Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: clarifying their content and normative implications

Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 19 (1):61-86 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is clearly illustrate this convergence and the prescriptive recommendations that such documents entail. There is a significant amount of research into the ethical consequences of artificial intelligence. This is reflected by many outputs across academia, policy and the media. Many of these outputs aim to provide guidance to particular stakeholder groups. It has recently been shown that there is a large degree of convergence in terms of the principles upon which these guidance documents are based. Despite this convergence, it is not always clear how these principles are to be translated into practice. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors move beyond the high-level ethical principles that are common across the AI ethics guidance literature and provide a description of the normative content that is covered by these principles. The outcome is a comprehensive compilation of normative requirements arising from existing guidance documents. This is not only required for a deeper theoretical understanding of AI ethics discussions but also for the creation of practical and implementable guidance for developers and users of AI. Findings In this paper, the authors therefore provide a detailed explanation of the normative implications of existing AI ethics guidelines but directed towards developers and organisational users of AI. The authors believe that the paper provides the most comprehensive account of ethical requirements in AI currently available, which is of interest not only to the research and policy communities engaged in the topic but also to the user communities that require guidance when developing or deploying AI systems. Originality/value The authors believe that they have managed to compile the most comprehensive document collecting existing guidance which can guide practical action but will hopefully also support the consolidation of the guidelines landscape. The authors’ findings should also be of academic interest and inspire philosophical research on the consistency and justification of the various normative statements that can be found in the literature.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A multi-agent legal recommender system.Lucas Drumond & Rosario Girardi - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):175-207.
Exceptionalisms in the ethics of humans, animals and machines.Wilhelm E. J. Klein - 2019 - Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 17 (2):183-195.
Authorship policies of bioethics journals.D. B. Resnik & Z. Master - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (7):424-428.
Meaning Still Not Normative: On Assessment and Guidance.Jaakko Reinikainen - 2020 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 28 (4):510-526.
Four Forward‐looking Guidance Points.Ruth Macklin - 2002 - Developing World Bioethics 1 (2):121-134.
Uncertainty in emotion recognition.Agnieszka Landowska - 2019 - Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 17 (3):273-291.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-10

Downloads
198 (#96,632)

6 months
130 (#24,838)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Bernd Stahl
Westfälische Wilhelms Universität, Münster
Mark Ryan
Wageningen University and Research