CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1,907Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics in Business and Education

The Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelines

Open access
Hagendorff, Thilo·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425arXiv 1903.03425
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Current advances in research, development and application of artificial intelligence (AI) systems have yielded a far-reaching discourse on AI ethics. In consequence, a number of ethics guidelines have been released in recent years. These guidelines comprise normative principles and recommendations aimed to harness the "disruptive" potentials of new AI technologies. Designed as a comprehensive evaluation, this paper analyzes and compares these guidelines highlighting overlaps but also omissions. As a result, I give a detailed overview of the field of AI ethics. Finally, I also examine to what extent the respective ethical principles and values are implemented in the practice of research, development and application of AI systems - and how the effectiveness in the demands of AI ethics can be improved.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425

Cites

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?

  • Equivalent fiduciary relationships and complementary governance mechanisms do not exist for private sector AI developers.

    “Equivalent fiduciary relationships and complementary governance mechanisms do not exist for private sector AI developers.”

    From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Introduction and §3.3 say that AI-industry ethics guidelines rely on weak, largely voluntary enforcement rather than binding governance. The paper does not address fiduciary relationships or establish the claimed comparison with them. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI Ethics initiatives have largely produced vague, high-level principles and value statements which promise to be action-guiding, but in practice provide few specific recommendations and fail to address fundamental normative and political tensions embedded in key concepts.

    “AI Ethics initiatives have thus far largely produced vague, high-level principles and value statements which promise to be actionguiding, but in practice provide few specific recommendations 5 and fail to address fundamental normative and political tensions embedded in key concepts (e.g. fairness, privacy).”

    From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [5]

    Section 4.1, “Technical Instructions” (page unavailable), says AI ethics guidelines offer broad, superficial principles that are difficult to turn into concrete practice; the paper also calls for more detailed technical explanations. Section 2.3, “Omissions” (page unavailable), identifies neglected political issues, but the passages do not establish the more specific claim that guidelines fail to address normative and political tensions embedded in concepts such as fairness and privacy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Declarations by AI companies and developers committing themselves to high-level ethical principles and self-regulatory codes provide policy-makers with a reason not to pursue new regulation.

    “Declarations by AI companies and developers committing themselves to high-level ethical principles and self-regulatory codes nonetheless provide policy-makers with a reason not to pursue new regulation.”

    From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [5]

  • Many initiatives suggest ethical challenges can best be addressed through 'technical and design expertise,' and address concepts for which technical fixes seem feasible (e.g. privacy, fairness), but rarely propose technical definitions or explanations.

    “Many initiatives suggest ethical challenges can best be addressed through 'technical and design expertise,' and address concepts for which technical fixes seem feasible (e.g. privacy, fairness), 1 but rarely propose technical definitions or explanations.”

    From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [5]

  • Serious, long-term commitment to self-regulatory frameworks cannot be taken for granted.

    “Serious, long-term commitment to self-regulatory frameworks cannot be taken for granted.”

    From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [5]

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 85 · Cited by 1,907

Research works printed but not linked: 102

  1. Abrassart, C., Bengio, Y., Chicoisne, G., de Marcellis-Warin, N., Dilhac, M.-A., Gambs, S., Gautrais, V., et al. (2018). Montréal declaration for responsible development of artificial intelligence (pp. 1-21).
  2. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., Mané, D. (2017). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv (pp. 1-29).
  3. Ananny, M. (2016). Toward an ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability, and timeliness. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 93-117.
  4. Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (Eds.). (2011). Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L. (2015). Towards ensuring ethical behavior from autonomous systems: A case-supported principle-based paradigm. In Artificial intelligence and ethics: Papers from the 2015 AAAI Workshop (pp. 1-10).
  6. Anderson, K., Waxman, M. C. (2013). Law and ethics for autonomous weapon systems: Why a ban won't work and how the laws of WAR can. SSRN Journal, 1-32.
  7. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., et al. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59-64. https ://doi.org/10.1038/s4158 6-018-0637-6. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bakewell, J. D., Clement-Jones, T. F., Giddens, A., Grender, R. M., Hollick, C. R., Holmes, C., Levene, P. K. et al. (2018). AI in the UK: Ready, willing and able?. Select committee on artificial intel- ligence (pp. 1-183).
  9. Baron, B., Musolesi, M. (2017). Interpretable machine learning for privacy-preserving pervasive systems. arXiv (pp. 1-10).
  10. Bendel, O. (2017). The synthetization of human voices. AI & SOCIETY -Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication, 82, 737.
  11. Boddington, P. (2017). Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. Cham: Springer.
  12. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press.
  14. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 114(28), 7313-7318.
  15. Brahnam, S. (2006). Gendered bots and bot abuse. In Antonella de Angeli, Sheryl Brahnam, Peter Wallis, & Peter Dix (Eds.), Misuse and abuse of interactive technologies (pp. 1-4). Montreal: ACM.
  16. Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garfinkel, B., Dafoe, A. et al. (2018). The malicious use of artificial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. arXiv (pp. 1-101).
  17. Buolamwini, J., Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gen- der classification. In Sorelle and Wilson 2018 (pp. 1-15).
  18. Burton, E., Goldsmith, J., Koening, S., Kuipers, B., Mattei, N., & Walsh, T. (2017). Ethical considera- tions in artificial intelligence courses. Artificial Intelligence Magazine, 38(2), 22-36.
  19. Calo, R. (2017). Artificial intelligence policy: a primer and roadmap. SSRN Journal, 1-28.
  20. Casilli, A. A. (2017). Digital labor studies go global: Toward a digital decolonial turn. International Journal of Communication, 11, 1934-3954.
  21. Cave, S., ÓhÉigeartaigh, S. S. (2018). An AI race for strategic advantage: Rhetoric and risks (pp. 1-5).
  22. Cowls, J., Floridi, L., (2018). Prolegomena to a white paper on an ethical framework for a good AI soci- ety. SSRN Journal, 1-14.
  23. Darling, K. (2016). Extending legal protection to social robots: The effect of anthropomorphism, empa- thy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In R. Calo, A. M. Froomkin, & I. Kerr (Eds.), Robot law (pp. 213-234). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  24. de Bruin, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). The ethics of cloud computing. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 21-39.
  25. Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
  26. Duchi, J. C., Jordan, M. I., Wainwright, M. J. (2013). Privacy aware learning. arXiv (pp. 1-60).
  27. Eaton, E., Koenig, S., Schulz, C., Maurelli, F., Lee, J., Eckroth, J., Crowley, M. et al. (2017). Blue sky ideas in artificial intelligence education from the EAAI 2017 new and future AI educator program. arXiv (pp. 1-5).
  28. Eckersley, P. (2018). Impossibility and uncertainty theorems in AI value alignment or why your AGI should not have a utility function. arXiv (pp. 1-13).
  29. Ekstrand, M. D., Joshaghani, R., Mehrpouyan, H. (2018). Privacy for all: Ensuring fair and equitable pri- vacy protections. In Sorelle and Wilson 2018 (pp. 1-13).
  30. Engelmann, S., Chen, M., Fischer, F., Kao, C., Grossklags, J. (2019). Clear sanctions, vague rewards: How China's social credit system currently defines "Good" and "Bad" behavior. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency-FAT* '19 (pp. 69-78). The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines
  31. Ernest, N., & Carroll, D. (2016). Genetic fuzzy based artificial intelligence for unmanned combat aerial vehicle control in simulated air combat missions. Journal of Defense Management. https ://doi. org/10.4172/2167-0374.10001 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2017). Incorporating ethics into artificial intelligence. The Journal of Ethics, 21(4), 403-418. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St. Marting's Press.
  34. Floridi, L. (2016). Faultless responsibility: On the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for dis- tributed moral actions. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engi- neering Sciences, 374(2083), 1-13.
  35. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., et al. (2018). AI4People- An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommenda- tions. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707.
  36. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Fran- cisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  37. Frey, C. B., Osborne, M. A. (2013). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisa- tion: Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment (pp. 1-78).
  38. Garzcarek, U., Steuer, D. (2019). Approaching ethical guidelines for data scientists. arXiv (pp. 1-18).
  39. Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumeé, III, H., Crawford, K. (2018). Datasheets for datasets. arXiv (pp. 1-17).
  40. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  41. Goldsmith, J., Burton, E. (2017). Why teaching ethics to AI practitioners is important. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society (pp. 110-114).
  42. Google. (2019). Perspectives on issues in AI governance (pp. 1-34). Retrieved February 11, 2019. https :// ai.googl e/stati c/docum ents/persp ectiv es-on-issue s-in-ai-gover nance .pdf.
  43. Gotterbarn, D., Brinkman, B., Flick, C., Kirkpatrick, M. S., Miller, K., Vazansky, K., Wolf, M. J. (2018). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct: Affirming our obligation to use our skills to ben- efit society (pp. 1-28). Retrieved February 01, 2019. https ://www.acm.org/binar ies/conte nt/asset s/ about /acm-code-of-ethic s-bookl et.pdf.
  44. Graham, M., Hjorth, I., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2017). Digital labour and development: Impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 23(2), 135-162.
  45. Greene, D., Hoffman, A. L., Stark, L. (2019). Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: A critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. In Hawaii international confer- ence on system sciences (pp. 1-10).
  46. Hagendorff, T. (2016). Wirksamkeitssteigerungen Gesellschaftskritischer Diskurse. Soziale Probleme. Zeitschrift für soziale Probleme und soziale Kontrolle, 27(1), 1-16.
  47. Hagendorff, T. (2019). Forbidden knowledge in machine learning: Reflections on the limits of research and publication. arXiv (pp. 1-24).
  48. Helbing, D. (Ed.). (2019). Towards digital enlightment: Essays on the darf and light sides of the digital revolution. Cham: Springer.
  49. Held, V. (2013). Non-contractual society: A feminist view. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17(Supple- mentary Volume 13), 111-137.
  50. Holdren, J. P., Bruce, A., Felten, E., Lyons, T., & Garris, M. (2016). Preparing for the future of artificial intelligence (pp. 1-58). Washington, D.C: Springer.
  51. Howard, P. N., Kollanyi, B. (2016). Bots, #StrongerIn, and #Brexit: Computational propaganda during the UK-EU Referendum. arXiv (pp. 1-6).
  52. Hursthouse, R. (2001). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  53. Irani, L. (2015). The cultural work of microwork. New Media & Society, 17(5), 720-739.
  54. Irani, L. (2016). The hidden faces of automation. XRDS, 23(2), 34-37.
  55. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399.
  56. Johnson, D. G. (2017). Can engineering ethics be taught? The Bridge, 47(1), 59-64.
  57. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. The Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 95(1), 1-31.
  58. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14-29.
  59. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  60. Kosinski, M., Matz, S. C., Gosling, S. D., Popov, V., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. American Psychologist, 70(6), 543-556.
  61. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(15), 5802-5805.
  62. Kosinski, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sex- ual orientation from facial images. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 246-257.
  63. Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emo- tional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(24), 8788-8790.
  64. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., et al. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096.
  65. Leonelli, S. (2016). Locating ethics in data science: Responsibility and accountability in global and distributed knowledge production systems. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 1-12.
  66. Luke, B. (1995). Taming ourselves or going Feral? Toward a nonpatriarchal metaethic of animal lib- eration. In Carol J. Adams & Josephine Donovan (Eds.), Animals & women: Feminist theoretical explorations (pp. 290-319). Durham: Duke University Press.
  67. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Computer codes and mobile bodies. In David Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination (pp. 13-30). London: Routledge.
  68. Lyons, S. (2018). Death and the machine. Singapore: Palgrave Pivot.
  69. Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 12714-12719.
  70. McAllister, A. (2017). Stranger than science fiction: The rise of A.I. interrogation in the dawn of autono- mous robots and the need for an additional protocol to the U.N. convention against torture. Minne- sota Law Review, 101, 2527-2573.
  71. McNamara, A., Smith, J., Murphy-Hill, E. (2018). Does ACM's code of ethics change ethical decision making in software development?" In G. T. Leavens, A. Garcia, C. S. Păsăreanu (Eds.) Proceed- ings of the 2018 26th ACM joint meeting on european software engineering conference and sym- posium on the foundations of software engineering-ESEC/FSE 2018 (pp. 1-7). New York: ACM Press.
  72. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501-507.
  73. Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C., Wachter, S. (2019). Explaining explanations in AI. In Proceedings of the con- ference on fairness, accountability, and transparency-FAT* '19 (pp. 1-10).
  74. Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., Elhalal, A. (2019). From what to how. An overview of AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. arXiv (pp. 1-21).
  75. Mullen, B., & Hu, L.-T. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta-analytic integra- tion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(3), 233-252.
  76. Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opin- ion. In Vincent C. Müller (Ed.), Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  77. Omohundro, S. (2014). Autonomous technology and the greater human good. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 26(3), 303-315.
  78. OpenAI. (2018). OpenAI Charter. Retrieved July 17, 2019. https ://opena i.com/chart er/. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1-12). Retrieved June 18, 2019. https ://legal instr ument s.oecd.org/en/ instr ument s/OECD-LEGAL -0449.
  79. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. New York: The Penguin Press.
  80. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  81. Pekka, A.-P., Bauer, W., Bergmann, U., Bieliková, M., Bonefeld-Dahl, C., Bonnet, Y., Bouarfa, L. et al. (2018). The European Commission's high-level expert group on artificial intelligence: Ethics guidelines for trustworthy ai. Working Document for stakeholders' consultation. Brussels (pp. 1-37).
  82. Pistono, F., Yampolskiy, R. (2016). Unethical research: How to create a malevolent artificial intelligence. arXiv (pp. 1-6).
  83. Podgaiska, I., Shklovski, I. Nordic engineers' stand on artificial intelligence and ethics: Policy recom- mendations and guidelines (pp. 1-40).
  84. Prates, M., Avelar, P., Lamb, L. C. (2018). On quantifying and understanding the role of ethics in AI research: A historical account of flagship conferences and journals. arXiv (pp. 1-13).
  85. Rolnick, D., Donti, P. L., Kaack, L. H., Kochanski, K., Lacoste, A., Sankaran, K., Ross, A. S. et al. (2019). Tackling climate change with machine learning. arXiv (pp. 1-97).
  86. Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., Vertesi, J. (2018). Fairness and abstrac- tion in Sociotechnical Systems. In ACT conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAT) (vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-17).
  87. Shoham, Y., Perrault, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Clark, J., Manyika, J., Niebles, J. C., Lyons, T., Etchemendy, J., Grosz, B., Bauer, Z. (2018). The AI index 2018 annual report. Stanford, Kalifornien (pp. 1-94).
  88. Silberman, M. S., Tomlinson, B., LaPlante, R., Ross, J., Irani, L., & Zaldivar, A. (2018). Responsible research with crowds. Communications of the ACM, 61(3), 39-41.
  89. Singla, A., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., White, R. W. (2014). Stochastic Privacy. arXiv (pp. 1-10).
  90. Sitawarin, C., Bhagoji, A. N., Mosenia, A., Chiang, M., Mittal, P. (2018). DARTS: Deceiving autono- mous cars with toxic signs. arXiv (pp. 1-27).
  91. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751-752.
  92. Tegmark, A. (2017). Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. (2016). Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with artificial intelligence and autonomous sys- tems (pp. 1-138).
  93. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. (2019). Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems (pp. 1-294).
  94. Vaes, J., Bain, P. G., & Bastian, B. (2014). Embracing humanity in the face of death: why do existential concerns moderate ingroup humanization? The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(6), 537-545.
  95. Vakkuri, V., Abrahamsson, P. (2018). The key concepts of ethics of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE international conference on engineering, technology and innovation (pp. 1-6).
  96. Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. New York: Oxford University Press.
  97. Veale, M., & Binns, R. (2017). Fairer machine learning in the real world: Mitigating discrimination with- out collecting sensitive data. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1-17.
  98. Veglis, A. (2014). Moderation techniques for social media content. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, A. Kobsa, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, et al. (Eds.), Social computing and social media (pp. 137-148). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  99. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151.
  100. Whittaker, M., Crawford, K., Dobbe, R., Fried, G., Kaziunas, E., Mathur, V., West, S. M., Richardson, R., Schultz, J., Schwartz, O. (2018). AI now report 2018 (pp. 1-62).
  101. Yu, H., Shen, Z., Miao, C., Leung, C., Lesser, V. R., Yang, Q. (2018). Building ethics into artificial intel- ligence. arXiv (pp. 1-8).
  102. Zeng, Y., Lu, E., Huangfu, C. (2018). Linking artificial intelligence principles. arXiv (pp. 1-4).

Authors
Hagendorff, T.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Hagendorff, Thilo
ORCID
Hagendorff, Thilo
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
99-120
ISSN
0924-6495 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425
arXiv
1903.03425
OpenAlex
W3003385079
Cited by
1,907
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 366 · 2025: 446 · 2024: 361 · 2023: 290 · 2022: 239 · 2021: 160 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 4
FWCI
248.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Minds and Machines (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (390727645)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
AI ethics, ethics guidelines, normative principles, moral values

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