Ethical AI governance: mapping a research ecosystem

Simon Knight, Antonette Shibani, Nicole Vincent
{"title":"Ethical AI governance: mapping a research ecosystem","authors":"Simon Knight,&nbsp;Antonette Shibani,&nbsp;Nicole Vincent","doi":"10.1007/s43681-023-00416-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>How do we assess the positive and negative impacts of research about- or research that employs artificial intelligence (AI), and how adequate are existing research governance frameworks for these ends? That concern has seen significant recent attention, with various calls for change, and a plethora of emerging guideline documents across sectors. However, it is not clear what kinds of issues are expressed in research ethics with or on AI at present, nor how resources are drawn on in this process to support the navigation of ethical issues. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) have a well-established history in ethics governance, but there have been concerns about their capacity to adequately govern AI research. However, no study to date has examined the ways that AI-related projects engage with the ethics ecosystem, or its adequacy for this context. This paper analysed a single institution’s ethics applications for research related to AI, applying a socio-material lens to their analysis. Our novel methodology provides an approach to understanding ethics ecosystems across institutions. Our results suggest that existing REC models can effectively support consideration of ethical issues in AI research, we thus propose that any new materials should be embedded in this existing well-established ecosystem.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 2","pages":"841 - 862"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-023-00416-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-023-00416-z","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

How do we assess the positive and negative impacts of research about- or research that employs artificial intelligence (AI), and how adequate are existing research governance frameworks for these ends? That concern has seen significant recent attention, with various calls for change, and a plethora of emerging guideline documents across sectors. However, it is not clear what kinds of issues are expressed in research ethics with or on AI at present, nor how resources are drawn on in this process to support the navigation of ethical issues. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) have a well-established history in ethics governance, but there have been concerns about their capacity to adequately govern AI research. However, no study to date has examined the ways that AI-related projects engage with the ethics ecosystem, or its adequacy for this context. This paper analysed a single institution’s ethics applications for research related to AI, applying a socio-material lens to their analysis. Our novel methodology provides an approach to understanding ethics ecosystems across institutions. Our results suggest that existing REC models can effectively support consideration of ethical issues in AI research, we thus propose that any new materials should be embedded in this existing well-established ecosystem.

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
合乎道德的人工智能治理:绘制研究生态系统图
我们如何评估研究或使用人工智能(AI)的研究的积极和消极影响,以及现有的研究治理框架对于这些目的是否足够?这一问题最近引起了人们的极大关注,各方纷纷呼吁改变,各部门也涌现了大量指导性文件。然而,目前尚不清楚与人工智能相关的研究伦理中表达了哪些问题,也不清楚在这一过程中如何利用资源来支持伦理问题的导航。研究伦理委员会(rec)在伦理治理方面有着悠久的历史,但人们一直担心它们是否有能力充分管理人工智能研究。然而,迄今为止还没有研究调查人工智能相关项目与伦理生态系统的关系,或其在这种情况下的充分性。本文分析了单个机构在人工智能相关研究中的伦理应用,并将社会-物质视角应用于其分析。我们的新方法提供了一种理解机构间伦理生态系统的方法。我们的研究结果表明,现有的REC模型可以有效地支持对人工智能研究中伦理问题的考虑,因此我们建议任何新材料都应该嵌入到这个现有的完善的生态系统中。
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
Beyond black-box medicine: a bioethical considerations for informed consent in AI-driven endoscopy Rectifying illusion: a Buddhist–Confucian framework for LLM hallucinations A dynamic contextual responsibility framework for evaluating large language models in socio-technical contexts Political fantasies of fairness: artificial intelligence, law, and the myth of sovereign reason A critical analysis of the ethical benefits and challenges related to the development and use of wearable AI devices
×
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