Abstract
This study performs a systematic content analysis to map out the landscape of eighty-seven ethical tools concerning the type of ethical principles addressed, the approach promoted (technological vs. socio-technical vs. societal), and the kind of assessment endorsed (self-assessment versus assessment by others). The findings reveal a skewed representation and emphasis of specific ethical principles across these tools. Furthermore, ethical tools primarily advocate for a technological or socio-technical approach. In contrast, only a few ethical tools emphasize the importance of a societal approach. Additionally, the research highlights a reliance on self-assessments within these tools, raising concerns about the objectivity and comprehensiveness of ethical evaluations in AI development. Our findings add empirical support to recent AI and ethics research advocating for bottom-up approaches that embrace diverse perspectives, challenging the dominance of broadly stated ethical principles, diagnostic tools, and an overreliance on self-assessments.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, Netherlands (GRID:grid.450253.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 0688 0318); University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands (GRID:grid.7177.6) (ISNI:0000 0000 8499 2262)
2 Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands (GRID:grid.5132.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2312 1970)
3 Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, Netherlands (GRID:grid.450253.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 0688 0318)





