Cited by 43Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

AI-deploying organizations are key to addressing ‘perfect storm’ of AI risks

Open access
Curtis, Caitlin, Gillespie, Nicole, Lockey, Steven·2023·AI and Ethics

Abstract

We argue that a perfect storm of five conditions heightens the risk of harm to society from artificial intelligence: (1) the powerful, invisible nature of AI, (2) low public awareness and AI literacy, (3) rapid scaled deployment of AI, (4) insufficient regulation, and (5) the gap between trustworthy AI principles and practices. To prevent harm, fit-for-purpose regulation and public AI literacy programs have been recommended, but education and government regulation will not be sufficient: AI-deploying organizations need to play a central role in creating and deploying trustworthy AI in line with the principles of trustworthy AI, and taking accountability to mitigate the risks.

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/s43681-022-00163-7

Cites

39 of 39 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 accelerating shift towards new modes of digital public governance requires an adaptation of the legal framework.

    “The accelerating shift towards new modes of digital public governance, therefore, requires an adaptation of the legal framework-and there is broad support for this view (see, e.g., Curtis et al. (2023)).”

    From Resh(AI)ping Good Administration: Addressing the Mass Effects of Public Sector Digitalisation (2024) · cites this paper as Curtis et al. (2023)

    In “Conditions heightening the risk of harm from AI systems” (page unavailable), the paper says public-sector AI adoption is increasing while regulation of AI systems lags behind. Its policy recommendations support adapting regulation for AI, but it does not address the broader shift to new modes of digital public governance or the legal framework for that shift generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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: 3

  1. [15]Ensign, D., Friedler, S. A., Neville, S., Scheidegger, C., Venkatasubramanian, S.: Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policing. In: Friedler, S.A. Wilson, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency vol. 81 160–171 (PMLR, 2018)
  2. [17]United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.: Artificial intelligence risks to privacy demand urgent action – Bachelet [Press Release]. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/media.aspx (2021)
  3. [22]Feldstein, S.: The global expansion of AI surveillance. vol. 17 https://carnegieendowment.org/files/WP-Feldstein-AISurveillance_final1.pdf (2019)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Curtis, C., Gillespie, N., & Lockey, S.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Curtis, Caitlin
Venue
AI and Ethics
Published
2022-05-24
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
145-153
ISSN
  • 2730-5953 (ISSN-L)
  • 2730-5961
OpenAlex
W4282939097
Cited by
43
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5
FWCI
9.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI and Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • KPMG (RM2018001776)
  • The University of Queensland
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
AI risks, trustworthy AI, AI literacy, AI regulation, accountability, AI awareness, AI deployment, AI governance

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