solidarity. It also implies a deeper and disorienting truth about AI ethics principles and their justification.