% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Nyholm:1006831,
      author       = {Nyholm, Sven and Rüther, Markus},
      title        = {{M}eaning in {L}ife in {AI} {E}thics—{S}ome {T}rends and
                      {P}erspectives},
      journal      = {Philosophy $\&$ technology},
      volume       = {36},
      number       = {2},
      issn         = {2210-5433},
      address      = {Heidelberg]},
      publisher    = {Springer},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-01875},
      pages        = {20},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {In this paper, we discuss the relation between recent
                      philosophical discussions about meaning in life (from
                      authors like Susan Wolf, Thaddeus Metz, and others) and the
                      ethics of artificial intelligence (AI). Our goal is twofold,
                      namely, to argue that considering the axiological category
                      of meaningfulness can enrich AI ethics, on the one hand, and
                      to portray and evaluate the small, but growing literature
                      that already exists on the relation between meaning in life
                      and AI ethics, on the other hand. We start out our review by
                      clarifying the basic assumptions of the meaning in life
                      discourse and how it understands the term
                      ‘meaningfulness’. After that, we offer five general
                      arguments for relating philosophical questions about meaning
                      in life to questions about the role of AI in human life. For
                      example, we formulate a worry about a possible
                      meaningfulness gap related to AI on analogy with the idea of
                      responsibility gaps created by AI, a prominent topic within
                      the AI ethics literature. We then consider three specific
                      types of contributions that have been made in the AI ethics
                      literature so far: contributions related to
                      self-development, the future of work, and relationships. As
                      we discuss those three topics, we highlight what has already
                      been done, but we also point out gaps in the existing
                      literature. We end with an outlook regarding where we think
                      the discussion of this topic should go next.},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      ddc          = {500},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {5255 - Neuroethics and Ethics of Information (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      doi          = {10.1007/s13347-023-00620-z},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1006831},
}