Atomist or Holist? A Diagnosis and Vision for More Productive Interdisciplinary AI Ethics Dialogue

TL;DR

This paper analyzes the ideological divide between atomist and holist perspectives in AI ethics discourse, advocating for empathy and strategic dialogue to foster more productive interdisciplinary collaboration.

Contribution

It diagnoses the ideological conflict in AI ethics debates and proposes strategies to bridge atomist and holist perspectives for better societal outcomes.

Findings

Identifies core beliefs of atomist and holist AI ethics views

Highlights the polarization in AI ethics discussions

Suggests strategies for empathetic interdisciplinary dialogue

Abstract

In response to growing recognition of the social impact of new AI-based technologies, major AI and ML conferences and journals now encourage or require papers to include ethics impact statements and undergo ethics reviews. This move has sparked heated debate concerning the role of ethics in AI research, at times devolving into name-calling and threats of "cancellation." We diagnose this conflict as one between atomist and holist ideologies. Among other things, atomists believe facts are and should be kept separate from values, while holists believe facts and values are and should be inextricable from one another. With the goal of reducing disciplinary polarization, we draw on numerous philosophical and historical sources to describe each ideology's core beliefs and assumptions. Finally, we call on atomists and holists within the ever-expanding data science community to exhibit greater empathy during ethical disagreements and propose four targeted strategies to ensure AI research benefits society.