Cited by 388Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryLiterary and Philosophical Studies

Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Etzioni, Amitai, Etzioni, Oren·2017·The Journal of Ethics

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/s10892-017-9252-2

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • The synthesis of the focused review findings highlights the paramount importance of an ethical framework for the development and ethical implementation of AI technologies, exemplified by ChatGPT.

    “The synthesis of the findings of the focused review highlights the paramount importance of an ethical framework for the development and ethical implementation of AI technologies, exemplified by ChatGPT, aligned with previous research on the ethics of artificial intelligence (e.g., Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 2018;Etzioni & Etzioni, 2017).”

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: 5

  1. David A. Wise, and Jeffrey B. Liebman, 167-195. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  2. Harris, Mark. 2015. New pedestrian detector from Google could make self-driving cars cheaper. IEEE Spectrum. http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/new-pedestrian-detec tor-from-google-could-make-selfdriving-cars-cheaper.
  3. Hsu, Jeremy. 2016. Deep learning makes driverless cars better at spotting pedestrians. IEEE Spectrum. http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/deep-learning-makes-driverless- cars-better-at-spotting-pedestrians.
  4. Michael Anderson, and Susan Leigh Anderson, 88-114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Rozenfield, Monica. 2016. The next step for artificial intelligence is machines that get smarter on their own. The Institute. http://theinstitute.ieee.org/technology-topics/artificial-intelligence/the-next-step- for-artificial-intelligence-is-machines-that-get-smarter-on-their-own.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O.
Affiliations
Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Venue
The Journal of Ethics
Published
2017-03-07
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
403-418
ISSN
  • 1382-4554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8609
OpenAlex
W2592549567
Cited by
388
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
FWCI
44.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
Keywords
AI ethics, autonomous vehicles, moral agency, machine ethics, trolley problem, ethical decision-making, moral status of machines

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