The Role of Engineers in Harmonising Human Values for AI Systems Design

Most engineers Fwork within social structures governing and governed by a set of values that primarily emphasise economic concerns. The majority of innovations derive from these loci. Given the effects of these innovations on various communities, it is imperative that the values they embody are aligned with those societies. Like other transformative technologies, artificial intelligence systems can be designed by a single organisation but be diffused globally, demonstrating impacts over time. This paper argues that in order to design for this broad stakeholder group, engineers must adopt a systems thinking approach that allows them to understand the sociotechnicity of artificial intelligence systems across sociocultural domains. It claims that value sensitive design, and envisioning cards in particular, provides a solid first step towards helping designers harmonise human values, understood across spatiotemporal boundaries, with economic values, rather than the former coming at the opportunity cost of the latter.


Introduction
Computing technologies are becoming ever more pervasive in contemporary societies, to the point that discrete technologies are now inseparable from understanding social structures and institutions.In many ways, modern computing technologies manifest the long-held claim that technologies are sociotechnical (Verbeek, 2008).They cannot be understood as separate instruments but rather as co-constituting and co-constructed by social forces.The sociotechnical worlds in which humans are continually immersed, now made even more manifest due to the SARS-CoV-2 restrictions, encourage a more granular evaluation of their design and corresponding impact on human values.
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems do not emerge ex nihilo but are constructed and designed entities.In his famous article Do artefacts have politics?Langdon Winner (2003) demonstrated how the architect Robert Moses designed the overpasses across Long Island, NY, to be intentionally low hanging to prevent already poor and segregated minority groups from accessing his prized beaches.Winner showed how even simple technologies, like the Long Island bridges, could support or constrain specific human values, whether designed intentionally or not.Given their current impact on quotidian human life, AI systems already, and will continue to, implicate a wide array of values (or disvalues) (van de Poel, 2020).Because they are designed artefacts, a closer analysis is warranted to examine the nexus from which these innovations emerge, i. e., the design domains in which designers find themselves constructing these systems.
Engineers and designers work within social structures governing and governed by a set of values that primarily emphasise economic concerns.The majority of innovations derive from these loci.Given the effects of these innovations on society, the values they embody must be aligned with the stakeholders of those societies.Like other transformative technologies, AI systems can be designed by a single organisation or a consortium, but they are nonetheless distributed globally.Whereas previous research has focused on the socioethical impacts of AI (Bostrom, 2012;Floridi et al., 2018;Stahl, 2004), as well as how best to govern AI (Armstrong et al., 2012;Umbrello et al., 2021;COM, 2021), this paper is the first to argue that (1) to design for this broad stakeholder group (i.e., worldwide), engineers must adopt a systems thinking approach to innovation that allows them to understand the sociotechnicity of AI systems across sociocultural domains and that (2) the value sensitive design (VSD) approach, and in particular envisioning cards, provides a decisive first step towards helping designers harmonise human values, understood across geospatial and temporal boundaries, with economic values, rather than the former coming at the opportunity cost of the latter.
The paper is thus organised into the following sections.§2 outlines systems theory and systems engineering, as well as how this way of thinking provides a more accurate ontological understanding of designing for human values, rather than relegating these values to the E-mail address: s.umbrello@tudelft.nl.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Responsible Technology position of mere afterthoughts.§3 outlines the VSD approach as a systems engineering method that guides designers in harmonising human values during the design process.§4 discusses the VSD technique known as envisioning cards in greater depth and argues that they provide a solid initial step towards AI design that harmonises the long-term consideration of human values with more immediate economic values.§5 discusses the limitations of this approach and highlights some areas for future research projects.Finally, §6 concludes this paper with a summary of its contribution.

Systems Thinking and Systems Engineering
Although the meaning of the term 'systems theory' seems selfevident, it warrants closer analysis.To draw on systems theory as a conceptual framework fundamentally means making ontological commitments to understanding AI.Although I will not include a complete discussion of systems theory and its long history here, there are numerous reasons for adopting it.Firstly, systems theory characterises the nuances of complex systems that describe our increasingly complex sociotechnical worlds.AI systems further complicate these matters, and their analysis requires a conceptual language that can help us navigate these complexities.Secondly, systems engineering is the practical endeavour of designing systems and is built upon the theoretical underpinnings of systems theory.Finally, as discussed later in this paper, VSD is essentially a systems engineering approach to technological design.As such, a discussion of ontological substrate will equip us to understand how salient AI design can take place.Finally, because it affirms an interactional stance on technology, VSD acknowledges that technology and societal forces co-construct and co-vary with one another (Friedman et al., 2017).This means that purely deterministic, instrumental, or constructivist understandings of technologies are not entirely correct when taken individually.Instead, the plurality of actors, institutions, technologies, and their design histories forms complex yet critical networks of interactions.These relationships need to be brought to the fore to create the conditions for responsible innovation.

Systems Theory
A more widely conceptualised field, 'systems theory', has been defined as the interdisciplinary study of organised and complex systems (Whitchurch & Constantine, 2009).Although designs often draw from specimens in the biological domain, they can also be synthetic and understood as connected clusters of co-constitutive and co-varying nodes.Spatiotemporal vectors bind these clusters together while their environment transforms them.They are defined by their composition and teleology, the latter of which is expressed through operation (Adams et al., 2014).Thinking along these lines is described as 'systems thinking', simply the verbal conceptualisation of things as functions of systems theory axioms.Taking this on board, the theory often describes systems very differently compared to other complex relational ontologies, like object-oriented ontology (OOO).Emergent behaviours (or synergy) often lead to the description of systems as more than the sum of their parts, whereas theories like OOO lead to the opposite conclusion (Haken, 2013;Harman, 2018).
Furthermore, due to the complexity of systems, modulations at any vector or node within the system can generate cascading changes throughout the system at other vectors or nodes.This can result in unforeseen or unforeseeable emergent behaviour (akin to what we already see in various opaque AI systems) (Floridi et al., 2020;Hibbard, 2012).Hence, systems theory studies the patterns of connections and complexity to predict future behaviour more accurately.
In general, given the number of inputs, nodes, and potential emergent behaviours, sociotechnical systems are rendered even more complex by self-learning and adaptive systems, such as those that characterise AI systems.Because the term 'AI' is often used haphazardly and to refer to systems that are not relevant here, I adopt the definition of 'AI' used by Umbrello and van de Poel (2021) as the "class of technologies that are autonomous, interactive, adaptive, and capable of carrying out human-like tasks (Floridi & Sanders, 2004) […] particularly […] AI technologies based on Machine Learning (ML), which allows such technologies to learn based on interaction with (and feedback from) the environment" (Umbrello & van de Poel, 2021, p.1).This interplay between the system and its environment also means that systems are within systems.Such interplay supports or constrains certain behaviours, thus making the systems more or less robust.Then, part of systems thinking is understanding the kinetics, interplay, and bounding conditions.This allows more pertinent extrapolations to be made to improve how we conceptualise other systems across levels of recursion (Graham et al., 1994).
General systems theory (GST) aims to synthesise methods and instruments to create a broader understanding of complex systems instead of siloed disciplinary approaches (von Bertalanffy, 1972).GST further classifies systems into two categories: active and passive.The former is understood as a system that engages in processes and exhibits dynamic behaviour, whereas active systems engage the latter.If we take, for example, an AI-powered auditing system, it is passive when it is neither activated nor processing information, whereas when booted, it becomes an active system.Hence, the spatiotemporal vector mentioned above is essential because it determines whether we describe a system as passive or active.Notably, the nodes that make up a system or operate within a more extensive system can likewise be characterised as active or passive components.This is significant because, when considering the complexity of AI systems, particularly those that employ machine learning (ML) (or ML and artificial neural network hybrids), the algorithmic process is often opaque (Turilli & Floridi, 2009).We need a GST approach to map the sophisticated connections and nuances that characterise AI systems to account for this complexity and propose relevant systems design.

Systems Engineering
Systems engineering can be understood as applying a systems thinking (and thus transdisciplinary) approach to engineered systems.It uses systems thinking to understand, design, manage and deploy engineered systems to ensure equifinality over their lifecycles (Thomé, 1993).This approach, however, is not purely technical but also incorporates humanistic disciplines such as organisational studies, ethics, and project management (Booton & Ramo, 1984).Therefore, a more holistic, comprehensive approach to systems design is possible when we frame systems not as extricated artefacts but as part of situated environments in which they play an integral role.Furthermore, merging multiple disciplines enables more significant synergism between constituent parts, helping designers predict future emergent behaviours precisely (Bauer & Herder, 2009).
As it features a more comprehensive understanding of systems-withinsystems, systems engineering is therefore orientated towards optimising equifinality because it views complex technologies as dynamic systems with emergent behaviours.This means that systems cannot simply be designed and deployed without further consideration; instead, they require co-design and monitoring over their entire lifecycle to ensure consideration of fair allocations of values, and different institutional arrangements and policies that are socially responsive (SyntheSys, 2020; Umbrello & van de Poel, 2021).
As new emergent behaviours become manifest over time, new design requirements will also develop in response to changing values (van de Poel, 2018Poel, , 2020)).As we shall see with VSD, systems engineering models confirm that system behaviours result from their architecture.When assembled and organised in a particular environment, individual nodes constitute the 'black box' of elements that define the system within a system.The complexity of these systems and their interplay can be expounded to multiple levels of abstraction.An example of this is a medical diagnostic system composed of various systems and forms part S. Umbrello of numerous interconnected systems (i.e., a hospital information and communications technology network).Designers can engineer systems to have more predictable (desirable) behaviours in their intended environment by modelling systems.Likewise, mapping system processes and behaviours also enable unforeseen behaviours to be addressed and ameliorated early on in the design process and throughout.This kind of engineering approach to systems allows consideration of the most salient aspects of systems verification, integration, and validation, rather than waiting for recalcitrant behaviour to occur in situ and incur unwanted costs (both social and economic).

VSD, Interactionalism and Systems Engineering
As a method of technology design, VSD is often described as a 'principled approach', given its overt orientation towards designing technologies for human values rather than consigning them to ad hoc afterthoughts (Friedman, 1996).With almost 30 years of history and development underlying the approach, co-creation between direct and indirect stakeholders 1 is a fundamental part of the design process, as is the philosophical investigation of values (Friedman and Hendry, 2019;Umbrello, 2018).Past research has explored how VSD can be applied to specific technologies, such as energy transition systems (Mok & Hyysalo, 2018), mobile phone usage (Woelfer et al., 2011), industrial processes (Longo et al., 2020), and more recent systems of augmented reality (Friedman & Kahn Jr., 2000), to name just a few.It has similarly been proposed as a suitable design framework for future technologies, both short and long term.Examples include its exploratory application to nanopharmaceuticals (Timmermans et al., 2011), molecular manufacturing (Umbrello, 2019), care robots (Umbrello et al., 2021;van Wynsberghe, 2013), and less futuristic autonomous vehicles (Calvert et al., 2018;Thornton et al., 2018;Umbrello & Yampolskiy, 2022).
Despite all these uses, VSD has only been applied to AI systems conceptually, as AI's self-learning capabilities pose some unique challenges for the VSD approach.To combat these, Umbrello and van de Poel (2021) suggest adding a set of AI-specific design principles to VSD predicated on the advancements made in the various AI for Social Good (AI4SG) projects (Mabaso, 2020;Taddeo & Floridi, 2018).However, even these more specific norms are insufficient and require additional value sources that can be harmonised with the intention of designing AI4SG using VSD.Stakeholder values represent one such source, which are constituent of 'context analysis' in the authors' four-stage VSD approach.They argue that context is crucial in all AI design: In all cases […], different contextual variables come into play to impact the way values are understood (in the second phase), both in conceptual terms as well as in practice, on account of different sociocultural and political norms.The VSD approach sees eliciting stakeholders in sociocultural contexts as imperative.This will determine whether the explicated values of the project are faithful to those of the stakeholders, both directly and indirectly.Empirical investigations thus play a key role in determining potential boons and downfalls for any given context.(Umbrello & van de Poel, 2021, p. 7).
To understand the importance of this, both to VSD more broadly and the design of the AI system, in particular the inner workings of VSD, merit brief discussion.Sometimes heralded under the auspices of somewhat different names, such as 'Values at Play' or 'Design for Values' (Flanagan & Nissenbaum, 2014;van den Hoven et al., 2015), VSD is traditionally described as a three-phase methodology comprising conceptual, empirical, and technical investigations (Friedman et al., 2013;Friedman and Hendry, 2019;van den Hoven & Manders-Huits, 2009).
Moreover, the tripartite approach can be engaged with iteratively or consecutively (see Fig. 1).
Conceptual investigations involve a priori analysis of the potential value implications and identification of direct and indirect stakeholders, as well as the likely value tensions.This phase also involves coming up with working definitions of values that can then inform (and be informed by) the other investigations.Empirical investigations involve eliciting data from the stakeholders themselves in an attempt to determine their values and value understandings.This information feeds back into the other phases to help refine the working definition of the 'value at play'.Finally, technical investigations look at the technology itself, or, more specifically, how the architecture and design choices of the system might support and/or constrain those values.
Philosophically speaking, the entire VSD approach is premised on the interactional stance regarding technology.VSD thus argues against the value-neutrality thesis of technology (i.e., instrumentalism) and instead claims that technologies embody the values of their creators.This means that they display properties that are both deterministic as well as constructionist (Friedman & Hendry, 2019).2This is a salient way of understanding technological artefacts' sociotechnicity (as in the case of Winner's bridges).Societal forces and technologies co-construct, co-vary, and co-constitute each other (Ropohl, 1999).VSD is currently equipped with seventeen specific methods to facilitate systems design in light of sociotechnicity: (1) stakeholder analysis; (2) stakeholder tokens; (3) value source analysis; ( 4 To achieve the objective of designing for human values, these methods each have their own uses.These include stakeholder identification and legitimation, value source identification and definition, determining how such values relate to their contextual social structures, and design thinking across multiple generations.The suitability of any one method is contingent on the starting point of any given engineering programme.However, part of the attractiveness of VSD is that it can and should be adapted to an individual domain of application.Crucially, it is not a wholesale reimagining of the design space, but instead maps onto and augments existing design and engineering practices.This is an important point: AI systems design is advancing at a remarkable pace globally, and because firms recognise the economic and other market advantages of adopting AI systems, they are more than willing to adopt less-than-ready systems despite the potential for recalcitrance (see, e.g., Banerjee & Chanda, 2020).As a result, an adaptable design approach that can be cost-effectively mapped onto existing design practices is invaluable.Although little work has been done on this point regarding VSD, a clear objective of this design methodology is that it should not replace but rather complement the day-to-day practices of technology 1 'Direct stakeholders' are those who may be impacted via direct interaction with the technology.They can include users, designers, and some managers.'Indirect stakeholders' are those who may be affected by the systems but do not directly interact with it.They can include stakeholder groups like executives, other publics, and the environment or nonhuman animals.
designers (Friedman & Hendry, 2019;van de Poel, 2018).Although specific VSD tools may indeed take more time to implement than others, there are nonetheless VSD methods available to AI systems designers that can help them avoid many pitfalls caused by short-term, market imperative thinking.
I am here referring primarily to VSD's systems-oriented approach.An explicit aspect of the interactional stance on technology means looking not only at discrete technologies but also viewing them as fundamental and inseparable constituents of social forces, organisations, institutions, and infrastructures (i.e., as systems-within-systems).Likewise, VSD takes a complete systems view of this broader design context by including the various direct and indirect stakeholders implicated in these systems.As mentioned above, VSD, like systems engineering generally, draws on the theories and methods of multiple disciplines to achieve greater equifinality in design.Mapping out the long-term network effects that the system can produce is therefore necessary.However, it runs contrary to much of the previously discussed short-term thinking that characterises most modern innovation practices.This short-termism cannot be risked with transformative technologies like AI.
The following section proposes the use of envisioning cards as an easily adoptable way for AI design firms to engage in VSD while also minimising drastic internal changes, thus harmonising their economic incentives with critical human values.This approach permits long-term, multi-generational thinking for a wider group of stakeholders, which is highly relevant for AI and other globally impactful sociotechnical systems.

Envisioning VSD for AI Systems Design
AI systems, particularly those based on ML, are markedly sociotechnical systems.This means that they are inextricably part of their social contexts.They also form part of larger systems, including cyberspace and information and communications technology, and are thus also systems-within-systems (Umbrello & Gambelin, 2022;Uphoff, 2014).Beyond this, and unlike other, more discrete sociotechnical systems with a more stable spatiotemporal locus, AI is by nature easily diffused globally and implicates large stakeholder populations that were unaccounted for early in the design of these systems (Floridi et al., 2020).Likewise, the unique challenges posed to a salient design by opaque processes make mapping emergent behaviours difficult, though necessary.Not only this, as a disruptive technology, AI requires consideration from multiple perspectives.The active and unstable ground in which AI systems are situated can be extended to a much larger social space, limiting the applicability of the methods advanced by organisations or corporations.This would require moving up a level of abstraction to macrosystems, i.e., larger systems that influence policies, culture and other social phenomena.Although I do not develop the 'how to' here, one can refer to Umbrello (2021), an argument for how VSD can co-create global AI governance/policy and the technical systems themselves concurrently.
So far, this paper has outlined systems theory and engineering, showing how they address both the ontology and ethics of designing AI systems. 3The former describes the systemic nature, connectivity, and emergence that characterise AI systems.At the same time, the latter explains how to design for complexity and equifinality.I argue that VSD is one such approach to systems engineering, uniquely capable of designing within the systems thinking paradigm (c.f., Umbrello et al., 2021).It is also apt at meeting the unique challenges posed by AI systems while simultaneously thinking long term and across spatiotemporal boundaries to include wider stakeholder communities.As a strong starting point, one VSD method that AI design firms can adopt at a relatively low cost, in terms of both time and money, is envisioning cards (Friedman et al., 2011).

The Envisioning Criteria
Built on more than two decades of conceptual and empirical work within VSD, envisioning cards represent one of seventeen existent VSD methods that can be adopted with the goal of designing systems for values (Friedman et al., 2011).Although VSD is more generally a long-term approach to design, envisioning cards are intended to stress the unique challenges of long-term thinking and provide actionable means to address those challenges.Each set of envisioning cards comes with two decks: (1) the primary set (28 cards + 4 'create your own' cards) and ( 2) the supplementary multi-lifespan set (12 cards + 1 'create your own' card) (Friedman et al., 2011).All the cards are adorned with a Fig. 1.The recursive VSD tripartite framework employed in this study.Source: Umbrello (2020a) 3 In system theory, beyond ontology and epistemology of systems, we can find the axiology of systems regarding the nature and classification of values and the definition of what kind of goods are valuable or not.This paper does not address questions concerning value-theory, value-change, meta-ethics, which, unquestionably, are critical questions in a discourse on AI systems and should be explored further.For more targeted discussions on value theory and change, see van de Poel (2018van de Poel ( , 2020) ) as well as (Bartneck et al., 2021) for a debate on meta-ethics and AI.In the same vein, the paper does not reflect upon any possible substantive or normative aspect of VSD.For criticisms of VSD see Friedman and Hendry (2019), Manders-Huits (2011), andReijers andGordijn (2019).For a reply to the latter, see Umbrello (2020b).

S. Umbrello
provocative image on one side, with the other side displaying the envisioning criterion, title, description/theme, and a design activity or actionable prompt.The primary set of cards includes four envisioning criteria; each card highlights one of those criteria, provides a thoughtful description of the issues associated with that criterion, and prompts the user to consider how to tackle the potential problems with a creative prompt or design activity (see Fig. 2).
Each of the primary deck's four criteria highlights different aspects of issues that may emerge due to the design choices in any given system.Figure 3 illustrates each envisioning criterion.
However, the supplementary set has an extra criterion in addition to the four existing ones: multi-lifespan (Fig. 4).
The additional set draws on over a decade's worth of VSD research on the design of information systems across multiple lifespans (Friedman et al., 2016;Friedman & Yoo, 2017;Yoo et al., 2016).AI systems are already globally widespread, and their ubiquitous uptake and consequent sociotechnical pervasiveness undoubtedly mean that they will continue to exist for many generations to come.Any relevant attempt to address these considerable structural challenges thus requires similarly extended timeframes.The multi-lifespan envisioning cards are primarily orientated towards designing systems that pose these significant societal issues but resist expedient fixes.This supplementary set of cards encourages designers to consider design choices in the present day that are consciously and explicitly directed towards policies, infrastructures, and systems architectures that would open up the most comprehensive array of design options for future generations (c.f., van den Hoven, 2017).
Individual designers or design teams can use the envisioning cards for various ends, such as finding creative solutions to potentially intractable problems, determining novel criteria for success in a design, assessing the value tensions of clients, and widening the scope of potentially impacted stakeholder populations.Like VSD more broadly, the envisioning cards are not intended as a wholesale reimagining of the design domain in which they are used.If they were, they would present, as with any potential approach, a high barrier to entry, thus negatively impacting their adoption and therefore the potential value derived from their use.Instead, the envisioning cards are meant to seamlessly map onto existing design practices regardless of the approach or process being adapted.For example, many software development firms employ some form of Agile or Waterfall workflow management for their design projects.VSD in general, and envisioning cards more specifically, can act as a vehicle for values without burdening firms with further financial or time constraints, which may result from other techniques used to retool their normal day-to-day activities.For example, Umbrello and Gambelin (2022) argue that the VSD approach and its various methods can be easily understood as elements of existing Agile phases (Fig. 5).A similar process for reframing VSD as a tool for these existing workflows satisfies VSD's internal philosophical precepts of seamless applicability as well as resistance to short-termism, the latter of which is characteristic of methodologies like Agile and Waterfall (Umbrello & Gambelin, 2022).
This point is significant: much of the AI development domain fits squarely within corporate structures characterised by their use of shortterm project management approaches whose success is often measured in terms of return on investment.Often this comes at the opportunity cost of the value-centred design of AI products (and systems in general).This is primarily the consequence of trade-off thinking, something that VSD is philosophically predicated against.VSD is built on the notion that most innovations are developed within a sphere where economic values are front and centre.However, VSD does not argue that moral values come at the opportunity cost of economic ones; in fact, the opposite is true.4VSD claims that not only do they complement each other, but they also augment each other as a consequence of creative design.For example, Sweden's zero-tolerance policy for road accidents has led to innovative safety technologies being implemented to meet these strict requirements (Kristianssen et al., 2018).As a result, automotive manufacturers like Volvo have become leaders in automotive safety.Rather than positioning safety at the opportunity cost of economic profit, it is framed as a necessary prerequisite for economic value.Greater safety leads to bigger profit.Generally speaking, it should be noted that corporations already use in their justifications non-economic values, implicating a pluralism of spheres beyond (but not excluding) the market one.Whether these moral values are considered as co-constituting those economic values in a meaningful way is something that must be determined on a case-by-case basis, we can't paint with a broad brush.
Still, the envisioning cards provide AI development firms with an easyto-adopt approach at a marginal cost, which is capable of being used in the design of AI systems that encompass global stakeholder groups across spatiotemporal vectors (across the world and across lifespans).Naturally, this appears to be difficult, and it surely is, given that the presence of different institutions and stakeholders might make it difficult to identify a precise robust institutionalised framework.The goal, however, for changing systems like AI is to resist designs that, when they become ubiquitous and pervasive, fundamentally resist calcification, thus making them harder to adapt when needed.Fundamentally this entails, designing for value pluralism, a fundamental constituent of western liberal democracies.This does not mean that value relativism is affirmed, on the contrary, value pluralism permits different sets of values to be considered, discussed, and refined (see Sorgner, 2021).The ability for a system to be modified as time passes, as they cross national boundaries, and as stakeholders and values change as a consequence is a means of affirming such pluralism in design.This type of responsiveness permits AI design via envisioning cards, to consider a fair allocation of values over time, thus creating the environment in which different institutions can reflect those changes in responsive social policies.
Many of the activities take less than three minutes to complete (Friedman, 2018).For example, in Figure 6, the 'Remembering and Forgetting' multi-lifespan envisioning card, can be quickly geared towards long-term thinking in AI design.
'Remembering and Forgetting' is particularly salient in the context of AI design.It can be framed as highlighting issues with data storage and recall in AI systems, particularly the data sets that are being used to train and run more significant ML and artificial neural network (ANN)-based systems (e.g., Stoica et al., 2017).The theme of the card describes issues of data regulation, access (and by whom), types of data access, as well as data destruction (i.e., forgetting, the right to be forgotten) (see e.g., Rosen, 2011).The card prompt follows suit with a direction actionable exercise to stimulate long-term thinking regarding the impacts of this kind of information storage/use, in this case up to 50 years into the future.Other multi-lifespan envisioning cards like 'Cultivating Trust' and 'Material Longevity' (see Fig. 7) also fit nicely within the current discussions on issues arising from the design and deployment of AI systems.
For instance, 'Cultivating Trust' helps designers imagine how the use of the system may compromise stakeholders and asks how trust can be strengthened over time.'Material Longevity' allows designers to determine long-term viability, given the current materials necessary for the system's operation, by encouraging them to list materials the system relies on and determine the characteristics and impacts of the design choice of those materials.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
Overall, this paper has addressed some of the fundamental issues regarding AI design.Firstly, the design and development of AI systems is primarily undertaken by private firms where economic values are more often than not framed as being prioritised at the opportunity cost of morally important human values like human autonomy, fairness, nonmaleficence, and explicability, among many others.Similarly, by discussing systems theory/thinking, we can see how the sociotechnicity of AI systems poses some unique challenges, particularly when we consider the long-term impacts of today's design choices.Envisioning cards represent one of seventeen existing VSD tools that AI design firms can adopt to begin designing for human values rather than waiting for the emergent and potentially recalcitrant behaviour of these systems to appear.This paper proposes envisioning cards as a potentially fruitful starting point, given that they are relatively low cost and provide easy- 3. The envisioning Source: Friedman et al. (2011) to-use activities that can be integrated into any existing project management process.
This, however, does not entail that envisioning cards alone are sufficient to produce or ensure value-aligned AI systems across time.At the very least, they help bring to the surface unforeseen values, stakeholders, and multi-generational impacts that these systems may manifest if deployed.It is up to designers and engineers to then determine the technical means by which such systems can address or ameliorate these issues before they develop.Other approaches like value scenarios may be a practical next step for firms interested in more granular and targeted AI design (Nathan et al., 2007).Similarly, a multi-tiered VSD approach like that proposed by Umbrello and van de Poel (2021) may be a further step.However, these more intensive approaches come with the cost of specialised training and expertise, meaning they do not necessarily provide the ideal entry-level step for firms that may already be hesitant to change their current practices.Similarly, this paper does not address the epistemological challenges related to designing products that do not yet exist or to the issue of pluralisation of values that need to be aggregated into overall social/public values.These two aspects are important to note, especially in relation to the criteria of Envisioning Cards.This will require empirical investigations, working directly with both direct and indirect stakeholders groups in real AI design domains in order to determine efficacy, as well as longitudinal studies to determine how values (or disvalues) becomes (dis)embodied as these systems become ubiquitous and thus sociotechnically pervasive.Likewise, envisioning VSD in the AI system design could help to uncover other AI  systems lifecycle stages beyond that of purely design and development (discussed above), namely, deployment, and usage/adopt phases.This encourages a VSD as a full-lifecycle approach, rather than purely an anticipatory approach to AI systems design.
Finally, this paper is predicated on a notion of anticipation that emerges from the DfV approach to the philosophy of technology (see supra note 2).The notion of anticipation as proposed by DfV to reduce the uncertainty and unpredictability in the early stages of technological development has some limits.Firstly, it may rely on a too speculative basis and does not sufficiently provide regulatory and justificatory Along those lines, current approaches to design need some actionable steps forwards that can make sense of their theoretical insights and translate them into executable methods of ongoing assessment and monitoring.Further theories or methodologies from social or political science studies are needed that should assess and verify the idea that AI systems respect 'certain values' in their design and deployment, as already recognised by scholars (van de Poel 2020).In the same vein, studies on Responsible Innovation should not neglect the governance and political dimensions of technology and innovation.

Conclusions
AI systems are autonomous, interactive, adaptive, and capable of carrying out human-like tasks.These types of systems are already witnessing ubiquitous uptake across the globe and they are generating various impacts worldwide.As this uptake becomes more pervasive, so will the systemic effects of their emergent behaviours.This poses some unique ethical issues for design.Many of the loci of AI innovation are spatiotemporally situated in individual development firms with narrow considerations for the impacted stakeholders.In this paper, I have described AI as a paragon of the systems thinking approach to technology.In doing so, I argue that the sociotechnicity of systems requires a design approach that is fundamentally congruent with this systems ontology, that is, systems engineering.I propose VSD as one such systems engineering approach that addresses the singular challenges posed by AI design.Finally, envisioning cards, one of the VSD methodologies, is suggested as an easily adoptable first step for AI design firms to begin setting the stage for value-sensitive AI design and deployment.

Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Fig. 2 .
Fig. 2. Description of contents of the primary set of envisioning cards.