47 2 EXTENSIVE LITERATURE REVIEW designer could look to technical codes and standards which are drafted by committees and represent reasonable standards of operationalizing and measuring values in design. However, standards may not reflect the latest technical and social developments and operationalization still requires value judgments of the designer. Kroes and van de Poel (2015, p. 177) advise to ‘embed them in a network of other considerations, including definitions of the values at stake in moral philosophy (or the law), existing codes and standards, earlier design experiences, etc.’. Requirements Norms Value Accountability Transparency of decisionmaking Insight into algorithm Visualise decision-tree Present sensor information Screen to view information Present human readable algorithm Download algorithm information Show decision variables Figure 4: Value hierarchy for accountability over Autonomous Weapon Systems (Verdiesen, 2017) In our research, we follow the advice of Kroes and van de Poel (2015) and do not strictly apply the value hierarchy as a method to specify, design and test requirements for Autonomous Weapon Systems. The value hierarchy in Figure 4 is used as orientation, inspiration and direction for our research. 2.8 RESPONSIBILITY Responsibility can be forward-looking to actions to come and backward-looking to actions that have occurred. Van de Poel (2011) focusses on moral responsibility for consequences to describe the notions of forward- and backward-looking responsibility and does not describe organizational, social and legal responsibility nor responsibility for actions. Two varieties of responsibility that are primarily forward-looking are: 1) responsibility as virtue and 2) the moral obligation that something is the case; and three
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw