Dignity, properly used, could be a useful construct in AI ethics.

Cait Lamberton, Lorenn Ruster, Sakshi Ghai, Neela Saldanha

Abstract readNews

In one paragraph

Article in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2025. 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

4 authors.

Cait LambertonThe Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Lorenn RusterSchool of Cybernetics, ANU College of Systems and Society, Level 3 Birch Building, 35 Science Road, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia.

Sakshi GhaiDepartment of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, Connaught House, 63-65 Aldwych, London WC2B 4EJ, UK.

Neela SaldanhaYale Research Initiative on Innovation & Scale (Y-RISE), Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University, 34 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rueda et al. argue that the concept of dignity is problematic for AI ethics due to its complexity, ambiguity, and biased usage. While agreeing on many points, we propose that adding the necessary precision to the use of the term is neither difficult nor onerous. Further, doing so may allow understanding of the factors that promote dignity affirmation, match the multifaceted nature of AI systems themselves, and promote pragmatically better design outcomes than will be likely if the idea is avoided in AI ethics discussions.

Identifiers

PMID41328158

DOI10.1016/j.patter.2025.101396

PMCPMC12664943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.