**8. Blockchain and AI**

The ancient myth of AI had developed through centuries: from the Greek, to the Age of Enlightment [99], to the 20th Century when it made initial progress in the areas of game theory and theorem proofs. The modern concept of AI began to take shape in the 1950s after the arrival of the new computers made possible the design of reasoning processes that resembled those in human behavior. In this context, Alan Turing's 1950's "Turing Test" in *Computing Machinery and Intelligence* [100] provided a key step forward with a method for determining if a machine is "intelligent." Here, rather than asking whether the machine can think, the question changed to whether it can act as a thinker [101]. Seventy years later, AI tasks still struggle to reconcile the needs of sufficient representation, an effective and efficient decision-making mechanism that can make and execute timely decisions, and control.

Immutability, accessibility, non-repudiation, and decentralization of the data are some of the properties that allow blockchain technology to be used in AI developments, such as smart-contracts. Furthermore, the integration of the blockchain with AI provides solutions that can resolve problems intrinsic to the blockchain: for instance, by reducing energy consumption [102]. AI has also proven useful to better blockchain and smart contracts' security [103], for example, by helping in the process of code verification.

AI's technological capability to install cognitive capacities in machines so these can perform functions such as learn, interpret, and adapt, is related to consumed data. These data are often gathered from the users of smart telephones, and consumers of social media, and web applications [104]. As a result private and public organizations

collecting these data, deal with issues of information centralization, legitimacy, authenticity, security, and privacy. Because data are centrally managed in AI projects, it can potentially be hacked and tampered with [105]. However, AI is also a tool that provides efficient solutions to major tasks such as in the allocation of resources, in managing large sets of data, and in procedural and repetitive tasks [106]. So the combined use of blockchain and AI addresses problems related to centralization, and offers solutions to issues related to the optimization of resources [107].

Intelligent and autonomous applications are designed to reduce human intervention in different types of processes; hence, their impact on individuals and societies raise important concerns. Harm to privacy, potential discrimination, limitation of citizenry choice and access to information, loss of skills, economic shocks, security of critical infrastructure, or long-term impacts on social well-being are just some of the key concerns these technological developments pose to society. That is the reason the development of these innovations need to be aligned with a set of defined values and ethical principles.

### **9. Ethical design framework**

Given the ethical concerns these new technologies arise, a series of guidelines have been published by different institutions working at the crossroads of technology and social good. Here we will refer to those reported by the Beeck Center. [108] Nonetheless, others such as the *IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems* [109], have also made huge efforts to encourage ethical considerations are prioritized when devising autonomous and intelligent technologies.

Establishing the ethical approach during the earliest phases of design is key when using Blockchain and AI. The reason is that changes will be more difficult to implement in later stages, if at all possible. This framework summarizes (p.21.):

*[] (1) give decision makers an outcome-focused and user-centric tool to assess the context-specific consequences and ethical implications of their blockchain design choices; and (2) to enable them to use this understanding to make the appropriate values-based design choices to achieve better social outcomes.*

*[] Ultimately, these ethical considerations traced broadly to six root issues: governance, identity, access, verification and authentication, ownership of data, and security.*

These factors are the basis for a three-phases framework. The first phase is a five-step process which establishes the intentionality of design with a focus on ethics. The second phase (p.40) is an iterative process which examines each design decision in light of the impacts it has on each other element of the ecosystem (i.e.: users, community…). The third phase (p.48), acknowledges that the context evolves in time and the relevance of each element changes. Hence, during this last phase there is a reevaluation of the first and second phases to assess significant changes in the environment.

Even though the implementation of such objectives will require additional time and resources dedicated at the start of each project, the benefits are self-evident even if just considering the impact on the smart contract environment. The reason is that smart contracts are deployed to start working when a predefined group of conditions are met. That is, the contracts will be triggered by inputs such as external events, information system sources, or other and these processes will be automatically enforced by algorithms unconstrained by ethical or legal considerations. Thus,

#### *Bitcoin and Ethics in a Technological Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96798*

in designing smart contracts, their impact beyond the realm of contract law should be analyzed. For instance, smart contracts could use ethically accepted rules when providing technological solutions and create models of governance through new social contracts. In this sense, the 2016 work of Reijers et al. [110]. analyzes how the modeling of blockchain governance reflects the key ideas of social contract theories. Their conclusions (p. 147–148) are that blockchain governance a) is justified by Rousseau's argument that it provides a solution to an existing structure of corrupted institutions; b) being non-discriminatory it reflects Rawls's "veil of ignorance," though power-relations are expressed in the public ledger; and c) acts in accordance to Hobbes idea of a "*totalitarian sovereign in terms of rule-enforcement, coupled with Rousseau's idea of decentralized governance and Rawls's idea of equal rights and liberties for all (that is, for all the nodes). Even though, it fails, to incorporate Rousseau's idea of the common good, and fails to implement conditions of distributive justice that Rawls thought to be essential for overcoming the initial situation*." (p.147).

Although the blockchain is perceived as a "neutral" technology, the political implications of its transformative power are profound as it will reconfigure economic, legal, institutional, and political spaces [111]. The information age promises great benefits from economies of scale and more efficient use of resources, but it also comes with a huge threatening potential to create masses of excluded individuals who cannot catch up with the times. Given the disconnect among different layers of citizens that it is likely to happen, renewed social contracts are essential to protect human dignity and the rights and opportunities of all [112].

Furthermore, any changes that make our democratic processes more transparent, inclusive, and participatory will benefit society. This was noted by Melanie Swan who in her 2015 work "Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy, [113]" assured this technology will ease the appearance of new kinds of governance models and services. As an example, she mentions an increase of granular offer by which the government will design more targeted services. And she also enumerates a number of efforts to develop systems that will increase the quality of our democracies. For instance, she explains David Chaum's idea of random-sample elections [114]. Under this system, people selected randomly are asked to vote through an election website that contains candidate debates and activist sentiments. In David Chaum's view, because of cost reduction, many more consultative processes could be generated. Also, people would have time to inform themselves on whichever matter rather than be overwhelmed by political advertising. Furthermore, no government involvement would be necessary. A third idea discussed in Swan's book, is DAS which stands for distributed autonomous society. This model develops the principles for consensus-based decentralized governance systems and for decentralized voting systems. In her work, Professor Swan discusses this project as a form of delegated democracy, where voting power is vested in representatives. An example of such service is provided by https://liquidfeedback.org/, a company that offers an open source software to help present suggestions and make decisions. This is quite a compelling proposal because, under this method, people can align with each other on the bases of specific actions rather than "ideological" theories. Furthermore, power is not held long. Rather, individuals are responsible for a specific project. Thus, if standardized, this "liquid" in Liquid Democracy, would finish with political forms of permanent power as they are practiced today. Two immediate effects one can imagine would be a redistribution of power back to the people, and an increased impediment to the exercise of political corruption. Albeit there are many potential problems with this type of proposal, i.e.: power is obtained by groups which are already organized or citizens that might not wish to exercise these responsibilities, it might in fact provide a platform for a nation-wide discussion over the responsibilities of individuals on a modern technologically advanced society.

Overall, we can be sure that any elections properly organized using a voting protocol designed with blockchain and AI could be expected to exhibit at least the following desirable properties: privacy of the vote, perfect ballot secrecy, fairness, verifiability, self-tallying feature, dispute-freeness, fault tolerance, and resistance to serious failures. The works of Kiayias and Yung [115], Groth [116], Park et al. [117], Benaloh et al. [118], and Jonker et al. [119] provide a detailed description of these. We can also be sure that much upheaval would have been prevented if this would have been the underlying technology to the recent 2020 US Presidential elections.

#### **10. Conclusion**

The State should ensure the right of each individual to be secure in person and property and enhance the citizens' opportunities to make choices. Transparency and accountability are two key requirements to ensure the citizens' wills are not replaced by the needs of supra organizations: be it the state, large corporations, or the sole owners of certain resources. This is of particular importance in the age of "surveillance capitalism" when individuals might be looked upon and used as "*raw material supplies* [120]". It is in this environment that Bitcoin came to the market after both the 2008 white paper and the code were made available by Satoshi Nakamoto.

The 2009 birth of Bitcoin paved the way for a revolutionary transformation that announced the death of outdated technologies and evidenced the effort many across sectors and government, will have to make to say at par with the latest technology. This is a truly global solution that provides better transparency, fraud protection, it is faster, cheaper, and overall more efficient. Given this solution threatens to cause a fundamental and permanent change in our societies, and that the economic repercussions of the probable developments and trades are highly significant, public opinions have often been construed over a mixed of emotions and disinformation on the workings of the technology. As the Bitcoin builds untamperable public records in an efficient manner, a fear-mongering mentality intertwined with an problem posed by underlying conflict of interests has announced the "death" of this new sector repeatedly [121]. However, in just over a decade a myriad of transformative blockchain solutions have been built. Among the many, we have listed some ready solutions that will have immediate cathartic power. Of course these and other currently existing applications deserve a longer discussion.

During the decades following World War II, ethical standards were established to help govern how science in the future could move forward while not incurring the atrocities committed in the past [122]. Technology is considered as normatively neutral, but because transactions are irreversible and they solidify economic contracts by turning code into economic law, the use of Bitcoin poses a series of ethical questions. For instance, we could wonder about issues of privacy, whether miners are acting responsibly, whether this technology enables fraud, and so on. However, these questions can be answered by studying the technology itself and the trades. Here we turned our attention to whether the use of Bitcoin contributes to "ethics" according to the justice that is achieved when a society restores transparency and prevents fraud. In this imaginable future, Bitcoin will allow citizens have a more voluntary life and, in this way, it will contribute to the moral norm of justice by helping create a fairer society.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy [123] stated that "*change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future*". We hope this chapter contributes by helping the reader assess the depth of change this impending Bitcoin Revolution will unfold.

*Bitcoin and Ethics in a Technological Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96798*
