Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35258776›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2022

Dual-Use and Trustworthy? A Mixed Methods Analysis of AI Diffusion Between Civilian and Defense R&D.

Stefka Schmid, Thea Riebe, Christian Reuter

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefka SchmidScience and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC), Technische Universität Darmstadt, Pankratiusstraße 2, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0948-8893
Thea RiebeScience and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC), Technische Universität Darmstadt, Pankratiusstraße 2, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany. riebe@peasec.tu-darmstadt.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3210-6734
Christian ReuterScience and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC), Technische Universität Darmstadt, Pankratiusstraße 2, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1920-038X
Technische Universität Darmstadt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems to be impacting all industry sectors, while becoming a motor for innovation. The diffusion of AI from the civilian sector to the defense sector, and AI's dual-use potential has drawn attention from security and ethics scholars. With the publication of the ethical guideline Trustworthy AI by the European Union (EU), normative questions on the application of AI have been further evaluated. In order to draw conclusions on Trustworthy AI as a point of reference for responsible research and development (R&D), we approach the diffusion of AI across both civilian and military spheres in the EU. We capture the extent of technological diffusion and derive European and German patent citation networks. Both networks indicate a low degree of diffusion of AI between civilian and defense sectors. A qualitative investigation of project descriptions of a research institute's work in both civilian and military fields shows that military AI applications stress accuracy or robustness, while civilian AI reflects a focus on human-centric values. Our work represents a first approach by linking processes of technology diffusion with normative evaluations of R&D.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceResearchHumansArtificial intelligenceDual-useNetwork analysisTechnological innovation policyTrustworthy AIValues

Identifiers

PMID35258776
PMCPMC8904348
OpenAlexW4220805101

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.