CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationLiterary and Philosophical Studies

Good AI for the Present of Humanity Democratizing AI Governance

Open access
Corrêa, Nicholas, Fernandes de Oliveira, Nythamar·2021·AI Ethics Journal
DOI 10.47289/aiej20210716-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What do Cyberpunk and AI Ethics have to do with each other? Cyberpunk is a sub-genre of science fiction that explores the post-human relationships between human experience and technology. One similarity between AI Ethics and Cyberpunk literature is that both seek to explore future social and ethical problems that our technological advances may bring upon society. In recent years, an increasing number of ethical matters involving AI have been pointed and debated, and several ethical principles and guides have been suggested as governance policies for the tech industry. However, would this be the role of AI Ethics? To serve as a soft and ambiguous version of the law? We would like to advocate in this article for a more Cyberpunk way of doing AI Ethics, with a more democratic way of governance. In this study, we will seek to expose some of the deficits of the underlying power structures of the AI industry, and suggest that AI governance be subject to public opinion, so that ‘good AI’ can become ‘good AI for all.’

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.47289/aiej20210716-2

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If citizens are to benefit from social media platforms and AI tools as a means for enhancing democratic engagement by combating disinformation, better inclusion of the most diverse categories of citizens is desirable to help identify socially critical AI problems.

    “if citizens are to benefit from social media platforms and AI tools as a means for enhancing democratic engagement in the online context by combating disinformation, better inclusion of most diverse categories of citizens is most desirable in order to help identify socially critical AI problems (Corrêa & Oliveira, 2021).”

    From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Corrêa & Oliveira, 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Experts have stressed the importance of democratising the values behind the introduction of AI tools.

    “experts have stressed the importance of democratising the values behind the introduction of AI tools”

    From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Corrêa & Oliveira, 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Butler, S. (1863). Darwin Among the Machines. The Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. https://web.archive.org/web/20060524131242/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-ButFir-t1-g1-t1-g1-t4- body.html.
  2. Feenberg, A. (2017). Technosystem: The social life of reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  3. Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical Social Theory: Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference, Wiley-Blackwell.
  4. Rosa, H. (2010). High-Speed Society: Social Acceleration, Power, and Modernity. USA, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
  5. Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. USA, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
  6. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. USA, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
  7. Tally, R. (2009). Radical Alternatives: The Persistence of Utopia in the Postmodern. In New Essays on the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. A. J. Drake (ed.), Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  8. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565. · arXiv
  9. Boddington, P. (2017). Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60648-4. · DOI · Paper page
  10. McNamara, A., Smith, J., & Murphy-Hill, E. (2018). Does ACM's code of ethics change ethical decision making in software development? ESEC/FSE 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 729-733. doi: 10.1145/3236024.3264833. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Cleek, M. A., & Leonard, S. L. (1998). Can corporate codes of ethics influence behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 619-630. doi: 10.1023/A:1017969921581. · DOI
  12. Lere, J. C., & Gaumnitz, B. R. (2003). The Impact of Codes of Ethics on Decision Making: Some Insights from Information Economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 365-379. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000005747.37500.c8. · DOI
  13. Osborn, M., Day, R., Komesaroff, P., & Mant, A. (2009). Do ethical Guidelines make a difference to decision- making? Internal medicine journal, 39(12), 800-805. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.01954.x. · DOI
  14. Hagendorff, T. (2020). The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30, 99-120. doi: 10.1007/s11023-020-09526-7. · DOI
  15. Rességuier, A., & Rodrigues, R. (2020). AI ethics should not remain toothless! A call to bring back the teeth of ethics. Big Data & Society, 1-5. doi: 10.1177/2053951720942541. · DOI
  16. Jurić, M., Šandić, A., & Brcic, M. (2020). AI safety: state of the field through quantitative lens. 43rd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO). https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2002/2002.05671.pdf.
  17. Soares, N., Fallenstein, B., Yudkowsky, E., & Armstrong, S. (2015). Corrigibility. In Artificial Intelligence and Ethics, T. Walsh (ed.), AAAI Technical Report WS-15-02. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
  18. Turner, A., Smith, L., Shah, R., & Tadepalli, P. (2020). Optimal Farsighted Agents Tend to Seek Power. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.01683.pdf. · arXiv
  19. Soares, N. (2016). Value Learning Problem. In Ethics for Artificial Intelligence Workshop, 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2016), New York, NY, 9-15. https://intelligence.org/files/ValueLearningProblem.pdf.
  20. Russel, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. UK, London: Penguin.
  21. Chalmers, D. (2010). The singularity: A philosophical analysis. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17, 9-10.
  22. Maxmen, A. (2018). Self-driving car dilemmas reveal that moral choices are not universal. Nature, 562(7728), 469- 470. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07135-0. · DOI
  23. Eufrásio, J., & Goulart, G. (2020). Entregadores por app têm entre 19 e 40 anos e ganham, em média, R$ 2,1 mil. Correio Braziliense. https://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia/cidades/2020/07/20/interna_cidadesdf,873540/entregad AI Ethics Journal 36. Antunes, R. (2009). Século XXI: nova era da precarização estrutural do trabalho? Infoproletários: degradação real do trabalho virtual. https://projetoaletheia.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/seculo-xxi-era-da-precarizacao.pdf.
  24. Irani, L. (2016). The hidden faces of automation. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 23(2), 34-37. doi: 10.1145/3014390. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kincaid, H., Dupre, J., Wylie, A. Oxford: Oxford university press, 120-141.
  26. Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Nonepistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science, 81(1), 1-21.
  27. Costanza-Chock, S. (2018). Design justice, AI, and escape from the matrix of domination. Journal of Design and Science. doi:10.21428/96c8d426. · DOI
  28. Carman, M., & Rosman, B. (2020). Applying a principle of explicability to AI research in Africa: should we do it? Ethics Inf Technol. doi: 10.1007/s10676-020-09534-2. · DOI
  29. Garcia, E. V. (2019). The Militarization of Artificial Intelligence: A Wake-Up Call for the Global South. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3452323. · DOI
  30. Green, B. (2019). "Good" isn't good enough. In NeurIPS workshop on AI for social good. https://www.benzevgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/19-ai4sg.pdf.
  31. ÓhÉigeartaigh, S. S., Whittlestone, J., Liu, Y., Zeng, Y., & Liu, Z. (2020). Overcoming Barriers to Cross-cultural Cooperation in AI Ethics and Governance. Philos. Technol. doi: 10.1007/s13347-020-00402-x. AI Ethics Journal · DOI
  32. Mohamed, S., Png, M.T., & Isaac, W. (2020). Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence. Philosophy & Technology. doi: 10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Bonawitz, K., Eichner, H., Grieskamp, W., Huba, D., Ingerman, A., Ivanov, V., Kiddon, C., Konečný, J., Mazzocchi, S., McMahan, B., Van Overveldt, T., Petrou, D., Ramage, D., & Roselander, J. (2019). Towards Federated Learning at Scale: System Design. ArXiv. Disponível em: https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.01046. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corrêa, N., & Fernandes de Oliveira, N.
Affiliations
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
ORCID
Venue
AI Ethics Journal
Publisher
AI Robotics Ethics Society
Published
2021-07-16
Volume
2
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 2690-1625 (ISSN-L)
  • 2690-1633
DOI
10.47289/aiej20210716-2
OpenAlex
W3093014945
Cited by
6
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI Ethics Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
Keywords
AI governance, AI ethics, cyberpunk fiction, democracy, public opinion, posthumanism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review