Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: Four Realms of Discussion, Research, and Annotated Bibliography

Lee, Jootaek

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3625848

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, many scholars are calling for the new regulations to include external oversight by an independent entity with enforcement powers to make the violators accountable [14,45,75,126]. In addition, the required changes must be implemented evenly across countries [59]; this is because, by drawing a parallel with the medical field, if the regulation were to be dissimilar across countries, there is the potential for a "race to the bottom" [66] where countries under-regulate or do not regulate at all AI so to attract companies.…”

Section: Criticisms Of Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The chaotic framing muddies the comprehension of what is at stake in AI development: a violation of moral or legal human rights? This conflation needs to be clarified, among others, by defining the necessary distinctions [99], establishing global cooperation and governance among stakeholders [59], or by making it clear that the two systems are complementary [99]. Nevertheless, not everyone is satisfied with framing AI within a human rights framework: some have critiqued this narrow focus on the fact that human rights have been accused of being "too Westerner, too individualistic, too narrow in scope and too abstract to form the basis of sound AI governance" [107].…”

Section: Watchdogs and Amplifiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, advocates of this stance are calling to move beyond this limited approach [107]. Finally, it is worth mentioning that, as with animal ethics, the debate about human rights has not only focused on their violation but also on the pressing question of whether an AI may enjoy such rights [59].…”

Section: Watchdogs and Amplifiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Digital ethicswashing: a systematic review and a process-perception-outcome framework

Schultz,

Conti,

Seele

2024

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term “ethicswashing” was recently coined to describe the phenomenon of instrumentalising ethics by misleading communication, creating the impression of ethical Artificial Intelligence (AI), while no substantive ethical theory, argument, or application is in place or ethicists involved. Ethicswashing resembles greenwashing for environmental issues and has become an issue – particularly since 2019 with Thomas Metzinger’s harsh criticisms as a member of the EU panel for developing ethical guidelines for AI, which he called “ethicswashing.” Nowadays, increased ethics washing has changed the perception of AI ethics, leading critics to find a “trivialization” of ethics that may even lead to “ethics bashing.” Considering the scattered literature body and the various manifestations of digital ethicswashing, we recognise the need to assess the existing literature comprehensively. To fill this gap, this research systematically reviews current knowledge about digital ethicswashing stemming from various academic disciplines, contributing to an up-to-date assessment of its underlying characteristics. Applying content analysis to map the field leads us to present five thematic clusters: ethicswashing, ethics bashing, policymaking and regulation, watchdogs, and academia. In conclusion, we synthesise ethicswashing along a process-perception-outcome framework to provide future research to explore the multiple meanings of digital ethicswashing.

show abstract

Section: Criticisms Of Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Watchdogs and Amplifiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digital ethicswashing: a systematic review and a process-perception-outcome framework

Schultz,

Conti,

Seele

2024

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A technology with broad military, policing, retail, healthcare, and social media applications cannot be subsumed under uniform problem definitions or proposed solutions; therefore, the human rights framework is presented as a broad set of norms and rules that guide concrete proposals. Second, the paper acknowledges that there is an emerging literature on how AI can enhance the enjoyment of human rights (Lee 2020), as well as a somewhat more futuristic literature on the moral and legal debates around the prospects for granting rights to AI systems (Dworkin 2019; Risse 2019), or the applicability of the human rights norm for AI-to-AI relations (Ashrafian 2015), but focuses exclusively on the potential and actual negative impact of AI on humans for purposes of clarity and space.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The promises and challenges of addressing artificial intelligence with human rights

Bakiner

2023

Big Data & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the potential promises and limitations of the human rights framework in the age of AI. It addresses the question: what, if anything, makes human rights well suited to face the challenges arising from new and emerging technologies like AI? It argues that the historical evolution of human rights as a series of legal norms and concrete practices has made it well placed to address AI-related challenges. The human rights framework should be understood comprehensively as a combination of legal remedies, moral justification, and political analysis that inform one another. Over time, the framework has evolved in ways that accommodate the balancing of contending rights claims, using multiple ex ante and ex post facto mechanisms, involving government and/or business actors, and in situations of diffuse responsibility that may or may not result from malicious intent. However, the widespread adoption of AI technologies pushes the moral, sociological, and political boundaries of the human rights framework in other ways. AI reproduces long-term, structural problems going beyond issue-by-issue regulation, is embedded within economic structures that produce cumulative negative effects, and introduces additional challenges that require a discussion about the relationship between human rights and science & technology. Some of the reasons for why AI produces problematic outcomes are deep rooted in technical intricacies that human rights practitioners should be more willing than before to get involved in.

show abstract

Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: Four Realms of Discussion, Research, and Annotated Bibliography

Cited by 2 publications

References 10 publications

Digital ethicswashing: a systematic review and a process-perception-outcome framework

Digital ethicswashing: a systematic review and a process-perception-outcome framework

The promises and challenges of addressing artificial intelligence with human rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About