Hidden Agents, Explicit Obligations: A Linguistic Analysis of AI Ethics Guidelines.

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Tricia A Griffin, Roos Goorman, Brian P Green, Jos V M Welie
{"title":"Hidden Agents, Explicit Obligations: A Linguistic Analysis of AI Ethics Guidelines.","authors":"Tricia A Griffin, Roos Goorman, Brian P Green, Jos V M Welie","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00559-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since 2013, many organizations, governments, and coalitions have issued ethics guidelines aimed at achieving ethically sound artificial intelligence (AI). The literature evaluating these guidelines has so far focused more on what is in them (e.g., principles) than on who is expected to enact them (e.g., developers). We argue that ethical agency in AI Ethics guidelines has been under-scrutinized in the literature, and we seek here to fill that gap. This study relies on transitivity analysis to evaluate 87 operational ethics guidelines for the representation of moral agents and their agency. We identified normative key words, their linguistic function, and agency attribution in 6,935 statements. Our findings reveal 11 distinct agents, with deployers, developers, and AI systems being the most frequently invoked. However, the ethical agency attributed to developers and deployers was overwhelmingly implied, while the tasks assigned to them were more often normative than descriptive. That the agency of the two most powerful agents in AI development is so often hidden in ethics guidelines reveals that the challenges associated with implementing AI ethics guidelines does not stem merely from the “principles to practice” problem, but from a more deeply rooted issue regarding how guideline authors conceive of ethical agency. We evaluate the findings through the dual lenses of agent backgrounding and agent suppression and conclude with advice for authors of ethics guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"31 6","pages":"32"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12572076/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00559-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since 2013, many organizations, governments, and coalitions have issued ethics guidelines aimed at achieving ethically sound artificial intelligence (AI). The literature evaluating these guidelines has so far focused more on what is in them (e.g., principles) than on who is expected to enact them (e.g., developers). We argue that ethical agency in AI Ethics guidelines has been under-scrutinized in the literature, and we seek here to fill that gap. This study relies on transitivity analysis to evaluate 87 operational ethics guidelines for the representation of moral agents and their agency. We identified normative key words, their linguistic function, and agency attribution in 6,935 statements. Our findings reveal 11 distinct agents, with deployers, developers, and AI systems being the most frequently invoked. However, the ethical agency attributed to developers and deployers was overwhelmingly implied, while the tasks assigned to them were more often normative than descriptive. That the agency of the two most powerful agents in AI development is so often hidden in ethics guidelines reveals that the challenges associated with implementing AI ethics guidelines does not stem merely from the “principles to practice” problem, but from a more deeply rooted issue regarding how guideline authors conceive of ethical agency. We evaluate the findings through the dual lenses of agent backgrounding and agent suppression and conclude with advice for authors of ethics guidelines.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

隐藏的代理人,明确的义务:人工智能伦理准则的语言分析。
自2013年以来,许多组织、政府和联盟发布了旨在实现合乎道德的人工智能(AI)的道德准则。到目前为止,评估这些指导方针的文献更多地关注于其中的内容(例如,原则),而不是期望谁来制定它们(例如,开发人员)。我们认为,人工智能伦理准则中的伦理机构在文献中受到的审查不足,我们在这里寻求填补这一空白。本研究以及物性分析法评估87项业务伦理准则对道德行为人及其代理的表征。我们在6,935个语句中确定了规范性关键词、它们的语言功能和代理归因。我们的研究结果揭示了11种不同的代理,其中部署人员、开发人员和人工智能系统是最常被调用的。然而,归因于开发人员和部署人员的道德机构是绝对隐含的,而分配给他们的任务往往是规范性的,而不是描述性的。人工智能发展中两个最强大的主体的代理往往隐藏在道德准则中,这表明,与实施人工智能道德准则相关的挑战不仅仅源于“原则到实践”的问题,而是源于一个更根深蒂固的问题,即准则作者如何看待道德代理。我们通过代理人背景和代理人抑制的双重视角来评估研究结果,并为伦理指南的作者提供建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书