The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 31 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines
Open accessAbstract
This article uses a socio-legal perspective to analyze the use of ethics guidelines as a governance tool in the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). This has become a central policy area in several large jurisdictions, including China and Japan, as well as the EU, focused on here. Particular emphasis in this article is placed on the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI published by the EU Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence in April 2019, as well as the White Paper on AI, published by the EU Commission in February 2020. The guidelines are reflected against partially overlapping and already-existing legislation as well as the ephemeral concept construct surrounding AI as such. The article concludes by pointing to (1) the challenges of a temporal discrepancy between technological and legal change, (2) the need for moving from principle to process in the governance of AI, and (3) the multidisciplinary needs in the study of contemporary applications of data-dependent AI.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article uses a socio-legal perspective to analyze ethics guidelines as a governance tool for artificial intelligence, focusing on the EU’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (April 2019) and White Paper on AI (February 2020). It concludes that AI governance faces a temporal gap between technological and legal change, needs to move from principle to process, and requires multidisciplinary research.
Key findings
- The article argues that AI’s definitional instability—no clear consensus across public, computer-science, and legal contexts—shapes governance, and that contemporary AI mainly includes machine learning, natural language processing, image recognition, neural networks, and deep learning.
- The EU High-Level Expert Group, consisting of 52 members, defines trustworthy AI as legal, ethical, and robust; it sets out four ethical principles (respect for human autonomy, prevention of harm, fairness, explicability) and seven prerequisites, including human agency and oversight, technical robustness and safety, privacy and data governance, transparency, diversity/nondiscrimination/fairness, societal and environmental wellbeing, and accountability.
- A 2019 global study identified 84 documents containing ethical principles or guidelines for AI and found relative unanimity on five principles: transparency, justice and fairness, non-harmful use, responsibility, and integrity/data protection, with transparency the single most common; over 350 organizations tested the EU assessment list during 2019.
- The EU White Paper proposes a risk-based, sector-specific approach distinguishing high-risk applications, initially including healthcare, transport, energy, and parts of the public sector; the article also briefly compares China’s AIDP (2017), Made in China 2025 (2015), and Beijing AI Principles (May 2019) with Japan’s Social Principles of Human-Centric AI (March 2019).
Methods
- Socio-legal and conceptual analysis of ethics guidelines as a governance tool, with particular focus on EU documents: the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (April 2019), the White Paper on AI (February 2020), and related High-Level Expert Group definition and policy documents.
- Draws on secondary literature and policy documents, including a 2019 global landscape study of 84 AI ethics documents and comparisons to Chinese and Japanese AI governance initiatives.
- No empirical data collection or sample; the analysis is interpretive and argumentative, concluding with three socio-legal statements on temporality, process, and multidisciplinary research needs.
Limitations
- The paper states that the Chinese and Japanese developments “will only briefly be addressed here,” so the Asian comparison is explicitly limited.
- Evident from the text: it is a conceptual/socio-legal analysis without primary empirical data, systematic coding, or measured outcomes; its conclusions are normative and interpretive.
- Evident from the text: the analysis focuses mainly on EU documents and selected secondary sources, so its findings may not generalize to other jurisdictions or implementation contexts.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Not checked yet · 30 Own interpretation · 9 No basis given
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ethics Guidelines in particular, as a governance tool, have seen very strong development over the last few years.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3. EU-TRUSTWORTHY AI
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.
In the paper
“The study concluded that there is relative unanimity globally on at least five principle-based approaches of ethical character: (1) transparency, (2) justice and fairness, (3) non-harmful use, (4) responsibility, and (5) integrity/data protection.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3. EU-TRUSTWORTHY AI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28]
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
“In particular, the way in which the standpoints in principle are intended to be implemented is often unclear.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
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.
In the paper
“The governance using ethics guidelines is highly dependent on recent insights from critical AI studies about the societal challenges relating to fairness, accountability, and transparency.16”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] source
boostedstates a cause- 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
“Given aspects of learning in data-dependent AI, there is an interaction at hand in which human values and societal structures constitute the training data.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.3 The Multidisciplinary AI Research Need
plainstates an association- 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.
In the paper
“Consequently, there are reasons other than pure technical complexity why certain approaches may be of a "black box" nature, not least the corporate interests of keeping commercial secrets and holding intellectual property rights.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43]
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
In the paper
“The core in China's AI strategy can be found in the New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan (AIDP), issued by China's State Council in July 2017 and the Made in China 2025, released in May 2015.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.3 Asian Comparison
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] source
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.
In the paper
“In applied AI, learning simply arises not only from good and balanced examples, but also from the less proud sides of humanity: racism, xenophobia, gender inequalities, and institutionalized injustices.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.3 The Multidisciplinary AI Research Need
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [63]
plainstates a cause- 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
“The temporal aspect of the difference between new technologies and well-fitted regulation, in combination with the many-headed balancing of interests, is very likely a significant contributor to why governance in the area is heavily characterized by ethics guidelines at the moment.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.1 The Temporality Issue of Technology and Law
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“From an empirical approach, one could conclude that it is often human values and skewed social structures that lead to automated failures.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.3 The Multidisciplinary AI Research Need
hedgedstates a cause- 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. 55
- It may state two separate claims as one. 23
In the paper
“In April 2019, the expert group published the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter the Ethics Guidelines), 11 which—despite explicitly pointing out that the guidelines do not deal with legal issues—clearly indicate issues of responsibility, transparency, and data protection as entirely central parts of the development of trustworthy AI.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] source
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.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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 guidelines focus on ethical issues (b) and robustness (c), but leave legal issues (a) outside the explicit guidelines.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, for the realization of trustworthy AI, they address seven main prerequisites, which, they argue, must be evaluated and managed continuously during the entire life-cycle of the AI system: 1. Human agency and oversight 2. Technical robustness and safety 3. Privacy and data governance 4. Transparency 5. Diversity, nondiscrimination, and fairness 6. Societal and environmental wellbeing 7. A”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
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
“As mentioned, although the guidelines emphasize that they focus on ethics and robustness, and not on issues of legality, it is interesting to note that both anti-discrimination (5) and protection of privacy (3) are developed as two of the seven central ethical prerequisites for the implementation of trustworthy AI.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
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
“They highlight that new legal measures and control mechanisms may be needed to safeguard adequate protection against negative effects, and to enable correct supervision and implementation.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“In relation to the investment and policy recommendations also published by the expert group, it recommends features such as a risk-based approach that is both proportional and effective in guaranteeing that AI is legal, ethical, and robust in its adaptation to fundamental rights.39”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] source
plainstates a cause- 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
“Interestingly, the expert group calls for comprehensive mapping of relevant EU regulations to be carried out, in order to assess the extent to which the various regulations are still fulfilling their purposes in an AI-driven world.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
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 definition concentrates particularly on autonomy—namely that there is a measure of agency in AI systems—and points out that the systems can consist of both physical robots and also pure software systems.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 2. WHAT IS AI?
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.
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 other words, the ethics guidelines focus on normative standpoints, but are often weak from a procedural perspective.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The definition is in itself a form of conceptual control that impacts on the regulation debate, and we therefore need to both be careful and take a multidisciplinary approach when making definitions.27”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 2. WHAT IS AI?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] source
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“At the same time, the study establishes that there are considerable differences in how these principles are interpreted; why they are considered important; what issue, domain or actors they relate to; and how they should be implemented.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3. EU-TRUSTWORTHY AI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28]
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.
In the paper
“Over the last few years, a number of ethics guidelines have been developed relating to AI: by companies, research associations, and government representatives.12”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] 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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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
“At the same time, the examples provide a clear indication of what they are aiming at and, extrapolating, what the governance objects of the Ethics Guidelines consist of.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 2. WHAT IS AI?
boostedstates an association- 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.
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
“Many overlap in part with already-existing legislation, but it is often unclear how the legislation and guidelines are intended to interact more precisely.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“As autonomy is emphasized, this can in combination be interpreted as not applying to all drones or all linked-up devices—only to those that have an autonomous or even learning element.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 2. WHAT IS AI?
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
“It does this despite the fact that issues that are fairly well anchored in law, such as responsibility, anti-discrimination, and—not least—data protection, still fall within the framework for ethics.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
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.
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
“Since the actual definition of AI is highly debatable, and may depend on the disciplinary field in which the person making the definition is based, it will arguably have an effect on its governance.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
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 Ethics Guidelines of the EU Commission's expert group are a clear sign of an ongoing governance challenge for the EU and its Member States.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
boostedstates an association- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The High-Level Expert Group also notes that an explicit part of AI is the intelligence concept, which is a particularly elusive element that has been included since the area was originated.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 2. WHAT IS AI?
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.
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, as a step towards a wider social sciences-based discussion and in light of the challenges that AI has displayed in its implementation and interaction with society's values and structure, it can be argued that there are multidisciplinary advantages of not leaning too heavily towards a computer sciences-based definition of AI.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 2. WHAT IS AI?
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“Even though ethical and robust AI is to some extent often already reflected in existing laws, its full implementation may reach beyond existing legal obligations.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
In the paper
“Legg and Hutter, for example, gather together more than 70 different definitions of the intelligence concept in itself.23”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 2. WHAT IS AI?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23]
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
“For example, a study of the global AI ethics landscape, published in 2019, identified 84 documents containing ethical principles or guidelines for AI.28”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3. EU-TRUSTWORTHY AI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28]
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
“Despite—or perhaps because of—the increased attention that AI and its developed methods are receiving in multidisciplinary research, media, and policy work, there is no clear consensus on how AI should best be defined.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 2. WHAT IS AI?
What the sources say
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
“At the same time, the governance issue must inevitably deal with temporal aspects of the difference between how legislation is formed and how rapid development has been for the underlying elements of AI.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY: ETHICS GUIDELINES AS A TOOL FOR GOVERNANCE
boostedstates a cause- 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 proposal is an either/or approach on risk, and more nuanced alternatives have been proposed elsewhere, for example by the German Data Ethics Commission.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.2 The White Paper on AI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47]
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
“The lack of transparency, the Commission brings forward, makes it "difficult to identify and prove possible breaches of laws, including legal provisions that protect fundamental rights, attribute liability and meet the conditions to claim compensation."”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.2 The White Paper on AI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] source
plainstates a cause- 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.
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 Member States' supervisory authorities and agencies could be addressed specifically here too, in the sense that they will very likely be the ones to carry out relevant parts of any regulatory approach on AI focusing what the High-Level Expert Group has expressed as a need for "explicability"-that is, auditability and explainability.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.2 From Principles to Process
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“The subsequent procedural stage is necessary, however, both to strengthen the chances of implementing the principal values as well as to formalize in legislation, assessment methodologies, and standardization.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.2 From Principles to Process
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“a recent study concludes that common elements of both notions of governance include that AI should be applied in a manner that is "human-centric" and should be”
- Also stated in: § 53. National Governance Committee for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence (2019) Governance principles of the New Generation Artificial Intelligence-developing responsible AI. · plain
“committed to the fundamental (constitutional) rights of individuals and democracy.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.3 Asian Comparison
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55]
boosted- 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: § 53. National Governance Committee for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence (2019) Governance principles of the New Generation Artificial Intelligence-developing responsible AI. · plain
In the paper
“A particular difference is, however, according to Kozuka, that Japan's Social Principles are more policy-oriented, while the European Ethics Guidelines have a rights-based approach.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 53. National Governance Committee for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence (2019) Governance principles of the New Generation Artificial Intelligence-developing responsible AI.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55]
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
“A key reason is to be building and maintaining users' trust.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
plainstates a cause- 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
“Perhaps the lack of expressing power structures of contemporary data-driven platform markets-emphasized by critics-is a sign of the regulatory struggles to come in the leap from principles to process.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.2 From Principles to Process
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“The great range of ethics guidelines still displays a core of principal values, but-being ethical guidelines-are relatively poor in procedural arrangements compared to law.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.2 From Principles to Process
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. 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
“In May 2019, the so-called Beijing AI Principles, which is another set, were released by the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence, depicting the core of its AI development as the realization of beneficial AI for humankind and nature.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.3 Asian Comparison
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
“This notion is particularly meaningful in relation to automated policy implementation on large-scale digital platforms, shaping both human and institutional behaviour.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 53. National Governance Committee for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence (2019) Governance principles of the New Generation Artificial Intelligence-developing responsible AI.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [57]
plainstates a cause- 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 Japan, an expert group at the Japanese Cabinet Office has elaborated on the Social Principles of Human-Centric AI (Social Principles), which was published in March 2019 after public comments were solicited.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.3 Asian Comparison
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
“The Commission's hope is that a clear European regulatory framework would "build trust among consumers and businesses in AI, and therefore speed up the uptake of the technology."”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.2 The White Paper on AI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49]
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not 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 authors may not put it forward as true. 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
“The key elements of a future regulatory framework for AI in Europe is to create a "unique ecosystem of trust," which is described as a policy objective in itself.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.2 The White Paper on AI
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 article has put forward the difficulty of defining AI as one of the regulatory challenges that follow from the implementation and development of AI.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4. CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“Even though the "legal lag" is more complex than it may seem, 58 the speed of change, in particular, is still repeatedly a difficult challenge in relation to the inertia of traditional regulation.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.1 The Temporality Issue of Technology and Law
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59]
plainstates an association- 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
“The White Paper makes a clear address to the human-centric approach based on the Communication on Building Trust in Human-Centric AI, which is also a central part of the Ethics Guidelines discussed above.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.2 The White Paper on AI
boosted- 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
“There is a clear value-base in the White Paper, with a particular focus on the concept of trust”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.2 The White Paper on AI
boosted- 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
“In 2019, a National Governance Committee for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence was established, which published a set of governance principles.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.3 Asian Comparison
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53]
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.
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
“If one can regard the growth in ethics guidelines as an expression of the rapidity of the development of AI methods, the procedural stage is an expected second stage.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.2 From Principles to Process
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“The interpretation of existing legislation in light of functionalities, possibilities, and challenges of AI systems is also a matter of serious concern associated with major challenges.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.1 The Temporality Issue of Technology and Law
plainstates an association- 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
“However, if one regards the ethics guidelines as industry's reluctance to accept regulation of its activities, as a soft version of legislation that is intended to be toothless, then the procedural stage will meet considerable resistance.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.2 From Principles to Process
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“A key proposal in the White Paper is taking a risk-based, sector-specific approach to regulating AI, in which high-risk applications are distinguished from all other applications.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.2 The White Paper on AI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45]
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
“In conclusion, the AI-development issue has come to take a value-based and ethicsfocused development within the European administration with a focus on trustworthiness and human-centric design.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.3 The Multidisciplinary AI Research Need
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.
In the paper
“Legislative processes aimed at learning technologies with increasing agency 60 require reflection, critical studies, and more knowledge in order to be able to find the desirable societal balances between various interests.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.1 The Temporality Issue of Technology and Law
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60]
plainstates a possible cause- 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
“While the historically visionary and contemporary heterogeneous AI field arguably provides favourable conditions for research and development, the conceptual fuzziness creates a challenge for regulation and governance.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4. CONCLUSIONS
hedgedstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“At the same time, legal scholars such as Karl Renner, who analyzed property laws of Western Europe's industrialization, also teach that law can be an extremely dynamic and adaptive organism.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.1 The Temporality Issue of Technology and Law
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Renner
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
“Interestingly, Kozuka-with references to Lawrence Lessig in the paper-concludes that "the role of the law as a mechanism of implementation will shrink and be substituted by the code as the use of AI becomes widespread."”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 53. National Governance Committee for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence (2019) Governance principles of the New Generation Artificial Intelligence-developing responsible AI.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56]
plainstates a cause- 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
“It is conceivable that central parts of the Ethical Guidelines may be formalized with support for European and national legislation and regulation, focusing on the importance of ("an ecosystem of") trust.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.1 The Temporality Issue of Technology and Law
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“For example, a goal expressed in the AIDP is to establish initial ethical norms, policies, and regulations related to AI development in China by 2020, to be further codified by 2025.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.3 Asian Comparison
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52]
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
“Interestingly enough, the Commission concludes that those regarding transparency, traceability, and human oversight are not specifically covered under current legislation in many economic sectors.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1 The Temporality Issue of Technology and Law · plain
“not clearly covered-or understood-under current legislation in many economic sectors.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.2 The White Paper on AI
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] 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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § 4.1 The Temporality Issue of Technology and Law · plain
In the paper
“The Ethics Guidelines argue for the need for processes to be transparent in the sense that the capacities and purpose of AI systems should be "openly communicated, and decisions-to the extent possible-explainable to those directly and indirectly affected."”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 38. Metzinger (2019).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40]
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
“These Principles have been supported by various elite Chinese universities and companies including Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 3.3 Asian Comparison
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [54]
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 White Paper signifies an ongoing process of evaluation towards where the principled take on AI governance expressed by a multitude of ethics guidelines can find a balanced formalization in law.”
§ On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines • > 4.2 From Principles to Process
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.
The paper relies on this without support.
Machine learning depends on large amounts of data or examples as its foundation.
“which is not least underlined by the dependence of machine learning on large amounts of data or examples as its foundation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Societal use and dependency on AI and machine learning are increasing.
“As societal use and dependency on AI and machine learning are increasing, society increasingly needs to understand any negative consequences and risks, how interests and power are distributed, and what needs exist for both legal and other types of governance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The intelligence concept leads to human associations such as feelings and self-awareness that are not a living part of current applied AI.
“The intelligence concept also leads to a number of human associations, such as the ability to have feelings and self-awareness that cannot be said to be a living part of the methods and technologies that are causing the explosion of applied AI today, and thus not a central object for governance through ethics guidelines.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Ethics Guidelines have had a clear impact on the subsequent White Paper on AI.
“The Ethics Guidelines have had a clear impact on the subsequent White Paper on AI from the EU Commission (see below) but it still remains to be seen what sort of importance and impact all of these sources will have on European AI development.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The composition of the High-Level Expert Group has not avoided criticism.
“The composition has not avoided criticism, however.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When the Ethics Guidelines were published, they were criticized by members of the expert group itself.
“When the Ethics Guidelines were published, they were also criticized by members of the expert group itself.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Commission's intention that all Member States should have their own AI strategies by the middle of 2019 did not completely materialize.
“For example, the Commission expressed an intention that all Member States should have their own strategies in place by the middle of 2019, which did not completely materialize.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Chinese and Japanese developments on AI policy and governance are significant from an Asian socio-legal perspective.
“From an Asian socio-legal perspective, the Chinese and the Japanese developments on AI policy and governance are significant but will only briefly be addressed here.”
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 check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“It is estimated that companies that use data-driving decision-making are, on average, 6% more profitable and 5% more productive than their competitors.84”
From Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Decisions (2023) · cites this paper as [84]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001 · Cited by 2,951
The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 · Cited by 1,911 · cited 1×
“See Jobin, Ienca, & Vayena (2019); Hagendorff (2020); Mittelstadt (2019).”
BackgroundThe Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425 · Cited by 1,907 · cited 1×
“See Jobin, Ienca, & Vayena (2019); Hagendorff (2020); Mittelstadt (2019).”
BackgroundPrinciples alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886 · cited 1×
“See Jobin, Ienca, & Vayena (2019); Hagendorff (2020); Mittelstadt (2019).”
BackgroundThe Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
(2016) · Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1177/0094306116641409c · Cited by 1,334
Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way
Dignum, V. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30371-6 · Cited by 1,197
Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & van Dijck, J. (2019) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2019.4.1425 · Cited by 823
A Collection of Definitions of IntelligencePreprint
Legg, S., & Hütter, M. (2007) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0706.3639 · Cited by 640
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 2019, A Definition of AI: Main Capabilities and Disciplines: Definition Developed for the Purpose of the AI HLEG’s Deliverables
- 2017, New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan (AIDP)
- Legg, 2007, Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms, 157, 17
- 2019, Policy and Investment Recommendations for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence
- 2019, Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–155 of 155
AI-Driven Transformation in Public Governance
Gomes, P. M., & Cardoso, T. J. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9286-7.ch005 · Cited by 3
Navigating Governance Challenges in AI and Web Development
Vayadande, K. B., Thakur, S., Thakkar, S., Sondkar, A., Tamhane, S., & Warade, S. (2024) · International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Innovation for Sustainability (EmergIN) · doi:10.1109/emergin63207.2024.10961196 · Cited by 3
The Global Impact of AI on Digital Citizenship
Selvakumar, P., Sudheer, P., & Kannan, N. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9015-3.ch009 · Cited by 2
Understanding Industry Practitioners' Experiences in Generative AI Governance
Do, H. J., Babbar, S., Li, W., Walks, L., & Misko, S. (2025) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3720275 · Cited by 2
“However, many regulations in AI governance remain theoretical or abstract [11, 17, 24, 27], relying on the practitioners’ interpretation of what constitutes AI governance in their contexts.”
Jangam, A. (2021) · International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2021.38992 · Cited by 2
Introduction to Ethical and Socially Responsible Explainable AI
Akhtar, M. A. K., Kumar, M., & Nayyar, A. (2024) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66489-2_1 · Cited by 2
Han, Y. (2024) · Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences · doi:10.2478/amns-2024-2973 · Cited by 2
Greenwashing Alert System for EU Green Bonds. The CONSOB-University of Trento PrototypePreprint
Paterlini, S., Nicolodi, A., Gentile, M., Manzillo, V. F., Sancilio, M. R., & Deriu, P. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5379964 · Cited by 2
Harmonizing Ethics With Artificial Intelligence
Garwi, J. (2024) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8557-9.ch007 · Cited by 1
Policies and Standards Versus Laws and Regulations
Marwala, T. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-9251-1_12 · Cited by 1
Alawamleh, A. S. (2025) · Central European Journal of Public Policy · doi:10.2478/cejpp-2025-0004 · Cited by 1
van Beem, E. H. (2026) · International Review of Law Computers & Technology · doi:10.1080/13600869.2026.2668320 · Cited by 1
Hasib, M., & Eko, L. S. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01219-8 · Cited by 1
“These documents, issued by U.S., EU, UN, and FLI, were chosen for their global influence, recency, and explicit engagement with ethical AI debates [37, 38].”
Soltani, A., Bafarasat, A. Z., Bibri, S. E., Ramezani, L., & Qadikolaei, M. R. (2026) · Progress in Planning · doi:10.1016/j.progress.2026.101043 · Cited by 1
الذكاء الاصطناعي بين الاعتبار الأخلاقي والمقياس القانوني "أين نحن؟"
الخطيب, م. ع. (2023) · The Jordanian Journal of Law and Political Science · doi:10.35682/jjlps.v15i3.572 · Cited by 2
Martoni, M. (2024) · SOCIOLOGIA DEL DIRITTO · doi:10.54103/1972-5760/23283 · Cited by 1
Pimentel, A. F., de Araújo, B. M. V., Maciel, T. M., & MARTINS, M. F. (2023) · Revista Foco · doi:10.54751/revistafoco.v16n8-021
Pimentel, A. F., de Araújo, B. M. V., MARTINS, M. F., & Maciel, T. M. (2023) · Seven Editora eBooks · doi:10.56238/sevened2023.006-045
تحديات تطبيقات الذكاء الاصطناعى فى الاعلام : مقاربه أخلاقية
فاروق, ه. (2023) · Al-Maǧallah Al-Miṣriyyaẗ Li-Buḥūṯ Al-Rāʼī Al-ʿām · doi:10.21608/joa.2023.334084
Yifeng, P. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4885346
The Future of Ethical AI in Large Language Models
Gupta, B. B., Gaurav, A., Chui, K. T., & Psannis, K. E. (2024) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3860-5.ch013
Sustainable Governance—Application of Artificial Intelligence
Gireesan, K. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-7735-2_9
The European Approach to Artificial Intelligence. Ethical and Regulatory Implications
Mezei, K., & Träger, A. (2022) · Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Legal Studies · doi:10.47745/ausleg.2022.11.2.02 · Cited by 1
“34 For more details on the criticisms of these, see: Ződi 2020; Larsson 2020.”
Serrano, J. C. (2025) · Investigación Bibliotecológica Archivonomía Bibliotecología e Información · doi:10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2025.103.58963 · Cited by 1
Masruri, H. A., Chusbyah, N., Ma’arif, C., & Dewi, M. N. (2025) · Canonia Religia · doi:10.30762/cr.v2i2.2973
Mitigating the Risks of Generative AI in Government through Algorithmic GovernancePreprint
Esposito, M., Halkias, D., Tse, T. C. M., & Harkiolakis, T. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5169801
AI Policy as Writing Center Praxis
Zaleski, M., & Courtois, M. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8059-8.ch002
Governance of AI in the Judicial System
Prieto, J. V. (2025) · doi:10.1093/9780198918752.003.0015
van den Berg, G. (2025) · Future education and learning spaces · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-7937-9_6
Eine globale Analyse von Leitlinien zum Umgang mit Künstlicher Intelligenz in Unternehmen
von Garrel, J., & Vrga, L. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-49275-5_6
Bridging the Gap: Translating AI Regulations into Socio-Technical Measures for Responsible AI
Ahmad, T. (2025) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/3715070.3747344
“The technical opacity of AI systems often referred to as the "black box" problem—further exacerbates these implementation challenges, posing barriers to accountability and transparency in algorithmic decision-making [5, 8, 9].”
Mitigating the Risks of Generative AI in Government Through Algorithmic Governance
Esposito, M., Halkias, D., Tse, T. C. M., & Harkiolakis, T. (2025) · Contributions to management science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-02526-5_5 · Cited by 1
Behavioral Law and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence
Efthymiou, I.-P. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-0000-7.ch004
Emotional Intelligence Meets Artificial Intelligence
Efthymiou, I.-P. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/406013
AI Governance in the Data Collection Phase of Building an AI Model
Bennouk, K., Mahouachi, D., Aali, N. A., Idrissi, Y. E. B. E., Sebai, B., & Faroukhi, A. Z. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Computing and Machine Intelligence (ICMI) · doi:10.1109/icmi68585.2026.11539923
“[19], [15].”
The Convergence of Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Governance
Khatun, S., & Das, M. (2026) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394398355.ch11
AI and Predictability in Law: Advancements, Limitations, and Ethical Challenges
Masum, M. S. (2025) · Advances in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Research · doi:10.4236/airr.2025.11002
Trustworthy AI and Nursing Education
Küçük, E. E., & Küçük, D. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-2811-7.ch006
AI-Driven Governance in Smart Governments
Alshehri, A. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8592-1.ch004
McNeil, B. (2026) · Critical Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/19460171.2026.2699873
Legal Consciousness in the Tech Community: A Conceptual and Analytical FrameworkPreprint
Kelemen, K., Falla, A. M. V., & Martires, P. Z. D. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7085418
Legal vs. speech-act force in codes and statutes of AI governance
Li, K. (2026) · Lingua · doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2026.104246
Erin, O. A. (2026) · CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-20091-4_10
Selling surveillance: The discursive legitimation of AI control in Japanese convenience stores
Bouvier, G., & Jiang, Y. (2026) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/09579265261463722
AI governance under threat managing data poisoning, drift, and integrity challenges
Shanmugam, U., Rajendran, M. K., Natarajan, J., & Karri, V. V. S. R. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-01959-w
“Priority was given to publications from 2020 to 2025, while retaining seminal governance publications where appropriate [1, 3, 13, 14].”
InfluentialHussein, G. H., Mohamed, F., & Abuzreda, A. (2026) · Journal of Technology and System Information · doi:10.47134/jtsi.v3i3.6339
Ética e inteligência artificial
Lopes, C. D. M. N., & Mendes, J. C. (2023) · Revista da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · doi:10.35699/2965-6931.2023.47673 · Cited by 2
Organizational AI Governance: Integrating Ethical, Strategic, and Regulatory Dimensions
Romero, B., del Castillo, I., Medina, A., & Vega, L. (2025) · Journal of Digital Business and Management Studies · doi:10.68159/s097590835
Alqheedan, A. (2026) · One Health · doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2026.101570
“SDAIA's AI Ethics Principles remain voluntary, a structure common across national AI ethics documents and flagged as open to ethics washing [12,28].”
Veebel, V., Ploom, I., & Vihmand-Veebel, L. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-31586-1_9
Artificial Intelligence in East Asia: An Overview
Du, Q., & Shaw, R. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-2544-6_1
Legal consciousness in the tech community: A conceptual and analytical framework
Kelemen, K., Falla, A. M. V., & Martires, P. Z. D. (2026) · Computer law & security review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2026.106423
“As Larsson notes, the governance of emerging technologies such as AI increasingly relies on hybrid regulatory arrangements, where legal norms interact with ethical guidelines and technical standards, creating a fragmented landscape that complicates compliance and accountability [39].”
Metadata
- Authors
- LARSSON, S.
- Affiliations
- Lund University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- LARSSON, Stefan
- ORCID
- LARSSON, Stefan
- Venue
- Asian Journal of Law and Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-10
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 437-451
- ISSN
- 2052-9015 (ISSN-L)
- 2052-9023
- OpenAlex
- W3028544364
- Semantic Scholar
- 48268a9d24db58c9a5331acaef8821a7e983a321
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 96.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Asian Journal of Law and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Lunds Universitet (2019-00198)
- Vetenskapsrådet (2019-00198)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Keywords
- AI governance, ethics guidelines, trustworthy AI, AI legislation, socio-legal analysis, China AI policy
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 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (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
