The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 42 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A high-level overview of AI ethics
Open accessAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics is a field that has emerged as a response to the growing concern regarding the impact of AI. It can be read as a nascent field and as a subset of the wider field of digital ethics, which addresses concerns raised by the development and deployment of new digital technologies, such as AI, big data analytics, and blockchain technologies. The principle aim of this article is to provide a high-level conceptual discussion of the field by way of introducing basic concepts and sketching approaches and central themes in AI ethics. The first part introduces concepts by noting what is being referred to by "AI" and "ethics", etc.; the second part explores some predecessors to AI ethics, namely engineering ethics, philosophy of technology, and science and technology studies; the third part discusses three current approaches to AI ethics namely, principles, processes, and ethical consciousness; and finally, the fourth part discusses central themes in translating ethics in to engineering practice. We conclude by summarizing and noting the inherent interdisciplinary future directions and debates in AI ethics.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article offers a high-level conceptual overview of AI ethics as a nascent, interdisciplinary subfield of digital ethics, tracing its predecessors and current approaches. It argues that AI ethics spans principles, processes, and ethical consciousness, and identifies themes for translating ethics into engineering practice.
Key findings
- AI ethics is framed as a subset of digital ethics, covering the psychological, social, and political impacts of AI; it is described as highly interdisciplinary and rapidly evolving.
- The paper sketches three current approaches to AI ethics: principles, processes (including ethical-by-design and governance), and ethical consciousness.
- The principles approach is said to be plagued by vagueness, incongruence, unclear terminology, and lack of consensus; as of April 2020, there were over 80 AI statements of principles.
- A 2019 review cited by the paper identified eleven “ethical principles” in AI ethics guidelines, listed in order of prevalence: transparency; justice, fairness, equity; non-maleficence; responsibility and accountability; privacy; beneficence; freedom and autonomy; trust; dignity; sustainability; and solidarity.
Methods
- Design: a high-level conceptual overview and introduction to AI ethics, structured into four parts: concepts and terms; predecessors; three current approaches; and themes in translating ethics into engineering practice.
- Data or sample: no empirical dataset or sample is used; the article draws on literature from the humanities and engineering.
- Main analysis: conceptual synthesis and high-level analysis of definitions, predecessor disciplines, approaches, and major themes, rather than systematic review or empirical testing.
Limitations
- The paper states that its concepts are “not to be read as a series of definitive definitions” but as introductions and points of departure, and that readers should engage critically with them.
- The paper states that its selection of three predecessor disciplines is not exhaustive and notes that other bodies of literature, perhaps most importantly the ethics of robotics, are not discussed.
- The paper states that the predominant discourse of AI ethics is found within Western European and North American contexts, which it also reads in terms of access to English-language literature; evident from the text, the overview is not a systematic review and offers no empirical validation of its claims.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
26 Own interpretation · 25 Not checked yet · 24 No basis given · 1 Sources not found
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, the principles are mostly vague and thereby difficult to interpret (e.g., the accountability principle “individuals and organizations need to be held to account,” does not provide an expansive explanation of how this would look in practice).52,53”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [52] Verma S. Rubin J. Fairness definitions explained 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare) 2018 IEEE 1 7
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites [53] Dwork C. Hardt M. Pitassi T. Reingold O. Zemel R.S. Fairness through awareness arXiv 2011 CoRR abs/1104.3913 (2011). preprint arXiv:1104.3913 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Second, the principles are incongruent, i.e., within the same set of principles, the individual principles contradict one another (e.g., both the principle of “openness” and the principle of “privacy” are asserted together, where respect for one is likely to come at the cost of implementation and respect for the other).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [52] Verma S. Rubin J. Fairness definitions explained 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare) 2018 IEEE 1 7
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites [53] Dwork C. Hardt M. Pitassi T. Reingold O. Zemel R.S. Fairness through awareness arXiv 2011 CoRR abs/1104.3913 (2011). preprint arXiv:1104.3913 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Finally, although there is overlap between the various statements of principles, there is also a clear lack of consensus.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Jobin A. Ienca M. Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines Nat. Mach. Intell. 1 2019 389 399 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The most well-established form of this is Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA)69,70”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Processes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [69] Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Information Commissioner’s Office https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-1-0.pdf 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites [70] Kazim E. Koshiyama A. The interrelation between data and AI ethics in the context of impact assessments AI Ethics 2020 10.1007/s43681-020-00029-w source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Third, there is considerable lack of clarity regarding terminology/concepts (e.g., principles of accountability, transparency, and openness are complimentary and, in some respects, synonymous expressions).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [52] Verma S. Rubin J. Fairness definitions explained 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare) 2018 IEEE 1 7
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites [53] Dwork C. Hardt M. Pitassi T. Reingold O. Zemel R.S. Fairness through awareness arXiv 2011 CoRR abs/1104.3913 (2011). preprint arXiv:1104.3913 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, there is the issue of jurisdiction, where technological development and deployment are obscured through internationalism, which does not respect or easily lend to jurisdictional oversight (e.g., nation states and international unions [European Union, African Union, etc.]).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the context of AI systems there is: first, no common aims and fiduciary duties (legal or ethical relationships of trust), i.e., the relationship between the doctor and the patient is disanalogous to the relationship between the engineer/company and the public);”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, straightforward recourse to the law is not possible. This is because there are a number of nuanced concerns.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this is based on the principle, and current legal standing (see section Legislation), that humans are ultimately accountable and thereby responsible for harms that may result from AI systems.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Accountability
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 63
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, a comprehensive 2019 review of AI ethics guidelines found eleven “ethical principles” namely (1) transparency; (2) justice, fairness, equity; (3) non-maleficence; (4) responsibility and accountability; (5) privacy; (6) beneficence; (7) freedom and autonomy; (8) trust; (9) dignity; (10) sustainability; and (11) solidarity. These principles were identified through frequency of the terms”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, to date (April 2020) there are over 80 AI statements of principles.5”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Jobin A. Ienca M. Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines Nat. Mach. Intell. 1 2019 389 399 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is a growing and evolving literature that has significantly increased in the past number of years (2017–) and this literature continues to evolve with reviews from a computer science perspective5 and from the philosophical and humanities perspective.6, 7, 8”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Jobin A. Ienca M. Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines Nat. Mach. Intell. 1 2019 389 399 source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Müller V.C. Ethics of artificial intelligence and robotics Zalta E.N. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2020 https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/ethics-ai/
- Not checked yetcites [7] Coeckelbergh M. AI Ethics 2020 MIT Press
- Not checked yetcites [8] Gordon J.-S. Nyholm S. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence 2021 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As noted above, there is considerable ambiguity and lack of consensus in the field of digital regulation (perhaps with the exception of GDPR) and standards, thus making it difficult to establish best practices in the domain of translating principles into engineering practice.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, there have been an increasing number of high-profile cases of harm that has resulted either because of the misuse of the technology (e.g., psychometric voter manipulation,1,2 facial recognition surveillance, mass data collection without consent, etc.), or as a result of the technology having design flaws (e.g., bias in cases of recidivism,3 loan rejection, and medical misdiagnosis, etc.).4”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Krotzek J.L. Inside the voter’s mind: the effect of psychometric microtargeting on feelings toward and propensity to vote for a candidate Int. J. Commun. 13 2019 3609 3629
- Not checked yetcites [2] Costa E. Halpern D. The behavioural science of online harm and manipulation, and what to do about it: an exploratory paper to spark ideas and debate The Behavioural Insights Team Report 2019 1 82
- Not checked yetcites [3] Chouldechova A. Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments arXiv 2016 1 6 28632438
- Not checked yetcites [4] Bellamy R.K. Dey K. Hind M. Hoffman S.C. Houde S. Kannan K. AI Fairness 360: an extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias arXiv 2018 1810.01943
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“To date more general “data ethics” canvases and process frameworks have emerged,71 and impact assessments specific to AI are being called for and developed.54,72”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Processes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [71] Data Ethics Canvas Open data institute https://theodi.org/article/data-ethics-canvas/ 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [54] White Paper on Artificial Intelligence A European Approach to Excellence and Trust 2020 European Commission
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [72] Jordan S. Fazelpour S. Koshiyama A. Kueper J. DeChant C. Leong B. Creating a Tool to Reproducibly Estimate the Ethical Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2019 AI PULSE Papers
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, there are debates concerning the value derived from personal data and the distribution of financial benefits derived thereof (e.g., mass data-driven business models).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Privacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stewardship is the management of this multi-layered process and has come to be a discipline and set of skills in its own right.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Privacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, privacy has emerged as a political concern, with mass surveillance and personal data being used to target and engage in recommendation and manipulation (for both political and economic ends).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Privacy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding this specific concern, continental law (exemplified by EU’s legislative agenda) typified through a top-down (first-principles) legal philosophy is less likely to have this problem.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sharing many of the themes from the previous section, it encompasses the integration of codes of conduct and compliance; however, it also expands to consider reputational issues, (corporate) social responsibility, and, most relevant to the development of ethical consciousness, concerns for institutional philosophy and culture.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Ethical consciousness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, as noted above, there is overlap and these terms require considerable disambiguation.5”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Jobin A. Ienca M. Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines Nat. Mach. Intell. 1 2019 389 399 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, in the common law tradition (typically found in the anglophone), based on case and precedent, the statutes accommodate ambiguity and contradiction (relying”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, the two main approaches to AI ethics has been a principles approach, which can be read broadly as an attempt to guide and structure the uses of the technology (thereby mitigating the risk of misuse) and an ethical-by-design approach, which seeks to mitigate the harms that result from design flaws.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This section closes with an exploration of “human centric AI,” which we take to be the emerging overarching value framework of AI ethics.9”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Concepts and terms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Lukowicz P. The challenge of human centric AI Digitale Welt 3 2019 9 10 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is a problem with respect to automated systems, where increasingly there is a call to automate regulatory compliance via expressing laws in codes/protocols (the ambiguity and contradiction accommodated by common law does not translate in this context).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Bio/medical ethics can be turned to for inspiration when approaching and developing AI ethics due to the fact that it is well established, robust, has accountability mechanisms and is an example of the ethics of an applied science with significant social impact60, 61, 62, 63, 64”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60] Mittelstadt B. Floridi L. The ethics of big data: current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts Sci. Eng. Ethics 22 2016 303 341 26002496 source
- Not matchedcites [61] Mittelstadt B. Designing the health-related internet of things: ethical principles and guidelines Information 8 2017 77
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [62] Christine H. Making the ethical practical: ideas for applying a digital health ethical framework for charities. DataKind.org https://www.datakind.org/blog/making-the-ethical-practical-ideas-for-applying-a-digital-health-ethical-framework-for-charities 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Like digital ethics, AI ethics is thus highly interdisciplinary and is rapidly evolving.6,10,11”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Concepts and terms > Digital and AI ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Müller V.C. Ethics of artificial intelligence and robotics Zalta E.N. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2020 https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/ethics-ai/
- Not checked yetcites [10] Kriebitz A. Lütge C. Artificial intelligence and human rights: a business ethical assessment Bus. Hum. Rights J. 5 2020 84 104 source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Floridi L. The 4th Revolution 2014 Oxford University Press
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is noteworthy that engineering ethics is predominantly driven by self-assembled communities and associations, who develop their own standards, are process orientated (e.g., case study exploration, etc.), and typically go beyond legal compliance.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Predecessors to AI ethics > Engineering ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics is a field that has emerged as a response to the growing concern regarding the impact of AI.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics is a field that has emerged as a response to the growing concern regarding the impact of AI.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, and as a corollary to the previous point, from a design perspective, implementation of ethical principles will need to be balanced and “traded-off.””
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature is typically negative, highlighting the dangers, risks, and loss of meaning through adoption of new technologies and increased technocratization with respect to the ordering principles of society.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Predecessors to AI ethics > Philosophy of technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, legal compliance is a clear and objective standard by which to judge and evaluate ethics (where lawfulness can be read as a necessary but insufficient condition of ethics).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This empirical turn gave birth to science and technologies studies (circa 1980s–).43”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Predecessors to AI ethics > Science and technology studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] Franssen M. Vermaas P.E. Kroes P. Meijers A.W.M. Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn 2016 Springer
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above approaches can be thought of in terms of (1) the theoretical and abstract, (2) the practical and process, and (3) culture and society, and in turn can be thought of as all necessary in the development of a mature AI ethics, i.e., one that is truly reflective of the nuances and the inherent complexity found in all forms of applied ethics.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in the context of new digital technologies, such as AI, education and training will require continuous updating”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ethical consciousness can be read as coming out of business ethics,10 which is an applied ethics within the commercial environment.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Ethical consciousness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Kriebitz A. Lütge C. Artificial intelligence and human rights: a business ethical assessment Bus. Hum. Rights J. 5 2020 84 104 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drawing particularly on the latter, ethical consciousness can be stated in terms of societal and culture shifts in the awareness of citizens, technology developers and deployers, policy makers, and leaders of industry, in the ethical dimensions of new digital technologies.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Ethical consciousness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it is also clear that digital ethics is a highly interdisciplinary field, requiring expertise that spans the sciences (computer science) and the humanities (philosophy, law, sociology, psychology, etc.).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Concepts and terms > Digital and AI ethics
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“and finally, no robust legal and professional accountability mechanisms is present, i.e., in medicine a doctor can be “struck off” and/or a license withdrawn.67”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [67] Mittelstadt B. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI Nat. Machine Intelligence 2019 1 7
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do this because we maintain the philosophical position that law and ethics are highly interdependent and because we note that key themes of governance, accountability, and transparency (see section 'Major Themes in AI Ethics' 5) draw heavily on jurisprudence.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Concepts and terms > Ethics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The philosophy of technology emerged circa the 1920s and can be read as continuing until today (major figures are Martin Heidegger [d. 1976], Herbert Marcuse [d. 1979], and Jurgen Habermas).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Predecessors to AI ethics > Philosophy of technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The notion that there is a social constructionism/contingency to technology is central to science and technology studies.44,45”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Predecessors to AI ethics > Science and technology studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Winner L. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109 1980 121 136
- Not checked yetcites [45] Zittrain J.L. The generative internet Harvard Law Journal 119 2006 10.1145/1435417.1435426
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Auditing and impact assessments involve the creation of metrics for tracing and tracking decisions, making the technologies accessible for verification and accountability.68”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Processes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [68] Koshiyama A. Kazim E. Treleaven P. Rai P. Szpruch L. Pavey G. Towards Algorithm Auditing: A Survey on Managing Legal, Ethical and Technological Risks of AI, ML and Associated Algorithms 2021 SSRN PMC11285902 39076787 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Such a shift will be facilitated through an increase in digital literacy, particularly important for meaningful human intervention and issues of consent.73”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Ethical consciousness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] Miller C. Coldicutt R. People, power and technology: the tech workers’ view. Doteveryone https://doteveryone.org.uk/report/workersview 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“second, there is no professional history and norms, i.e., the technologies are still at an early stage and the field of AI ethics is still contested (as discussed above);”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be read as a nascent field and as a subset of the wider field of digital ethics, which addresses concerns raised by the development and deployment of new digital technologies, such as AI, big data analytics, and blockchain technologies.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“We read AI ethics as a nascent field and as a subset of the wider field of digital ethics, which addresses concerns raised by the development and deployment of new digital technologies, such as AI, big data analytics, and blockchain technologies.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the predominant discourse of AI ethics is found within the Western European and North American contexts, which is also to be read in terms of our access to the English language literature.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Concepts and terms > Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Drawing on the European Commission's “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI” (2019),30 we note that these themes can be read as falling under the umbrella of “Trustworthy AI” (introduced above in Concepts and terms).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI: High-level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (8th April 2019) European Commission.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This also challenges any attempt to silo questions and responsibilities; AI ethics is not exclusively in the purview of philosophers or lawyers or sociologists or engineers, etc., rather it is inherently interdisciplinary.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, technologies can be used for good and for bad.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Predecessors to AI ethics > Science and technology studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as such an increase in “literacy” is crucial in informing all relevant stakeholders and society at large and will be facilitated through a holistic education and training agenda (touching upon and integrating ethics, policy, and engineering).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The idea here is that AI engineers may not be best placed to understand and discern the ethical dimension and potential impact of the technology and, as such, experts from anthropology, sociology, philosophy, psychology, law, etc., i.e., “ethicists,” can be integrated into the team at the development stage.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Processes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This also includes a distinction between fairness in terms of treatment and fairness in terms of impact.78”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Fairness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [78] Lipton Z. McAuley J. Chouldechova A. Does mitigating ML’s impact disparity require treatment disparity? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2018 NeurIPS 8125 8135
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ethical AI is a branch of applied ethics and, as such, is inherently concerned with how AI systems impact human beings.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Accountability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we believe that the relationship between AI and the economy will become a major theme of AI ethics.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Conclusion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This relies on a distinction between the private-personal and the public-political/communal sphere, where the former is seen as demanding a higher level of respect for privacy than the latter.76”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Privacy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [76] Mittelstadt B. From individual to group privacy in big data analytics Philos. Technol. 30 2017 475 494
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“•Participation: communication, in an accessible and explicable vernacular, to users will facilitate meaningful engagement of wider society with AI systems.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Fairness
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, accountability is central for the possibility of redress and assigning legal liability.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Accountability
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“given the substantial literature, practice, and regulation around data ethics, we anticipate that the relationship between data ethics and AI will increase in importance.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“debates about how AI impacts the structure of the state, the very notion of a nation (with clear juridical remit), and trust in government communication, management, and service provision, will become central themes within AI ethics.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another issue is consent, where respect for human agency would entail meaningful and informed consent, including the right to withdraw consent and be presented with consent mechanisms that are explicable in the context of an average user.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Human well-being
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“•Malicious use: a system may have been developed for one use and then be appropriated and/or modified for another, malicious, use, i.e., dual use (e.g., the weaponization of delivery drones).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Safety
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the context of robustness this is important because a system that is unreliable and does not reproduce results will lead to untrustworthiness in the system.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Safety
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we believe that concerns regarding the natural environment and climate will also feature strongly in AI ethics.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Conclusion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that AI ethics will develop such that it will become clear that the field is inherently interdisciplinary.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A central question is what definition(s) of fairness/justice to commit to, i.e., there are mutually exclusive theories of fairness, such as corrective, distributive, procedural, substantive, comparative, etc.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Fairness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although much of the discourse in AI ethics concerns mitigation of harms, it is also clear that there are significant benefits that people and society will gain from these systems.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Fairness
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the legal status of an algorithm with respect to responsibilities and obligations of those developing and deploying them, is likely to raise a number of complex questions regarding the nature of legal culpability and even questions of agency and personhood. We anticipate that this question will increase in complexity and importance the more AI systems are embedded in people's daily lives and in”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [84] Zekos G.I. AI and legal issues Economics and Law of Artificial Intelligence 2021 Springer 401 430
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“aside from affordability, designs should be user-friendly (e.g., toward different demographics, cultural and linguistic groups, and, in particular, those with disabilities), i.e., there is not a one-size-fits-all approach.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Fairness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“i.e., explicability will depend on the technical knowledge of the person, what role they play in the development and deployment of the system, and what kind of end-user they are.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Transparency
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ensuring human responsibility also entails mapping of duties and risks to responsibilities and roles within an institution.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Accountability
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We can divide this into two approaches, namely (1) impact assessments and (2) auditing of technology.821”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Accountability
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [82] Examining the Black Box: Tools for assessing algorithmic systems. (2020). Ada-Lovelace Institute & DataKind UK. https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/examining-the-black-box-tools-for-assessing-algorithmic-systems/.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This theme is based on the principle of openness, which is crucial to establishing trust and accountability.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Transparency
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we recognize AI ethics as a nascent field that is open and plural in its various standpoints.”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, although the discussion is presented in terms of mitigating risks and potential harms, it is important to bear in mind the considerable benefits of AI for people and society.75”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Human well-being
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75] Taddeo M. Floridi L. How AI can be a force for good Science 361 2018 751 752 30139858
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With respect to the latter, it is not possible to fully anticipate risk and, as such, mechanisms can be put into place to mitigate this (e.g., fallback mechanisms, automatic stops—statistical or rule-based, metrics, periodic request for human operators to continue operating, etc.).”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Major themes in AI ethics > Safety
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“AI explainability underscores the insights in how AI systems functioned and made a decision should be well informed and explicable to the stakeholders, though the explicability relies on their technical expertise and role (Kazim & Koshiyama, 2021; UNESCO, 2019).”
From Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education (2023) · cites this paper as Kazim & Koshiyama, 2021
In the citing paper
“These concerns echo the wider discourse on AI ethics86–88, particularly in healthcare89, and touch on issues of fairness, bias, non-maleficence, transparency, and privacy.”
From The ethics of ChatGPT in medicine and healthcare: a systematic review on large language models (LLMs) (2024) · cites this paper as [86]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > Three approaches: Principles, processes, and ethical consciousness > Principles
“the UK House of Lords report “Regulating in a Digital World” [2018]”
§ A high-level overview of AI ethics > References
“51. Regulating in a Digital World House of Lords Select Committee on Communications https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldcomuni/299/299.pdf 2019”
Citations
Cites
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2004.842673 · Cited by 25,268
Artificial intelligence: a modern approach
Kumar, D. A., Balasubramanian, S., Byeon, D. H., & Manerkar, P. G. V. (1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1577 · Cited by 22,191
Advances in neural information processing systems 7
(1996) · Computers & Mathematics with Applications · doi:10.1016/s0898-1221(96)90463-0 · Cited by 14,759
The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction
Lu, Z. Q. J. (2010) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2010.00646_6.x · Cited by 12,916
(2016) · Cited by 11,679
Artificial intelligence: A modern approach
Nilsson, N. J. (1996) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(96)00007-0 · Cited by 10,730
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Johnson, J. D., Li, J., & Chen, Z. (2000) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/s0925-2312(00)00324-6 · Cited by 8,825
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 1993, Vol. 11
- Treleaven, 2015, Vol. 3
- Zittrain, 2006, The generative internet, Harvard Law Journal, 119
- Wang, 2019, 64, 243
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–269 of 269
Corporate Governance And AI Ethics In Tech Companies: A Comparative Study Of The US And UKPreprint
Reddy, P. A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5000653
The Theory of Cybernetics for Managing Human-AI Interactions: A Framework for AI Management
Osmanoglu, B. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84457-7_16
Kusmitsch, C. J., Unger, H., Schmidlechner, P., Simmank, F., & Neuhaus, A. R. (2025) · Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45544-6_16
Electrical and Computer Engineering Freshmen and Generative AI: Awareness, Attitudes, and Ethics
Mohammed, C., & Rocke, S. (2025) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon62633.2025.11016545
Ethical Framework for the Application of Intelligent Systems in Iranian Universities
Saed, S., Montazer, G. A., Kalashi, K., & Olyaee, S. (2025) · International and National Conference on E-Learning and E-Teaching (ICeLeT) · doi:10.1109/icelet66022.2025.11025202
Wang, D., Shang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-90080-8_10
Mapping the Horizons of Translational Ethics: an NLP analysisPreprint
Spitale, G., Germani, F., & Bærøe, K. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6990403/v1
The future of narcolepsy treatment: what role will artificial intelligence play?
Maghsoudi, A., Ramezani, A., Razjouyan, J., & Sharafkhaneh, A. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-30004-2.00050-x
Rismawati, R., Hasan, F., Widiasmara, A., Nur, M., & Navghare, R. A. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5951-9.ch008
Muhsin, W. A. (2025) · Online Journal of Art and Design · doi:10.30935/ojad/2513033
Understanding Generative AI from Multidisciplinary Perspectives
Zou, M., Poncibò, C., Ebers, M., & Calo, R. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009492553.003
The 3D model of ethical AI practice
Ball, B., & Helliwell, A. C. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00812-7
Does Machines Matter: Ethical Issues and Artificial Intelligence
Kaur, D., & Singh, R. (2025) · Information systems engineering and management · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-96871-6_1
Principles and Ethics for the Implementation of Digital Transformation on the Energy Transition
Ouariach, F. Z., Ouariach, S., Latrache, F., & Jbira, N. (2025) · Green energy and technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-89657-6_1
Evaluation of Ethical Bias in Responses Generated by Spanish LLMs
Vega-Rueda, J. C., & Rodríguez-Garavito, C. H. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08206-0_14
Knowledge prompting: How knowledge engineers use generative AI
Koutsiana, E., Walker, J., Nwachukwu, M., Zhang, B., Meroño-Peñuela, A., & Simperl, E. P. B. (2025) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2025.100873 · Cited by 10
Artificial intelligence in quality control and product development
AYDINOCAK, E. U. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-34076-5.00004-3
Artificial Intelligence and Social Work
Holmes, A., & Goldkind, L. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/obo/9780195389678-0346
Mehra, R. K., & Rahman, M. M. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7011-8.ch001
Ethics in Artificial Intelligence
Bhosale, P. A., Kulkarni, S., Kausar, A., Shrivastav, A., & Das, S. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0250-8.ch006
Mukuni, J. (2025) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1012231
Rise of the Self-Driven Machine
Deshpande, A. A., Saraf, A. H., & Das, S. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7006-4.ch010
Ethical Challenges and Opportunities in Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Exploration
Perumal, R. K. L., & Chakraborty, M. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-8632-2_28
Yan, Y., & Slavov, V. (2025) · IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie63693.2025.11328248
Societal Impact of Ethical Dimensions of AI
Chaturvedi, K., Das, S., Singh, R., Siddhu, K. K., Jain, R. K., & Ojha, N. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2597-2.ch008
Ethical Implications of AI in Identity Management
Firmansyah, G., Gupta, B. B., Rahaman, M., & Abichandani, Y. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4149-1.ch006
İlkelerden Uygulamaya: Etik Yapay Zekâ Literatürünün Bibliyometrik Analizi
Dursun, F. (2026) · Bilgisayar Bilimleri ve Mühendisliği Dergisi · doi:10.54525/bbmd.1773768
Jose, M. J., & Mathews, J. R. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3997-9.ch015
Ebo, T. O., Osunmakinde, A., Asaolu, A. J., Ebo, D. M., Egbon, E., & Olawade, D. B. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-02930-0 · Cited by 1
Examining media coverage of ethical dimensions of advanced algorithmic technology
Vilchez, A., Bera, S., Lewenstein, B. V., & Hilgartner, S. (2026) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625261419755 · Cited by 1
Gupta, J., & Kumar, R. (2026) · Current Research in Translational Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.retram.2026.103577
Ethics Without Teeth? Challenges and Opportunities in AI Declarations for Platform Governance
Haidar, A. (2026) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer21040103 · Cited by 2
Future Concepts of Artificial Intelligence
ŞAHİN, H. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/406016
Learning to Grasp in Robotics with Quality-Diversity Generated Data
Huber, J. B. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b98f392dz4df9z4646z8b34z59f447564543
Ethics at the Front-End: Responsible User-Facing Design for AI Systems
Peters, D., Hollanek, T., Ahmadpour, N., Calvo, R. A., Chivukula, S. S., Dindler, C., Gray, C. M., Lazem, S., Öz, G., & Piet, N. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3778769
Artificial Intelligence Ethics in Digital Citizenship Education
Sırvermez, U., Baltaci-Goktalay, S., & ONAN, B. C. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6566-4.ch008 · Cited by 2
The Artificial Intelligence Factory: Concept, Implementation, and Impacts
Banerjee, P. (2026) · Women in engineering and science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17466-6_6
EXPLORING THE ETHICAL ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN TOURISM: A FOCUS ON USER PREFERENCES
Vukojević, D. (2026) · Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies (REDETE) · doi:10.63356/redete.2025.023
121Chapter 3 Why AI requires better regulation: Ten compelling arguments
(2026) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783112245958-004
Human-AI Interaction Requirements in Public Sector Procurements
Abbasi, M. A., Mikkonen, T., Pirinen, S., & Koski, A. (2026) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26363-6_26 · Cited by 2
Stracke, C. M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01092-5 · Cited by 1
Lima, A. (2026) · Premier journal of business and management. · doi:10.70389/pjbm.100014
Borres, M. (2026) · Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium · doi:10.1109/sieds69358.2026.11540282
Gazi, M. A. I., Shinwary, S. S., Khan, W., Alam, M. N., Hashim, F., Senathirajah, A. R. B. S., & Hossain, A. I. (2026) · Multidisciplinary Reviews · doi:10.31893/multirev.2026537
Leveraging Crisis Management for Minimising Brand Cancellation
Liu, L., Prentice, C., & Zeidan, S. (2026) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.70752
HTA and Ethical Impact Assessment―Preliminary Perspectives
Hakula, J. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-28812-7_14
Perspective Chapter: The Paradigm of Data Ethics, Informed by Classical Ethical Theories
Karastergiou, A. (2026) · Artificial intelligence · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1015560
Lived, affective, and cultural dimensions of ethical AI: beyond procedural AI ethics
Tettegah, S. Y. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03165-9
An Enhancement Alternative to the Principled Approach to AI Ethics
Ye, B. (2026) · Philosophy of engineering and technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-8023-1_4
Contextualizing Trustworthy AI Principles for PractitionersPreprint
Vadlamani, S. L., Male, S., & Baysal, O. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7036089
Ethical framework for AI-based emotion regulation for performance enhancement in sport
Vuorinen, N., Saarinen, M., Loland, S., & Pensgaard, A. M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01257-2
Confucian Ethics and AI in Education: Guiding Ethical Innovation in Learning
Lam, C. (2026) · Lecture notes in educational technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-9414-6_8
Kadali, R. S. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8277-7.ch008
A moral Turing test: How belief and source shape detection of and agreement with LLM judgments
Garcia, B., Qian, C., & Palminteri, S. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0353391
Ethics at the Interface: Ethical Design and User Experience for AI
Peters, D. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12201-8_8
The Discourse About Artificial Intelligence and Education
Mukuni, J. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7837-4.ch015
Rethinking AI ethics as a temporal socio-technical system: a critical synthesis
Ali, A. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01317-7
Allgårdh, G., Helgesson, G., & Kihlbom, U. (2026) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-026-01572-7
AI-augmented consequentialist ethics (AI-ACE): a new frontier for the concept of responsibility
Bruzzo, M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01364-0
An interpretable and adaptive AI governance framework
Wang, Y. (2026) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2026.10099
Jackson, N. R., & Tafe, L. J. (2026) · Apmis · doi:10.1111/apm.70267
Sakthi, K., Sankeshwari, R. M., Ankola, A. V., Roychowdhury, B., Shankkari, S., Dutta, D., & Chavan, P. (2026) · Journal of Indian Association of Public Health Dentistry · doi:10.4103/jiaphd.jiaphd_24_26
A Cognitive-Ethical Model for Responsible Generative AI Use in Primary Education
Wangsanata, V. C., Sasmoko, Binsar, F., & Hermanus, D. R. (2026) · International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS) · doi:10.1109/iciss71466.2026.11715024
Owning the Intangible: Can Classical Property Theories Survive the Digital Turn?Preprint
Kraft, V. R. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10962530/v1
The Invisible Watermark: A Pilot Study on the Verifiability Gap in AI Text Watermarking
Bulut, S., Korkmaz, A., Kosunalp, S., Tumen, V., & Akin, E. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app162010335
Drogt, J., Jongsma, K. R., Bluemink, M., & Haitjema, S. (2026) · BMJ Digital Health & AI · doi:10.1136/bmjdh-2026-000024
Metadata
- Authors
- Kazim, E., & Koshiyama, A. S.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kazim, Emre
- Koshiyama, Adriano Soares
- Venue
- Patterns
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 100314
- ISSN
- 2666-3899 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8441585
- OpenAlex
- W3199717448
- Semantic Scholar
- 8162b7e787b05854904a788eb17045916739cb21
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 56 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 11
- FWCI
- 3.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Patterns (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University College London
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › General Engineering › Flooding and Environmental Impact
- Keywords
- AI ethics, digital ethics, engineering ethics, philosophy of technology, science and technology studies, ethical principles, moral consciousness, interdisciplinary research
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
