Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34767085›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2021

Achieving a 'Good AI Society': Comparing the Aims and Progress of the EU and the US.

Huw Roberts, Josh Cowls, Emmie Hine, Francesca Mazzi, Andreas Tsamados, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Luciano Floridi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Huw RobertsOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK.
Josh CowlsOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK.
Emmie HineOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK.
Francesca MazziOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK.
Andreas TsamadosOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK.
Mariarosaria TaddeoOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK.
Luciano FloridiOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles', Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK. luciano.floridi@oii.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5444-2280

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few years, there has been a proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) strategies, released by governments around the world, that seek to maximise the benefits of AI and minimise potential harms. This article provides a comparative analysis of the European Union (EU) and the United States' (US) AI strategies and considers (i) the visions of a 'Good AI Society' that are forwarded in key policy documents and their opportunity costs, (ii) the extent to which the implementation of each vision is living up to stated aims and (iii) the consequences that these differing visions of a 'Good AI Society' have for transatlantic cooperation. The article concludes by comparing the ethical desirability of each vision and identifies areas where the EU, and especially the US, need to improve in order to achieve ethical outcomes and deepen cooperation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceGovernmentEuropean UnionPolicySocietiesUnited StatesArtificial intelligenceEuropean UnionPolicySocial goodUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34767085
PMCPMC8587491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.