Delphi 2|2019 1AI-Empowered Nanotechnology

Steps to Designing AI-EmpoweredNanotechnology:

A Value Sensitive Design Approach

Steven Umbrello*

Advanced nanotechnology promises to be one of the fundamental transformational emerg-ing technologies alongside others such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other in-formational and cognitive technologies. Although scholarship on nanotechnology, particu-larly advanced nanotechnology such as molecular manufacturing has nearly ceased in thelast decade, normal nanotechnology that is building the foundations for more advanced ver-sions has permeated many industries and commercial products and has become a billiondollar industry. This paper acknowledges the socialtechnicity of advanced nanotechnologyand proposes how its convergence with other enabling technologies like AI can be anticipat-ed and designed with human values in mind. Preliminary guidelines inspired by the ValueSensitive Design approach to technology design are proposed for molecular manufacturingin the age of artificial intelligence.

I. Reinvigorating Nanoethics

Atomically precise manufacturing (APM) is one formof advanced nanotechnology that falls within thelarger category of molecular manufacturing. Thistheoretical mode of manufacturing was developed ingreater depth in K. Eric Drexler’s 1986 APM book En-gines of Creation. However, the concept of APM intheory dates to Richard Feynman’s 1959 talk ‘There’sPlenty of Room at the Bottom.’ Today, the majorityof nanotechnology R&D is not APM per se, but in-stead is technology involving simpler nanometer-scale processes; this is sometimes referred to as ‘nor-mal nanotechnology’.1 Many nanotechnology re-searchers likewise doubt the feasibility of APM andinstead favor research on more directly promisingnanotechnology directions. Despite these doubts,current investments and national interests towards

the development of APM warrant investigations in-to how we can ensure the concept, and its conver-gences with other technologies, is as beneficial to hu-manity as possible by intervening at the design stagesand incorporating the relevant values necessary toachieve a desired end.

There is a difficulty, however, in evaluating ad-vanced nanotechnology per se, that is that nanotech-nology is part of a converging set of transformativetechnologies such as biotechnology, informationtechnologies and cognitive technologies like artificialintelligence. This muddies the waters in prescribinga rigid set of values, principles or positive governancestructures to its development because it is hard to de-marcate discrete boundaries between nanotechnolo-gies and these others, despite its potentially transfor-mative impacts. This co-constructive convergence oftechnologies can still be guided towards beneficialends. The difficulty of guiding technological designand process should not be confused with technolog-ical determinism, stakeholders can and should en-gage with the design and development processes oftechnologies that involve them.

It, of course, may not be feasible to account for orengage with all the processes, variable or values im-plicated in the design of APM, however, certain con-ceptual steps can be taken and adopted by design

* Steven Umbrello, Managing Director at the Institute for Ethicsand Emerging Technologies and graduate student at the Universi-ty of Turin (Consorzio FINO), Italy. For correspondence:<steve@ieet.org>. This paper is built upon the author’s previouswork: Steven Umbrello ‘Atomically Precise Manufacturing andResponsible Innovation: A Value Sensitive Design Approach toExplorative Nanophilosophy’ (2019) 10 Int J Technoethics 2,1-21

1 Donal O’Mathuna, Nanoethics: Big Ethical Issues with SmallTechnology (Continuum 2009)

Delphi 2|20192 AI-Empowered Nanotechnology

teams to nudge their design flows towards beneficialoutcomes. To this end, this short ethics in practicepiece offers a modular and reflexive set of guidelinesthat can provide policy experts, design teams, indus-try leaders and even ethicists a way of conceptualis-ing the way advanced nanotechnology design can beconfronted that accounts for the values of those itmay impact and how those values can be put intopractice.

II. A Value Sensitive Design (VSD)Approach

In the interest of developing these guiding princi-ples, or perhaps better termed as framing tools, Iavoid discussion of what constitutes APM, the de-bate over its feasibility, as well as expert projectionsfor when we can expect to see the first instantiationof APM technologies. Simply put, the literature thatdiscuss APM and how it functions envisions impactson an astronomical scale.2 It has even been suggest-ed that the safe development of APM, given that mis-aligned development could result in existential cat-astrophe, is contingent on the use of artificial intel-ligence (even artificial superintelligence). Regard-less, the current nanotechnology research is layingthe path for eventual APM systems to emerge. How-ever, first a brief overview of what VSD is and howit functions is warranted so that the tools used toframe APM do not seem ad hoc, but rather integra-tive.

The VSD methodology emerged in the field of hu-man-computer interaction and in particular from therealisations that two principal values were missingfrom the design process in technological innovation,user autonomy and freedom from bias.3 Hence,VSD’s intention is to ensure that designers includethe values held by stakeholders in the early designphases to not only produce a satisfactory product forthe stakeholder, but one that ensures that human val-ues are advanced in technological innovation.4

The priority on the subsumption of human valuesis a critical given that the domain of converging tech-nologies, as harmony between individual, corporate,and societal values is often lacking in facour of finan-cial and/or socio-political gain.5 Hence, this warrantsa design space that considers the values of all stake-holders that the technology may potentially impact.VSD makes explicit claims to help foster a participa-

tory space in which stakeholders can communicateboth their values and desires.6

The VSD framework is predicated on the presump-tion that technology is something that is value-ladenand thus is of significant ethical importance. The ap-proach puts considerable emphasis on the humanvalues of freedom, autonomy, privacy, and equalitygiven that they were the values distilled both duringconceptual investigations as well as empirical stake-holder elicitations.7 Each of these values has the po-tential to be limited by technology and thus must betaken into account during the design of technologies.It focuses on the values of stakeholders and howthose values can be reconciled with design and engi-neering limitations and constraints. Instead of theconventional way of appraising a technologies moralstatus, ie, how it is placed, used, and construed in asocietal context, VSD aims determine the impact thattechnology has on the moral landscape. It aims to de-termine the values of stakeholders and integratethose values early on and throughout the designprocess. Similarly, the approach does not seek to rev-olutionise the engineering practices of designers insuch a way that requires unique or burdensome re-quirements; instead, VSD is an instrument that pro-poses ways of changing existing design and engineer-ing methods in such a way as to include stakeholdervalues and to adapt itself to the already engaged inengineering environments and practices. This is ofparticular importance to policy makers and industri-al leaders in terms of increasing the approach’s so-cial acceptance.

2 Steven Umbrello and Seth Baum, ‘Evaluating Future Nanotech-nology: The Net Societal Impacts of Atomically Precise Manufac-turing’ (2018) Futures 100, 63–73

3 Alan Borning and Michael Muller, ‘Next Steps for Value SensitiveDesign’ (SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, Austin, 5 - 10 May, 2012) <https://dl.acm.org/cita-tion.cfm?doid=2207676.2208560> accessed 15 July 2019

4 Batya Friedman et al, ‘Value Sensitive Design and InformationSystems’ in Neelke Doorn et al (eds), Early Engagement and NewTechnologies: Opening up the Laboratory (Springer 2013) 55 -95

5 Langdon Winner, ‘Do Artifacts Have Politics?’ (2003) Technol.Futur. 2003, 109 (1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/20024652

6 Steven Umbrello, ‘Atomically Precise Manufacturing and Respon-sible Innovation: A Value Sensitive Design Approach to Explo-rative Nanophilosophy’ (2019) International Journal of Tech-noethics 10

7 Batya Friedman and Peter Kahn, ‘Human Values, Ethics, andDesign’ in Julie Jacko (eds) The Human-Computer InteractionHandbook (CRC Press 2003) 1177–1201

Delphi 2|2019 3AI-Empowered Nanotechnology

III. Framing Considerations for SafeNano-Futures

Framing is a way of envisioning ways that technolog-ical developments and potential socio-ethical and cul-tural issues can rise given a particular technology’sdevelopment. Framing certain technological designflows (open design avenues) provides designers withprincipled ways to make informed design decisions.8

The social sciences have an illustrious backgroundwith eliciting stakeholders in different contexts aswell as determining their values, interests, and pref-erences9 such as the use of Envisioning Cards.10 Thefollowing elements are preliminary framing consid-erations that can be considered throughout the de-sign of APM and provide a potential starting pointfor considering ethical design flows. They are a short-list of various values and concerns that have arisenin the technology assessment literature, as well as theVSD literature for speculative technologies morespecifically.11

1. Engage with Convergence Literature

One of the benefits of thinking of APM and othertransformative technologies as being part of a con-verging technology landscape is that overlap ofcommon values between the different technolo-gies can arise, and those common values such assafety, privacy, usability, effectiveness, autonomy,etc. can serve as the basis for design.12Understand-

ing APM as being co-constituted by AI, biotech-nology, and information and communication tech-nologies means a more holistic design workflowcan be engaged in. This does not mean that foun-dational work in each technology cannot be donewithout reference to the other, but foundationalwork in each field can, and does, contribute to theothers.This convergence framing means that designers,when eliciting stakeholder values, should frametheir elicitations in a way that acknowledges thisco-constitutive, dynamic and changing nature ofthe technology in question. Not doing this canprove deleterious given the fecundity of instru-mental view of technology (ie, technology is justa neutral tool) and technological determinism (ie,humans have no influence on the future develop-ment of technology). Either of those two positionsleads to severe blind spots. The interactional viewof technology, that on which VSD is predicated,argues for the co-constitutive nature of technolo-gy. For at least the past six decades this has beenthe contention of the sociology and philosophy oftechnology.13

2. Avoid Opaque Systems

As mentioned, AI in particular may prove essen-tial to the successful development of APM sys-tems. Perhaps the most useful systems for simula-tion potential APM models and outputs is deepneural networks. However, one of the issues withthese systems is the tendency for them to be black-boxed and their decision making structures to beopaque to both users and engineers.Although transparency is often construed as a val-ue, it should be balanced with things like data pri-vacy and security. Because of this, transparencyshould not be envisioned as an end-goal per se, butrather as a value that can be translated into designrequirements that either support of constrain oth-er values. To this end, the AI systems used shouldbe able to balance these issues. Policy makers andindustry leaders interested in AI enabled APMshould look at the work done by the Foresight In-stitute, more particularly at the proposed use ofAI systems such as those developed by OpenCog,or the CANDO platform designed by ChristianSchafmeister.14

8 Till Winkler and Sarah Spiekermann, ‘Twenty Years of ValueSensitive Design: A Review of Methodological Practices in VSDProjects’ (2018) 21 Ethics and Information Technology 81

9 Batya Friedman et al, ‘A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Meth-ods’ (2017) 11 Foundational Trends Human -Computer Interac-tion 2, 63–125

10 Batya Friedman and David Hendry, ‘The Envisioning Cards: AToolkit for Catalyzing Humanistic and Technical Imaginations’(30th International Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, Austin, 5 - 10 May, 2012) <http://chi2012.acm.org/>accessed 15 July 2019

11 Umbrello (n 6); Umbrello and Baum (n 2)

12 Steven Umbrello, Beneficial Artificial Intelligence Coordinationby Means of a Value Sensitive Design Approach (2019) 3 BigData and Cognitive Computing 1, 5

13 Winner, L., 2003. Do artifacts have politics? Technol. Futur. 109,148–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/20024652

14 Allison Duettmann and James Lewis, Artificial Intelligence forNanoscale Design (Foresight Institute 2017)

Delphi 2|20194 AI-Empowered Nanotechnology

3. Aim for Proportionality

Designers should embrace a standard of propor-tionality and thus design APM systems that arephysically limited to not manufacture explicitlydeleterious substances, materials, weapons or self-replicating autonomous nano fabricators.15 Thisnaturally must vary amongst users (ie civilian vsmilitary). Hence, balanced APM systems shouldbe something that is openly promoted in order tolimit over-engineering which can inadvertentlyopen the Pandora’s box of possible materials andsystems that an APM system can manufacture.16

The most notable example is perhaps the engineer-ing of self-replicating machines. Functioning sim-ilar to biological cells (ie, closest paragon would bethe ribosome), these machines would be able toreplicate more of themselves. The concept, if pos-sible, has many potential applications for deploy-ment, particularly in space exploration and coloni-sation given the ability to meet weight restrictionrequirements. However, this type of system can al-so destabilize economic structures drastically andwithout notice given the ability to manufactureany goods at any time with marginal costs. Thereare many examples of both boons and cons thatcan and have already been conceived of. The pointhere is that engineers have to take into accountearly on and throughout the design process of theneeds that the technology must meet given thestakeholders’ values as well as the unintended ef-fects that can emerge after deployment.

4. Aim for Transparency about SystemSecurity and Safety

Users of APM systems should be informed aboutnot only the limitations of their APM systems butalso the vulnerabilities of those systems. This be-comes particularly relevant as nanotechnologyconverges with ICT, opening up a further range ofconverging socio-ethical issues (see point 1). Ac-cess to networks by remote means requires a min-imum standard of both software and hardware se-curity. Users of APM systems should be informedof any health threats that APM systems may poseduring use such as the deleterious effects thatnanoparticles and materials can have on organiccells.17 Not only does the back-boxing of potential

safety and security issues limit the social accep-tance of technologies, particularly transformativeones, but they open up liability issues that may ul-timately be deleterious to the potential benefitsthat such systems if designed well, can provide.What this ultimately means is that transparencymust be construed as explicability and under-standability to the stakeholder sin question. Notonly must information about how a system worksbe conveyed to the user, engineers, developer, etc.,but it must be done so in a way that is understand-able to those agents to permit effective interven-tions if needed.

5. Design for Accessibility

APM systems should be designed in such a waythat fosters ubiquitous use given the above designflows. This is intended to limit exclusions basedon socioeconomic status, thus promoting a moreegalitarian use of APM systems.This of course can be an innately difficult value totake into account given the many different groupsthat stakeholders can be sectioned off into, partic-ularly when those individuals are members ofmore than one sub-group. Case studies in accessi-ble computing provide examples of how comput-ing systems can be tailored for different stakehold-ers.18

IV. Conclusions

There are already existent examples of technologiesthat are sensitive to the values and framing tools list-ed here. Industry and policy measures regarding fi-nancial technologies for example not only reveal atrend towards better regulation but also the inclusionof values like proportionality regarding the informa-tion that they gather from their users, as well as atendency toward offering greater accessibility as afunction of the technology itself. Applying this to

15 Umbrello (n 6)

16 Outlined in Umbrello and Baum (n 2)

17 ibid

18 Kristen Shinohara et al, ‘Tenets for Social Accessibility: TowardsHumanizing Disabled People in Design’ (2018) ACM Transac-tions on Accessible Computing 11, 6

Delphi 2|2019 5AI-Empowered Nanotechnology

APM, proportional examinations should frame APMtechnology design. This framing helps designers toseek a balance between the potential benefits thatthe systems could produce against some of the risksassociated with technological potential itself. In morepractical terms, APM systems could include physicalbarriers that enable specific materials to be used andrestrict the types of products to be manufactured.The benefits that arise from constraints are natural-ly to be weighed against the potential loss of manu-facturing potential.

The FinTech world has shown that users are morewilling to adopt systems if there is transparency re-garding the potential hazards and vulnerabilities as-sociated with adoption.19 Hence, transparency, andhow transparency is understood and instantiated in

design is a critical factor to social acceptance. Final-ly, the ubiquitous adoption of APM systems mayhinge on their ability to be accessed and used by anymember of society regardless of socioeconomic sta-tus. Because of this, design considerations for broadspectrum use must be accounted for during early de-velopmental and conceptualisation stages if the tech-nology aims to be equitable and accessible.

The VSD methodology provides a principled ap-proach to incorporating the values of stakeholders asdesign requirements both early on and throughoutthe development of a technology. The listed framingconsiderations provide a potentially useful first stepthat can be taken as they are distilled from across theconverging technology discourse and provide a setof common values that are shared by the stakehold-ers of these different, yet ever increasingly intercon-nected artefacts. Policy makers and industry leadersshould consider engaging with both the VSD dis-course as well as its applications to other technolo-gies to determine how to best modify its principledapproach to specific design contexts.

19 Hyun-Sun Ryu, ‘Understanding Benefit and Risk Framework ofFintech Adoption: Comparison of Early Adopters and LateAdopters’ (51st Hawaii International Conference on SystemSciences, Hawaii, 2018); See also Chris Brummer Daniel Gorfine,FinTech: Building a 21st-Century Regulator’s Toolkit’ (2014)Milken Institute, 5