Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40864303›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2025

A Social Disruptiveness-Based Approach to AI Governance: Complementing the Risk-Based Approach of the AI Act.

Samuela Marchiori, Jeroen K G Hopster, Anna Puzio, M Birna van Riemsdijk, Steven R Kraaijeveld, Björn Lundgren, Juri Viehoff, Lily E Frank

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2025. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  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

8 authors.

Samuela MarchioriDepartment of Values, Technology and Innovation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. s.marchiori@tudelft.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6426-7690
Jeroen K G HopsterDepartment of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9239-3048
Anna PuzioFaculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Philosophy, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8339-6244
M Birna van RiemsdijkHuman Media Interaction Department, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9089-5271
Steven R KraaijeveldAmsterdam UMC, Department of Ethics, Law & Medical Humanities, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6338-6305
Björn LundgrenCentre for Philosophy and AI Research, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5830-3432
Juri ViehoffDepartment of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5763-0279
Lily E FrankSchool of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Science, Department of Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8659-2390

Funding

Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap 024.004.031Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek VI.Veni.221F.043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The AI Act advances a risk-based approach to the legal regulation of AI systems in the European Union. While we support this development, we argue that adequate AI governance requires paying attention to the broader implications of AI systems on the socio-technical landscape in which they are designed, developed, and used. In addition to risk-based impact assessments, this involves coming to terms with the socially disruptive implications of AI, which should be governed and guided in a dynamic ecosystem of regulation, law, ethics, and evolving human practice. In this paper, we outline a 'social disruptiveness-based' approach to AI governance aimed at addressing disruptions by AI that are not easily captured by legal regulation, but that are nonetheless of great societal and ethical concern. We argue that integrating the AI Act risk-based approach with a social disruptiveness-based approach can offer a more nuanced understanding of the dimensions of impact of AI systems on society at large, thus enhancing the governance of AI and other socially disruptive technologies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceGovernment RegulationEuropean UnionHumansRisk AssessmentAI actArtificial Intelligence (AI)GovernanceResponsible Research and Innovation (RRI)Social disruptionSocially disruptive technologies

Identifiers

PMID40864303
PMCPMC12391233

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.