CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics in Business and Education

How to design an AI ethics board

Open access
Schuett, Jonas, Reuel, Ann-Katrin, Carlier, Alexis·2025·AI and Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s43681-023-00409-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems poses significant risks to society. To reduce these risks to an acceptable level, AI companies need an effective risk management process and sound risk governance. In this paper, we explore a particular way in which AI companies can improve their risk governance: by setting up an AI ethics board. We identify five key design choices: (1) What responsibilities should the board have? (2) What should its legal structure be? (3) Who should sit on the board? (4) How should it make decisions? (5) And what resources does it need? We break each of these questions down into more specific sub-questions, list options, and discuss how different design choices affect the board’s ability to reduce societal risks from AI. Several failures have shown that designing an AI ethics board can be challenging. This paper provides a toolbox that can help AI companies to overcome these challenges.

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/s43681-023-00409-y

Cites

22 of 22 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 European regulatory model based on risk-based use case scenarios can serve as a guiding light for the maturity and implementation of ethical, legal and technical frameworks, fostering the creation of industrial and institutional instruments (e.g. AI sandboxes or AI ethics board) that guarantee that AI-based products and services comply with their requirements.

    “For this to occur, the European regulatory model based on riskbased use case scenarios can serve as a guiding light for the maturity and implementation of ethical, legal and technical frameworks, fostering the creation of industrial and institutional instruments (e.g. AI sandboxes or AI ethics board [149]) that guarantee that AI-based products and services comply with their requirements.”

    From Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation (2023) · cites this paper as [149]

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: 79

  1. Alaga, J., Schuett, J.: Coordinated pausing: An evaluation-based coordination scheme for frontier AI developers. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2310. 00374, 2023.
  2. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., Mané, D.: Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1606. 06565, 2016.
  3. Anderljung, M., Barnhart, J., Korinek, A., Leung, J., O'Keefe, C., Whittlestone, J., Avin, S., Brundage, M., Bullock, J., Cass-Beggs, D., et al.: Frontier AI regulation: Managing emerging risks to public safety. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2307. 03718, 2023.
  4. Anderljung, M., Hazell, J.: Protecting society from AI misuse: When are restrictions on capabilities warranted? arXiv preprint arXiv: 2303. 09377, 2023.
  5. Anderljung, M., Smith, E.T., O'Brien, J., Soder, L., Bucknall, B., Bluemke, E., Schuett, J., Trager, R., Strahm, L., Chowdhury, R.: Towards publicly accountable frontier LLMs: Building an external scrutiny ecosystem under the ASPIRE framework. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2311. 14711, 2023.
  6. Apaza, C.R., Chang, Y.: What makes whistleblowing effective: Whistleblowing in Peru and South Korea. Public Integrity 13(2), 113-130 (2011). https:// doi. org/ 10. 2753/ PIN10 99-99221 30202 · DOI
  7. Armstrong, S., Bostrom, N., Shulman, C.: Racing to the preci- pice: A model of artificial intelligence development. AI & Soc. 31, 201-206 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00146-015-0590-y · DOI
  8. Arnold, Z., Toner, H.: AI accidents: An emerging threat. Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Georgetown Univer- sity (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 51593/ 20200 072 · DOI
  9. van Asselt, M.B., Renn, O.: Risk governance. J. Risk Res. 14(4), 431-449 (2011). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13669 877. 2011. 553730 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Aven, T.: On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Anal. 31(4), 515-522 (2011). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1539-6924. 2010. 01528.x · DOI
  11. Aven, T.: On the meaning of a black swan in a risk context. Saf. Sci. 57, 44-51 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssci. 2013. 01. 016 · DOI
  12. Baldwin, R., Black, J.: Driving priorities in risk-based regulation: What's the problem? J. Law Soc. 43(4), 565-595 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jols. 12003 · DOI
  13. Belfield, H.: Activism by the AI community: Analysing recent achievements and future prospects. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 15-21 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33756 27. 33758 14 · DOI
  14. Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., Yao, A., Song, D., Abbeel, P., Harari, Y.N., Zhang, Y.-Q., Xue, L., Shalev-Shwartz, S., Hadfield, G., et al.: Managing AI risks in an era of rapid progress. arXiv pre- print arXiv: 2310. 17688, 2023.
  15. Bernstein, M.S., Levi, M., Magnus, D., Rajala, B.A., Satz, D., Waeiss, Q.: Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding. PNAS 118(52), e2117261118 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 21172 61118 · DOI
  16. Bietti, E.: From ethics washing to ethics bashing: A view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 210-219 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33510 95. 33728 60 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Birhane, A., Isaac, W., Prabhakaran, V., Díaz, M., Elish, M.C., Gabriel, I., Mohamed, S.: Power to the people? Opportunities and challenges for participatory AI. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mecha- nisms, and Optimization, pp. 1-8 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 35516 24. 35552 90 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Birkett, B.S.: The recent history of corporate audit committees. Accounting Historians Journal 13(2), 109-124 (1986).
  19. Bjørkelo, B.: Workplace bullying after whistleblowing: future research and implications. J. Manag. Psychol. 28(3), 306-323 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02683 94131 13211 78 · DOI
  20. Bostrom, N.: Existential risks: Analyzing human extinction sce- narios and related hazards. Journal Evol Technol, 9(1), 2001.
  21. Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Gar- finkel, B., Dafoe, A., Scharre, P., Zeitzoff, T., Filar, B., et al.: The malicious use of artificial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1802. 07228, 2018.
  22. Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Had- field, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., et al.: Toward trustworthy AI development: Mechanisms for supporting verifi- able claims. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2004. 07213, 2020.
  23. Buiten, M.: Towards intelligent regulation of artificial intelli- gence. Eur J Risk Regul 10(1), 41-59 (2019)
  24. Carlsmith, J.: Is power-seeking AI an existential risk? arXiv pre- print arXiv: 2206. 13353, 2022.
  25. Cave, S., ÓhÉigeartaigh, S.: An AI race for strategic advan- tage: Rhetoric and risks. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 36-40 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 32787 21. 32787 80 · DOI
  26. Chamberlain, J.: The risk-based approach of the European Union's proposed artificial intelligence regulation: Some com- ments from a tort law perspective. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 14(1), 1-13 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ err. 2022. 38 · DOI
  27. Christiano, P., Leike, J., Brown, T.B., Martic, M., Legg, S., Amo- dei, D.: Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1706. 03741, 2017.
  28. Cihon, P., Schuett, J., Baum, S.D.: Corporate governance of arti- ficial intelligence in the public interest. Information 12(7), 275 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ info1 20702 75 · DOI
  29. Cotton-Barratt, O., Daniel, M., Sandberg, A.: Defence in depth against human extinction: Prevention, response, resilience, and why they all matter. Global Pol. 11(3), 271-282 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1758-5899. 12786 · DOI
  30. Crofts, P., van Rijswijk, H.: Negotiating "evil": Google, Project Maven and the corporate form. Law Technol. Hum. 2(1), 1-16 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 5204/ lthj. v2i1. 1313 · DOI
  31. Davies, H., Zhivitskaya, M.: Three lines of defence: A robust organising framework, or just lines in the sand? Global Pol. 9, 34-42 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1758-5899. 12568 · DOI
  32. de Freitas, S.V., Sobral, M.F.F., Ribeiro, A.R.B., da Luz Soare, G.R.: Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environ. Sci. Eur. 32, 19 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12302-020-0300-3 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Douek, E.: The Meta Oversight Board and the empty promise of legitimacy. Harv. J. Law Technol. 37 (forthcoming). https:// ssrn. com/ abstr act= 45651 80
  34. Dungan, J., Waytz, A., Young, L.: The psychology of whistle- blowing. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 129-133 (2015). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2015. 07. 005 · DOI
  35. Falco, G., Shneiderman, B., Badger, J., Carrier, R., Dahbura, A., Danks, D., Eling, M., Goodloe, A., Gupta, J., Hart, C., et al.: Governing AI safety through independent audits. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3(7), 566-571 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s42256-021-00370-7 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Ganguli, D., Lovitt, L., Kernion, J., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Kada- vath, S., Mann, B., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Ndousse, K., et al.: Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2209. 07858, 2022.
  37. Goldstein, J.A., Sastry, G., Musser, M., DiResta, R., Gentzel, M., Sedova, K.: Generative language models and automated influ- ence operations: Emerging threats and potential mitigations. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2301. 04246, 2023.
  38. Grimes, M.G., Williams, T.A., Zhao, E.Y.: Anchors aweigh: The sources, variety, and challenges of mission drift. Acad. Manag. Rev. 44(4), 819-845 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2017. 0254 · DOI
  39. Gupta, A., Heath, V.: AI ethics groups are repeating one of soci- ety's classic mistakes. MIT Technology Review. https:// www. techn ology review. com/ 2020/ 09/ 14/ 10083 23/ ai-ethics-repre senta tion-artifi cial-intel ligen ce-opini on (2020). Accessed 8 Jan 2024
  40. Harris, D.: Deepfakes: False pornography is here and the law cannot protect you. Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 17(1), 99-128 (2018).
  41. Hazell, J.: Large language models can be used to effectively scale spear phishing campaigns. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2305. 06972, 2023.
  42. Hendrycks, D., Carlini, N., Schulman, J., Steinhardt, J.: Unsolved problems in ML safety. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2109. 13916, 2022.
  43. Hendrycks, D., Mazeika, M., Woodside, T.: An overview of cata- strophic AI risks. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2306. 12001, 2023.
  44. Ho, L., Barnhart, J., Trager, R., Bengio, Y., Brundage, M., Car- negie, A., Chowdhury, R., Dafoe, A., Hadfield, G., Levi, M., Snidal, D.: International institutions for advanced AI. arXiv pre- print arXiv: 2307. 04699, 2023.
  45. Jordan, S.R.: Designing artificial intelligence review boards: Creating risk metrics for review of AI. In IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society, pp. 1-7 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ ISTAS 48451. 2019. 89379 42 · DOI
  46. Jubb, P.B.: Whistleblowing: a restrictive definition and inter- pretation. J. Bus. Ethics 21, 77-94 (1999). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10059 22701 763 · DOI
  47. Klonick, K.: Insight the making of Facebook's supreme court. The New Yorker. https:// www. newyo rker. com/ tech/ annals-of- techn ology/ inside-the-making-of-faceb ooks-supre me-court (2021). Accessed 8 Jan 2024
  48. Kolev, K.D., Wangrow, D.B., Barker, V.L., III., Schepker, D.J.: Board committees in corporate governance: A cross-discipli- nary review and agenda for the future. J. Manage. Stud. 56(6), 1138-1193 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12444 · DOI
  49. Lalley, S.P., Weyl, E.G.: Quadratic voting: How mechanism design can radicalize democracy. AEA Papers and Proceedings 108, 33-37 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ pandp. 20181 002 · DOI
  50. Liang, P., Bommasani, R., Lee, T., Tsipras, D., Soylu, D., Yasu- naga, M., Zhang, Y., Narayanan, D., Wu, Y., Kumar, A., et al.: Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2211. 09110, 2022.
  51. Lundqvist, S.A.: Why firms implement risk governance: stepping beyond traditional risk management to enterprise risk management. J. Account. Public Policy 34(5), 441-466 (2015). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jaccp ubpol. 2015. 05. 002 · DOI
  52. Maas, M.M.: Aligning AI regulation to sociotechnical change. In The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor dhb/ 97801 97579 329. 013. 22 · DOI
  53. Mahler, T.: Between risk management and proportionality: The risk-based approach in the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act proposal. In Nordic Yearbook of Law and Informatics, pp. 247-270 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 53292/ 208f5 901. 38a67 238 · DOI
  54. Mazri, C.: (Re) defining emerging risks. Risk Anal. 37(11), 2053-2065 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ risa. 12759 · DOI
  55. Mohamed, S., Png, M.-T., Isaac, W.: Decolonial AI: Decolo- nial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence. Phil. & Technol. 33, 659-684 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13347-020-00405-8 104. · DOI · Paper page
  56. Mökander, J., Floridi, L.: Operationalising AI governance through ethics-based auditing: An industry case study. AI Ethics 3, 451-468 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s43681-022-00171-7 105. · DOI
  57. Mökander, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L.: Ethics-based auditing of automated decision-making systems: Nature, scope, and limitations. Sci. Eng. Ethics 27(44), 1-30 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11948-021-00319-4 106. · DOI
  58. Mökander, J., Schuett, J., Kirk, H.R., Floridi, L.: Auditing large language models: A three-layered approach. AI Ethics, 1-31 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s43681-023-00289-2 107. · DOI · Paper page
  59. Morley, J., Elhalal, A., Garcia, F., Kinsey, L., Mökander, J., Floridi, L.: Ethics as a service: A pragmatic operationalisation of AI ethics. Mind. Mach. 31(2), 239-256 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11023-021-09563-w 109. · DOI
  60. Morris, M.R., Sohl-dickstein, J., Fiedel, N., Warkentin, T., Dafoe, A., Faust, A., Farabet, C., Legg, S.: Levels of AGI: Operational- izing progress on the path to AGI. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2311. 02462, 2023. 111. Mouton, C.A., Lucas, C., Guest, E.: The operational risks of AI in large-scale biological attacks: A red-team approach. RAND Corporation (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 7249/ RRA29 77-1 112. · DOI
  61. Naudé, W., Dimitri, N.: The race for an artificial general intel- ligence: Implications for public policy. AI & Soc. 35, 367-379 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00146-019-00887-x 114. · DOI
  62. Near, J.P., Miceli, M.P.: Effective whistle-blowing. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 679-708 (1995). https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258791 115. · DOI
  63. Posner, E.A., Weyl, E.G.: Quadratic voting as efficient corporate governance. U. Chi. L. Rev. 81(1), 251-272 (2014). 138. Raji, I.D., Buolamwini, J.: Actionable auditing: Investigat- ing the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial AI products. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 429-435 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33066 18. 33142 44 139 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Rando, J., Paleka, D., Lindner, D., Heim, L., Tramèr, F.: Red- teaming the Stable Diffusion safety filter. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2210. 04610, 2022. 141. Sætra, H.S.: A framework for evaluating and disclosing the ESG related impacts of AI with the SDGs. Sustainability 13(15), 8503 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su131 58503 142. · DOI
  65. Sandbrink, J.B., Artificial intelligence and biological misuse: Differentiating risks of language models and biological design tools. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2306. 13952, 2023. 143.
  66. Sandbrink, J.B., Hobbs, H., Swett, J., Dafoe, A., Sandberg, A.: Differential technology development: A responsible innovation principle for navigating technology risks. SSRN. https:// ssrn. com/ abstr act= 42136 70 (2022). Accessed 8 Jan 2024 144.
  67. Schuett, J.: AGI labs need an internal audit function. arXiv pre- print arXiv: 2305. 17038, 2023. 147. Schuett, J.: Three lines of defense against risks from AI. AI & Soc. (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00146-023-01811-0 148. · DOI · Paper page
  68. Schuett, J.: Risk management in the Artificial Intelligence Act. Eur. J. Risk Regul., 1-19 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ err. 2023.1 149. Schuett, J., Dreksler, N., Anderljung, M., McCaffary, D., Heim, L., Bluemke, E., Garfinkel, B.: Towards best practices in AGI safety and governance: A survey of expert opinion. arXiv pre- print arXiv: 2305. 07153, 2023. 150. Seele, P., Schultz, M.D.: From greenwashing to machine wash- ing: A model and future directions derived from reasoning by analogy. J. Bus. Ethics 178, 1063-1089 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10551-022-05054-9 151. · DOI
  69. Seger, E.: In defence of principlism in AI ethics and govern- ance. Philos. Technol. 35(45), 1-7 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13347-022-00538-y 152. · DOI
  70. Shelby, R., Rismani, S., Henne, K., Moon, A., Rostamzadeh, N., Nicholas, P., Yilla, N., Gallegos, J., Smart, A., Garcia, E., Virk, G.: Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2210. 05791, 2022. 155. Shevlane, T.: Structured access: An emerging paradigm for safe AI deployment. In The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor dhb/ 97801 97579 329. 013. 39 156 · DOI
  71. Shevlane, T., Dafoe, A.: The offense-defense balance of scien- tific knowledge: Does publishing AI research reduce misuse? In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 173-179 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33756 27. 33758 15 157 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Singer, P., Tse, Y.F.: AI ethics: The case for including ani- mals. AI Ethics 3, 539-551 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s43681-022-00187-z 160. · DOI
  73. Trager, R., Harack, B., Reuel, A., Carnegie, A., Heim, L., Ho, L., Kreps, S., Lall, R., Larter, O., ÓhÉigeartaigh, S., et al.: Inter- national governance of civilian AI: A jurisdictional certification approach. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2308. 15514, 2023. 168. UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology: Emerg- ing processes for frontier AI safety. https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ publi catio ns/ emerg ing-proce sses-for-front ier-ai-safety (2023). Accessed 8 Jan 2024 169.
  74. Urbina, F., Lentzos, F., Invernizzi, C., Ekins, S.: Dual use of artificial-intelligence-powered drug discovery. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4(3), 189-191 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s42256-022-00465-9 170. · DOI · Paper page
  75. van Duuren, E., Plantinga, A., Scholtens, B.: ESG integration and the investment management process: Fundamental investing reinvented. J. Bus. Ethics 138, 525-533 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10551-015-2610-8 171. · DOI
  76. van Maanen, G.: AI ethics, ethics washing, and the need to politi- cize data ethics. DISO 1(9), 1-3 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s44206-022-00013-3 172. · DOI
  77. Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al.: Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2112. 04359, 2021. 175. Westerlund, M.: The emergence of deepfake technology: a review. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 9(11), 39-52 (2019). 176. Whyte, C.: Deepfake news: AI-enabled disinformation as a multi- level public policy challenge. J. Cyber Policy 5(2), 199-217 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23738 871. 2020. 17971 35 177 · DOI
  78. Wong, D., Floridi, L.: Meta's Oversight Board: A review and critical assessment. Minds Mach. 33, 261-284 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11023-022-09613-x 178. · DOI
  79. Ziegler, D.M., Stiennon, N., Wu, J., Brown, T.B., Radford, A., Amodei, D., Christiano, P., Irving, G.: Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1909. 08593, 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schuett, J., Reuel, A.-K., & Carlier, A.
Affiliations
Centre for the Governance of AI (GB)
Corresponding author
Schuett, Jonas
ORCID
Venue
AI and Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-02-15
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
863-881
ISSN
  • 2730-5953 (ISSN-L)
  • 2730-5961
DOI
10.1007/s43681-023-00409-y
OpenAlex
W4391843890
Cited by
46
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4
FWCI
17.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • AI and Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
AI governance, risk governance, AI risk management, board design, societal risks of AI, board decision-making, board composition

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