| Title |
Artificial Intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: the US, EU, and UK approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corinne Cath, Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Luciano Floridi |
| Abstract |
In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI). In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a 'good AI society'. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: (a) the development of a 'good AI society'; (b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and (c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a 'good AI society'. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 11% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 79% |
| Scientists | 4 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,022 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1019 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 165 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 123 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 87 | 9% |
| Researcher | 82 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 42 | 4% |
| Other | 182 | 18% |
| Unknown | 341 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 170 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 116 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 111 | 11% |
| Engineering | 34 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 33 | 3% |
| Other | 178 | 17% |
| Unknown | 380 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,083,405
of 24,356,663 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#69
of 951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,400
of 312,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,356,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,325 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.