The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The EU Approach to Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
As part of its European strategy for Artificial Intelligence (AI), and as a response to the increasing ethical questions raised by this technology, the European Commission established an independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI HLEG) in June 2018. The group was tasked to draft two deliverables: AI Ethics Guidelines and Policy and Investment Recommendations. Nine months later, its first deliverable was published, putting forward a comprehensive framework to achieve “Trustworthy AI” by offering ethical guidance to AI practitioners. This paper dives into the work carried out by the group, focusing in particular on its AI Ethics Guidelines. First, this paper clarifies the context that led to the creation of the AI HLEG and its mandate (I). Subsequently, it elaborates on the Guidelines’ aim and purpose (II), and analyses the Guidelines’ drafting process (III). Particular focus is given to the questions surrounding the respective role played by ethics and law in the AI governance landscape (IV), as well as some of the challenges that had to be overcome throughout the process (V). Finally, this paper places the Guidelines in an international context, and sets out the next steps (VI) ahead on the journey towards an appropriate governance framework for AI (VII).
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“This endeavor necessitates the establishment of universally recognized principles of trustworthy AI (Floridi, 2021;Shneiderman, 2020;Smuha, 2019;Wing, 2021).”
From Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: a focused review on ChatGPT and responsible research and innovation (2024) · cites this paper as Smuha, 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 · Cited by 1,762
Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: A Review
Kaur, D., Uslu, S., Rittichier, K. J., & Durresi, A. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3491209 · Cited by 709
Survey of Explainable AI Techniques in Healthcare
Chaddad, A., Peng, J., Xu, J., & Bouridane, A. (2023) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s23020634 · Cited by 591
Camilleri, M. A. (2024) · Expert Systems · doi:10.1111/exsy.13406 · Cited by 331
Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models
Ferrara, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.03738 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Smuha, N. A.
- Corresponding author
- Smuha, Nathalie A.
- ORCID
- Smuha, Nathalie A.
- Venue
- Computer Law Review International
- Publisher
- Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt
- Published
- 2019-08-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 97-106
- ISSN
- 1610-7608 (ISSN-L)
- 2194-4164
- OpenAlex
- W2968511602
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 29.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- lirias.kuleuven.be
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Computer Law Review International (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- KU Leuven
- Vlaamse regering
- Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
- Keywords
- trustworthy AI, AI ethics guidelines, AI governance, drafting process, European Commission
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