CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 380Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems

A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society

Floridi, Luciano, Cowls, Josh·2022·Machine Learning and the City
DOI 10.1002/9781119815075.ch45
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already having a major impact on society. In this chapter, the authors report the results of a fine-grained analysis of several of the highest-profile sets of ethical principles for AI. They assess whether these principles are convergent, with a set of agreed-upon principles, or divergent, with significant disagreement over what constitutes ‘ethical AI’. The authors then identify an overarching framework consisting of five core principles for ethical AI. In the ensuing discussion, they note the limitations and assess the implications of this ethical framework for future efforts to create laws, rules, standards, and best practices for ethical AI in a wide range of contexts. The development and use of AI hold the potential for both positive and negative impact on society, to alleviate or to amplify existing inequalities, to cure old problems, or to cause new ones.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9781119815075.ch45

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Unlike Eurocentric models of AI ethics that focus on abstract values such as fairness or beneficence, an ABS approach recenters Indigenous sovereignty as the foundation for legitimate data use and governance.

    “Unlike Eurocentric models of AI ethics that focus on abstract values such as fairness or beneficence (Floridi and Cowls 2022), an ABS approach recenters Indigenous sovereignty as the foundation for legitimate data use and governance.”

    From Preventing AI extractivism: the case for braiding indigenous data justice with ABS for stronger AI data governance (2026) · cites this paper as Floridi and Cowls 2022

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J.
ORCID
Venue
Machine Learning and the City
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-05-21
Pages
535-545
DOI
10.1002/9781119815075.ch45
OpenAlex
W4281615125
Cited by
380
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 157 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Keywords
ethical AI, AI ethics principles, societal impact of AI, AI regulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review