Will we ever agree to just one set of rules on the ethical development of artificial intelligence?

Those objectives could be as different as

a

translating language, identifying faces, or even playing chess.

The type of AI that is exceptionally good at completing these objectives is often referred to as narrow AI. A good example is a chess-playing AI. This is specifically designed to play chess—and is extremely good at it—but completely useless at other tasks.

On the other hand is general AI. This is AI that it is said will replace human intelligence in most if not all tasks. This is still a long way off but remains the ultimate goal of some AI developers.

Yet it is this idea of general AI that drives many of the fears and misconceptions that surround AI.

Many many guidelines

Responding to these fears and a number of very real problems with narrow AI, the OECD recommendations are the latest of a number of projects and guidelines from governments and other bodies around the world that seek to instil an ethical approach to developing AI.

These include initiatives by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the French data protection authority, the Hong Kong Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the European Commission.

The Australian government funded CSIRO's Data61 to develop an AI ethics framework, which is now open for public feedback, and the Australian Council of Learned Academies is yet to publish its report on the future of AI in Australia.

The Australian Human Rights Commission, together with the World Economic Forum, is also reviewing and reporting on the impact of AI on human rights.

The aim of these initiatives is to encourage or to nudge ethical development of AI. But this presupposes unethical behaviour. What is the mischief in AI?