CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 425Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsResearch, Science, and Academia

Preparing for the future of Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Bundy, Alan·2017·AI & SOCIETY
DOI 10.1007/s00146-016-0685-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-016-0685-0

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Understanding and predicting public reactions to AI pose significant challenges.

    “Understanding and predicting public reactions to AI pose significant challenges, as acknowledged in prior research by Bundy [16].”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and benefits of AI innovation in government services: a review (2024) · cites this paper as Bundy [16]

    In “Public Debate” (page unavailable), Bundy describes controversy over AI as sometimes over-excited and under-informed, and says informed debate requires public understanding of the difference between narrow and general AI. This supports a challenge concerning public discussion of AI, but the paper does not address the difficulty of predicting public reactions. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the public sector, algorithmic governance is most often considered in the context of mission-critical activities.

    “In the public sector, algorithmic governance is most often considered in the context of mission-critical activities [16].”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and benefits of AI innovation in government services: a review (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

    In the Alan Bundy section (page unavailable), the paper says the report explores AI’s potential in governance and that public institutions should consider using AI. It does not say that public-sector algorithmic governance is most often considered in mission-critical activities; the frequency and context asserted in the claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Within the organizational framework, AI is identified as a potential catalyst for growth, presenting an opportunity for underdeveloped countries to tackle persistent challenges through organizational transformation.

    “Within the organizational framework, artificial intelligence (AI) is identified as a potential catalyst for growth, presenting an opportunity for underdeveloped countries to tackle persistent challenges through organizational transformation [16].”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and benefits of AI innovation in government services: a review (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

    In the Alan Bundy section (page unavailable), the paper says AI can increase productivity and that public and private institutions should consider how to use it. It does not connect those opportunities specifically to underdeveloped countries, persistent challenges, or organizational transformation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Quantifying the public impact of AI technology is challenging.

    “Quantifying the public impact of AI technology proves challenging as it is more than the complexities acknowledged in earlier publications [16].”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and benefits of AI innovation in government services: a review (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Public Debate and Collaboration sections discuss open questions and possible societal effects of AI, but neither addresses the difficulty of quantifying its public impact. Searches for measuring or assessing AI’s public, societal, and economic effects found no passage making that point. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Higher salaries offered to top AI talent intensify the competitive landscape, making it challenging for sectors with limited recruiting budgets, such as the public sector, to attract the most qualified candidates.

    “Higher salaries offered to top AI talent further intensify the competitive landscape, making it challenging for sectors with limited recruiting budgets, such as the public sector, to attract the most qualified candidates [16].”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and benefits of AI innovation in government services: a review (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

    The ‘Alan Bundy’ section says private and public institutions should hire staff to use AI, but does not discuss competition for AI talent. Searches for higher salaries, recruiting budgets, and public-sector hiring difficulties found no passage addressing the claimed salary-driven disadvantage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]1. B. Horvitz, E. Selman. AAAI presidential panel on long-term AI futures: 2008-2009 study. Technical report, The Associa- tion for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February 2009. http://www.aaai.org/Organization/presidential-panel.php.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bundy, A.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Bundy, Alan
ORCID
Bundy, Alan
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-11-29
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
285-287
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
DOI
10.1007/s00146-016-0685-0
OpenAlex
W2559010931
Cited by
425
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 4 · 2012: 1
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • AI & Society (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N014758/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
AI policy, National Science and Technology Council, AI governance, future of AI

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