Social choice ethics in artificial intelligence
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Social choice processes seem unable to settle deeper questions about standing, measurement, and aggregation.
“Social choice processes therefore seem unable to settle deeper questions about standing, measurement, and aggregation (Baum 2017, 4).”
From Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment (2020) · cites this paper as Baum 2017
Cites
Picard, R. W. (1997) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 · Cited by 7,382 · see citing works
Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis
Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037737 · Cited by 1,126 · see citing works
Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict
Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0701768104 · Cited by 416 · see citing works
Artificial Morality: Top-down, Bottom-up, and Hybrid Approaches
Allen, C., Smit, I., & Wallach, W. (2005) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-006-0004-4 · Cited by 346 · cited 3× · see citing works
“An example of this appears above in the quote ‘‘[Bottom–up ethics] attempts to train or evolve agents whose behavior emulates morally praiseworthy human behavior’’ (Allen et al. 2005: 149; emphasis added).”
BackgroundProlegomena to any future artificial moral agent
Allen, C., Varner, G., & Zinser, J. (2000) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/09528130050111428 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Machine morality: bottom-up and top-down approaches for modelling human moral faculties
Wallach, W., Allen, C., & Smit, I. (2008) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-007-0099-0 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment
Gabriel, I. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 · Cited by 896 · see citing works
How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., King, T. C., & Taddeo, M. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
“Questions such as this are inevitably intertwined with wider ethical and political challenges regarding who has the power or “standing” to participate in this process of evaluation, as well as how multiple preferences are measured and aggregated, as Baum’s trichotomic framework outlines (Baum 2017).”
BackgroundWieringa, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372833 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches
Mökander, J. (2023) · Digital Society · doi:10.1007/s44206-023-00074-y · Cited by 152 · see citing works
“Therefore, their design choices have direct and far-reaching implications for important issues, including social justice, economic growth and public safety (Baum, 2017).”
BackgroundA Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy
Baum, S. D. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3070741 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Self-citationMoral consideration of nonhumans in the ethics of artificial intelligence
Owe, A., & Baum, S. D. (2021) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00065-0 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Challenge of Value Alignment: From Fairer Algorithms to AI Safety
Gabriel, I., & Ghazavi, V. (2022) · Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.18 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
- Authors
- Baum, S. D.
- Corresponding author
- Baum, Seth D.
- ORCID
- Baum, Seth D.
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2017-09-30
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 165-176
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- OpenAlex
- W2757072513
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 14.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Future of Life Institute
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- AI ethics, future generations
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
