Atomist or Holist? A Diagnosis and Vision for More Productive Interdisciplinary AI Ethics Dialogue

The AI ethics debate reflects a fundamental philosophical divide: The heated disagreements about ethics in AI research stem from two opposing worldviews—"atomists" who believe facts and values should be kept separate, and "holists" who believe they are inherently interconnected. Understanding this underlying divide can help move beyond personal attacks and toward more productive dialogue.

Both perspectives have legitimate concerns worth considering: Rather than one side being entirely right or wrong, the paper suggests both atomist and holist approaches have valid philosophical foundations and assumptions. The conflict arises not from one ideology being objectively superior, but from fundamentally different beliefs about how knowledge and ethics relate to one another.

Current polarization is hindering progress on responsible AI: The paper notes that disagreements about ethics reviews and impact statements have "devolved into name-calling and threats of 'cancellation,'" indicating that the current state of debate is counterproductive to actually addressing AI's social impacts and developing more responsible technologies.

Empathy and targeted strategies are needed to bridge the divide: The authors propose that researchers from both camps should "exhibit greater empathy during ethical disagreements" and implement four specific strategies (though the abstract doesn't detail these) to ensure AI research benefits society rather than becoming mired in ideological conflict.