Cited by 34Ethics and Social Impacts of AICybernetics and Technology in SocietyArt, Technology, and Culture

Images of artificial intelligence: A blind spot in AI ethics

Open access
Romele, Alberto·2022·Philosophy & Technology

Abstract

This paper argues that the AI ethics has generally neglected the issues related to the science communication of AI. In particular, the article focuses on visual communication about AI and, more specifically, on the use of certain stock images in science communication about AI — in particular, those characterized by an excessive use of blue color and recurrent subjects, such as androgyne faces, half-flesh and half-circuit brains, and variations on Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam . In the first section, the author refers to a “referentialist” ethics of science communication for an ethical assessment of these images. From this perspective, these images are unethical. While the ethics of science communication generally promotes virtues like modesty and humility, similar images are arrogant and overconfident. In the second section, the author uses French philosopher Jacques Rancière’s concepts of “distribution of the sensible,” “disagreement,” and “pensive image.” Rancière’s thought paves the way to a deeper critique of these images of AI. The problem with similar images is not their lack of reference to the “things themselves.” It rather lies in the way they stifle any possible forms of disagreement about AI. However, the author argues that stock images and other popular images of AI are not a problem per se, and they can also be a resource. This depends on the real possibility for these images to support forms of pensiveness. In the conclusion, the question is asked whether the kind of ethics or politics of AI images proposed in this article can be applied to AI ethics tout court.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13347-022-00498-3

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Previous research has generally seen AI-generated images as just a technical or ethical problem rather than examining their social effect.

    “In addition, previous research (e.g., Romele, 2022) has generally seen AIGIs as just a technical or ethical problem rather than examining their social effect.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Romele, A.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Romele, Alberto
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Published
2022-01-29
Volume
35
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
OpenAlex
W4210503149
Cited by
34
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029717)
  • Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
Keywords
AI ethics, science communication, visual communication, stock images, blue color symbolism, Jacques Rancière, distribution of the sensible, disagreement, image 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