Cited by 192Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsCybernetics and Technology in Society

What the Near Future of Artificial Intelligence Could Be

Open access
Floridi, Luciano·2019·Philosophy & Technology

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/s13347-019-00345-y

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • We will not develop AI systems to gradually adjust to difficult situations; rather, we will gradually turn difficult tasks into complex tasks.

    “we will not develop AI systems in such a way that they will gradually adjust to difficult situations; rather, we will gradually turn difficult tasks into complex tasks.”

    From ChatGPT, Education, and Understanding (2025) · cites this paper as Floridi 2019

    Section 4 (page unavailable) says successful AI development will probably involve translating difficult tasks into complex ones by making environments AI-friendly. The citing sentence makes this a categorical prediction and rules out developing AI systems that adapt to difficult situations, whereas the source presents translation as one likely path, not the only one. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI systems thrive in complexity but fail miserably in difficulty.

    “Now, AI systems thrive in the complexity, but they fail miserably in the difficulty.”

    From ChatGPT, Education, and Understanding (2025) · cites this paper as Floridi 2019

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

3 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Campbell, M., Joseph Hoane, A., Jr., & Hsu, F.-h. J. (2002). Deep blue. Artificial Intelligence, 134(1-2), 57- 83.
  2. Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  3. McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (2006). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, August 31, 1955. AI Magazine, 27(4), 12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Floridi, L.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Floridi, Luciano
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Published
2019-03
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
1-15
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
OpenAlex
W2925023100
Cited by
191
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 13 · 2016: 1
FWCI
38.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
artificial intelligence, future of AI, artificial intelligence forecasting, AI regulation, EU AI policy, dystopian scenarios, AI risks, AI ethics

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