IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v12y2021is6p32-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emerging Consensus on ‘Ethical AI’: Human Rights Critique of Stakeholder Guidelines

Author

Listed:
  • Sakiko Fukuda‐Parr
  • Elizabeth Gibbons

Abstract

Voluntary guidelines on ‘ethical practices’ have been the response by stakeholders to address the growing concern over harmful social consequences of artificial intelligence and digital technologies. Issued by dozens of actors from industry, government and professional associations, the guidelines are creating a consensus on core standards and principles for ethical design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). Using human rights principles (equality, participation and accountability) and attention to the right to privacy, this paper reviews 15 guidelines preselected to be strongest on human rights, and on global health. We find about half of these ground their guidelines in international human rights law and incorporate the key principles; even these could go further, especially in suggesting ways to operationalize them. Those that adopt the ethics framework are particularly weak in laying out standards for accountability, often focusing on ‘transparency’, and remaining silent on enforceability and participation which would effectively protect the social good. These guidelines mention human rights as a rhetorical device to obscure the absence of enforceable standards and accountability measures, and give their attention to the single right to privacy. These ‘ethics’ guidelines, disproportionately from corporations and other interest groups, are also weak on addressing inequalities and discrimination. We argue that voluntary guidelines are creating a set of de facto norms and re‐interpretation of the term ‘human rights’ for what would be considered ‘ethical’ practice in the field. This exposes an urgent need for action by governments and civil society to develop more rigorous standards and regulatory measures, grounded in international human rights frameworks, capable of holding Big Tech and other powerful actors to account.

Suggested Citation

  • Sakiko Fukuda‐Parr & Elizabeth Gibbons, 2021. "Emerging Consensus on ‘Ethical AI’: Human Rights Critique of Stakeholder Guidelines," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S6), pages 32-44, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:12:y:2021:i:s6:p:32-44
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12965
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.12965?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vasiliki Koniakou, 2023. "From the “rush to ethics” to the “race for governance” in Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 71-102, February.
    2. Lechardoy, Lucie & López Forés, Laura & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2023. "Artificial intelligence at the workplace and the impacts on work organisation, working conditions and ethics," 32nd European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2023: Realising the digital decade in the European Union – Easier said than done? 277997, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:12:y:2021:i:s6:p:32-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.