Publics’ views on ethical challenges of artificial intelligence: a scoping review

Helena Machado, Susana Silva, Laura Neiva
{"title":"Publics’ views on ethical challenges of artificial intelligence: a scoping review","authors":"Helena Machado,&nbsp;Susana Silva,&nbsp;Laura Neiva","doi":"10.1007/s43681-023-00387-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This scoping review examines the research landscape about publics’ views on the ethical challenges of AI. To elucidate how the concerns voiced by the publics are translated within the research domain, this study scrutinizes 64 publications sourced from PubMed<sup>®</sup> and Web of Science™. The central inquiry revolves around discerning the motivations, stakeholders, and ethical quandaries that emerge in research on this topic. The analysis reveals that innovation and legitimation stand out as the primary impetuses for engaging the public in deliberations concerning the ethical dilemmas associated with AI technologies. Supplementary motives are rooted in educational endeavors, democratization initiatives, and inspirational pursuits, whereas politicization emerges as a comparatively infrequent incentive. The study participants predominantly comprise the general public and professional groups, followed by AI system developers, industry and business managers, students, scholars, consumers, and policymakers. The ethical dimensions most commonly explored in the literature encompass human agency and oversight, followed by issues centered on privacy and data governance. Conversely, topics related to diversity, nondiscrimination, fairness, societal and environmental well-being, technical robustness, safety, transparency, and accountability receive comparatively less attention. This paper delineates the concrete operationalization of calls for public involvement in AI governance within the research sphere. It underscores the intricate interplay between ethical concerns, public involvement, and societal structures, including political and economic agendas, which serve to bolster technical proficiency and affirm the legitimacy of AI development in accordance with the institutional norms that underlie responsible research practices.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 1","pages":"139 - 167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-023-00387-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-023-00387-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This scoping review examines the research landscape about publics’ views on the ethical challenges of AI. To elucidate how the concerns voiced by the publics are translated within the research domain, this study scrutinizes 64 publications sourced from PubMed® and Web of Science™. The central inquiry revolves around discerning the motivations, stakeholders, and ethical quandaries that emerge in research on this topic. The analysis reveals that innovation and legitimation stand out as the primary impetuses for engaging the public in deliberations concerning the ethical dilemmas associated with AI technologies. Supplementary motives are rooted in educational endeavors, democratization initiatives, and inspirational pursuits, whereas politicization emerges as a comparatively infrequent incentive. The study participants predominantly comprise the general public and professional groups, followed by AI system developers, industry and business managers, students, scholars, consumers, and policymakers. The ethical dimensions most commonly explored in the literature encompass human agency and oversight, followed by issues centered on privacy and data governance. Conversely, topics related to diversity, nondiscrimination, fairness, societal and environmental well-being, technical robustness, safety, transparency, and accountability receive comparatively less attention. This paper delineates the concrete operationalization of calls for public involvement in AI governance within the research sphere. It underscores the intricate interplay between ethical concerns, public involvement, and societal structures, including political and economic agendas, which serve to bolster technical proficiency and affirm the legitimacy of AI development in accordance with the institutional norms that underlie responsible research practices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公众对人工智能伦理挑战的看法:范围界定审查
这一范围审查审查了公众对人工智能伦理挑战的看法的研究前景。为了阐明公众所表达的担忧是如何在研究领域中转化的,本研究仔细审查了来自PubMed®和Web of Science™的64篇出版物。核心调查围绕着辨别动机、利益相关者和道德困境,这些都是在这个主题的研究中出现的。分析表明,创新和合法化是促使公众参与与人工智能技术相关的道德困境讨论的主要动力。辅助动机植根于教育努力、民主化倡议和鼓舞人心的追求,而政治化作为一种相对少见的动机出现。研究参与者主要包括普通公众和专业团体,其次是人工智能系统开发人员、行业和业务经理、学生、学者、消费者和政策制定者。文献中最常探讨的伦理维度包括人类机构和监督,其次是以隐私和数据治理为中心的问题。相反,与多样性、非歧视、公平、社会和环境福祉、技术稳健性、安全性、透明度和问责制相关的主题受到的关注相对较少。本文描述了在研究领域内呼吁公众参与人工智能治理的具体操作。它强调了伦理问题、公众参与和社会结构(包括政治和经济议程)之间错综复杂的相互作用,这些相互作用有助于提高技术熟练程度,并根据作为负责任研究实践基础的制度规范,确认人工智能发展的合法性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Governing AI in operations: ethical risks, accountability mechanisms, and responsible digital operations Making AI in education responsible: classroom-ready ethical guidelines for teachers and students Embedding ethical governance in personal AI systems: design and evaluation of a user-centred oversight agent The architecture of algorithmic fairness: bridging the gap between formal metrics and substantive justice Ethical challenges in generative AI: a survey of current issues, frameworks, and future directions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1