# Hard Choices in Artificial Intelligence: Addressing Normative Uncertainty through Sociotechnical Commitments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.09005 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.09005/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2019.

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14446/) (2024)
- [The Fallacy of AI Functionality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.09511/) (2022)
- [AI Development for the Public Interest: From Abstraction Traps to Sociotechnical Risks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.04255/) (2021)
- [Misrepresented Technological Solutions in Imagined Futures: The Origins and Dangers of AI Hype in the Research Community](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15244/) (2024)
- [Hard Choices and Hard Limits for Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.07852/) (2021)
- [Intuitions of Compromise: Utilitarianism vs. Contractualism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05496/) (2024)
- [The Role of Social Movements, Coalitions, and Workers in Resisting Harmful Artificial Intelligence and Contributing to the Development of Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.14052/) (2021)
- [AI Agents and Hard Choices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.15304/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As AI systems become prevalent in high stakes domains such as surveillance and healthcare, researchers now examine how to design and implement them in a safe manner. However, the potential harms caused by systems to stakeholders in complex social contexts and how to address these remains unclear. In this paper, we explain the inherent normative uncertainty in debates about the safety of AI systems. We then address this as a problem of vagueness by examining its place in the design, training, and deployment stages of AI system development. We adopt Ruth Chang's theory of intuitive comparability to illustrate the dilemmas that manifest at each stage. We then discuss how stakeholders can navigate these dilemmas by incorporating distinct forms of dissent into the development pipeline, drawing on Elizabeth Anderson's work on the epistemic powers of democratic institutions. We outline a framework of sociotechnical commitments to formal, substantive and discursive challenges that address normative uncertainty across stakeholders, and propose the cultivation of related virtues by those responsible for development.