Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34790946›Full record

ArticleAI and ethics2021

Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community.

Christoph Ebell, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Richard Benjamins, Hengjin Cai, Mark Coeckelbergh, Tania Duarte, Merve Hickok, Aurelie Jacquet, Angela Kim, Joris Krijger and 7 more

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in AI and ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors.

Christoph EbellHumanIn Association, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9959-3771
Ricardo Baeza-YatesInstitute for Experiential AI, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts USA.
Richard BenjaminsObservatorio del impacto social y ético de la inteligencia artificial, Barcelona, Spain.
Hengjin CaiSchool of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Mark CoeckelberghUniversität Wien, Wien, Austria.
Tania DuarteWe and AI, London, UK.
Merve HickokAIethicist.org, Ann Arbor, MI USA.
Aurelie JacquetLawyer, Sydney, Australia.
Angela KimWomen in AI, Sydney, Australia.
Joris KrijgerErasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
John MacIntyreSunderland University, Sunderland, UK.
Piyush MadhamshettiwarDepartment of Transport, Victoria, Australia.
Lauren MaffeoWashington, DC USA.
Jeanna MatthewsClarkson University, Potsdam, USA.
Larry MedskerGeorge Washington University, Washington, DC USA.
Peter SmithSunderland University, Sunderland, UK.
Savannah ThaisPrinceton University, Princeton, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent incidents involving Dr. Timnit Gebru, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, and Google have triggered an important discussion emblematic of issues arising from the practice of AI Ethics research. We offer this paper and its bibliography as a resource to the global community of AI Ethics Researchers who argue for the protection and freedom of this research community. Corporate, as well as academic research settings, involve responsibility, duties, dissent, and conflicts of interest. This article is meant to provide a reference point at the beginning of this decade regarding matters of consensus and disagreement on how to enact AI Ethics for the good of our institutions, society, and individuals. We have herein identified issues that arise at the intersection of information technology, socially encoded behaviors, and biases, and individual researchers' work and responsibilities. We revisit some of the most pressing problems with AI decision-making and examine the difficult relationships between corporate interests and the early years of AI Ethics research. We propose several possible actions we can take collectively to support researchers throughout the field of AI Ethics, especially those from marginalized groups who may experience even more barriers in speaking out and having their research amplified. We promote the global community of AI Ethics researchers and the evolution of standards accepted in our profession guiding a technological future that makes life better for all.

Identifiers

PMID34790946
PMCPMC8043756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.