Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

The Third Moment of AI Ethics: Developing Relatable and Contextualized Tools

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims AI ethics should move to a third moment of relatable, contextualized tools and presents an open-source autonomous-driving tool as the proof of concept.

desk verdict An honest proof-of-concept for a practical AI ethics tool, with a real open-source artifact but an abstract that claims more than the N=9 survey supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16954 v2 pith:OBVPIOCH submitted 2025-01-28 cs.CY

Sarah Hladikova , Yuling Wang , Andreia Martinho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords AIethicsthirdmomentrelatabletoolscontextualizationMorleyTypologyparticipatorydesignautonomousdrivingresearch-practicegap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that AI ethics is entering a third moment, after a first moment of abstract principles and a second of 'from what to how' toolkits, and that this moment should be defined by tools that are relatable and contextualized to specific industries. The authors' central claim is that an open-source AI ethics tool, built through participatory design with practitioners and grounded in the Morley Typology, can bridge the persistent gap between ethics research and engineering practice. They support the claim with a proof-of-concept study in the autonomous driving sector, where all nine survey respondents rated the tool as relatable and seven found its flow adequate. If the claim holds, the field's measure of success should shift from normative completeness to whether practitioners actually reach for and use the guidance.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Morley Typology, a classification of AI ethics tools and methods by ethical principle (Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Justice, Autonomy, Explainability) and by stage in the algorithm development pipeline. The paper's contribution is to convert that static inventory into a living, open-source tool organized into eight pipeline sections—Development, Design, Training, Building, Testing, Deployment, Monitoring, and Fostering Ethics and Virtues—with a semantic search that lets users query in natural language and a domain tab built for autonomous driving. What this mechanism does is translate abstract normative mandates into phase-specific, actionable items and into the language and tensions of a particular industry, so that ethics is encountered as part of engineering work rather than as an external constraint.

What would settle it

A randomized field study would settle it: give one set of engineering teams the open-source AI ethics tool and another set a conventional principles document, then track over several months whether the tool group generates more documented ethical assessments, changes design decisions, or flags more issues; if the tool group behaves no differently, the claim that relatability and contextualization drive implementation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the barrier to ethical AI is not a lack of principles but a lack of relatable, contextualized normative tools. The authors show that the Morley Typology—an inventory of 106 methods and tools mapped to ethical principles and pipeline phases—can be compressed, updated, and rebuilt as an open, technology-agnostic web tool organized around eight stages of development, with a domain-specific tab for autonomous driving and natural-language search. They contend that this design makes ethics language familiar to practitioners and gives them a place to raise ethical questions inside existing workflows. The proof-of-concept survey, though small, returned unanimous relatability ratings and feedback that the authors use to argue that participatory, context-aware tool building is the productive direction for AI ethics.

Load-bearing premise

In Section 3.3.3 the paper records low engagement and only nine responses from 40 contacted companies, and the load-bearing premise is that those nine self-selected respondents—all of whom reported the tool as relatable—are representative enough, and that relatability carries over into adoption, to support the general conclusion about what the AI ethics community should build.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI ethics guidance would be judged by whether practitioners find it relatable and can place it in their workflow, not only by its philosophical rigor.
  • The autonomous-driving tab becomes a template: the same participatory process can be repeated for healthcare, finance, criminal justice, or any domain with its own ethical tensions.
  • Open-source, MIT-licensed distribution means organizations can fork the tool, localize it, and keep it aligned with their own processes.
  • Ethics questions would be raised in every phase—training, building, testing, deployment, monitoring—rather than only at design time.
  • Practitioner feedback requesting examples and step-by-step instructions would push future versions of such tools toward case studies, checklists, and team-level protocols.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A stronger test of the paper's thesis would measure behavior change: whether teams given the tool actually raise more ethical issues or alter design decisions, rather than only reporting that the tool feels relatable.
  • The tool's eight-phase structure suggests ethics could be embedded into existing engineering artifacts—pull requests, model cards, monitoring dashboards—so normative review happens where work already happens.
  • The paper's evidence implies that relatability is necessary but probably not sufficient: respondents asked for more concrete examples and implementation guidance, so the next design iteration should treat those requests as adoption requirements, not polish.
  • If the third moment is real, government and standards bodies may start publishing domain-specific, practitioner-tested ethics toolkits instead of general principles documents.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'third moment' of AI ethics in which normative tools should be relatable and contextualized, and describes an open-source AI ethics tool built on the Morley Typology. The tool organizes ethical resources along software development phases and includes a domain-specific tab for autonomous driving. The authors report a proof-of-concept survey of autonomous driving industry practitioners (N=9, seven complete) that assessed the tool's relatability, perceived usefulness, and adoption likelihood. Based on this, the abstract claims the tool 'bridges this gap' between abstract AI ethics principles and practical implementation. The paper includes the survey results, qualitative feedback, and a discussion of limitations.

Significance. The manuscript addresses a real and important problem: the translation of AI ethics principles into usable practice. Its strengths include a concrete, openly available artifact (a GitBook-based tool), grounding in an established typology (Morley et al.), a domain-specific instantiation, and an explicit limitations section that acknowledges the small sample. The conceptual 'third moment' framing is a useful rhetorical contribution, though it is not empirically established. If the tool were validated as usable and adopted by practitioners, it would be a meaningful contribution to AI ethics operationalization. However, the current evidence is too thin to support the abstract's strong bridging claim, so the work is best viewed as a pilot/prototype study rather than a validated solution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.3, Table 6] The central validation rests on a single self-reported relatability item from N=9 respondents (seven complete) out of 40 contacted companies, with no baseline, no comparison condition, and no behavioral outcome. Table 6 shows only 3 of 6 respondents who answered the adoption question would adopt the tool. These data do not support the abstract's claim that the tool 'bridges this gap'; at most they support a proof-of-concept prototype. Please either add a stronger evaluation (e.g., pre/post comparison, task-based use, or comparison with existing guidelines) or revise the central claim to a pilot finding.
  2. [§4 Discussion] The Discussion states that practitioners 'wish for more detail, precise instructions, and examples' and that 'the language is still high level' (see also Appendix C, which lists requests for step-by-step instructions and concrete examples). This is precisely the barrier the tool was designed to remove (Section 1). The authors' own qualitative feedback thus undercuts the conclusion that the tool is relatable and contextualized. The manuscript needs to confront this tension explicitly and avoid claiming that the gap has been bridged.
  3. [§3.3.1 and §3.3.2] The abstract says the tool was developed 'through participatory design with industry practitioners,' but the described process involves a survey conducted after the tool was built; there is no reported iterative co-design or demonstration that practitioner input shaped the design before the study. If the authors wish to use the term 'participatory design,' they need to describe the engagement mechanism and how feedback was incorporated into the tool.
  4. [§3.3.3, Tables 5–6 and Appendix B] The outcome measures lack validity and reporting detail: 'Relatable' is a single item with no construct definition, 'Flow' and 'Adoption' have different response Ns (9 vs. 6 for adoption) with no explanation of missingness, and the survey response scales and item wording are not provided in the main text. This makes it difficult for readers to interpret the results or assess social desirability bias. Please report the full survey items, scale anchors, and missing-data handling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 6] The heading 'Usefullness' should be 'Usefulness'; also, the section text at the start of §3.3.3 says 'reliability and usefulness' where 'relatability' appears intended.
  2. [Table 5] The row header 'T raining' contains a typo; it should read 'Training'.
  3. [References] References [15] and [16] are the same Hagendorff article; please deduplicate and renumber.
  4. [§3.2] The description of GitBook is not sufficient for readers unfamiliar with the platform; a screenshot or an example of the tool's actual interface/output would clarify what was built and how it is used.
  5. [Appendix A] The appendix table lacks a table number and title; adding these would improve consistency with the main text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; the tool's validation is empirical, with only a minor self-citation anchoring the relatability premise.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.2, 'The Challenges of AI Ethics in the current AI Paradigm']
    "This research builds on the premise that AI Ethics needs to focus on improving the relatability and contextualization of its normative tools[28]."

    Reference [28] is the third author's own PhD thesis (Martins Martinho Bessa, 2022). The paper's central premise for proposing the 'third moment' and for designing the tool is anchored to this self-citation. However, the same premise is independently supported by Morley et al. [32] and by the cited barrier literature, so the self-citation is not the sole load-bearing evidence. The survey outcome that practitioners found the tool 'relatable' could have failed; it is an empirical result, not a conclusion forced by the self-citation. This is therefore a minor self-citation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper contains no mathematical derivation, fitted parameters, or equations whose outputs reduce to their inputs. Its central claim that the tool 'bridges this gap' is an empirical assertion based on a small proof-of-concept survey (N=9, seven with no missing data). Asking practitioners to rate the tool's relatability directly tests the tool's stated design goal, but relatability is not defined as the survey response; the participants could have answered negatively, so the validation is not tautological by construction. The main circularity-adjacent point is the self-citation in Section 2.2, where the field-level premise of relatability is tied to the third author's PhD thesis. Because Morley et al. [32] supplies the same criteria and the paper cites independent barrier studies, this self-citation is not load-bearing in a way that forces the conclusion. The gap between the strong abstract claim and the limited N=9 evidence is a validity and generalizability concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on domain assumptions about the validity of the Morley Typology, the representativeness of a tiny self-selected sample, and the use of self-report as a proxy for readiness and adoption. No numerical free parameters are fit, and the only invented entity is a conceptual framing rather than a physical or mathematical object.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Morley Typology is a valid comprehensive mapping of AI ethics tools to principles and pipeline stages.
    Section 3.1 uses the Morley Typology as the foundational starting point for selecting and categorizing resources, without independently validating its coverage.
  • domain assumption Self-reported perceptions of ethics knowledge and tool relatability are meaningful proxies for actual readiness or adoption.
    The survey measures self-perceived knowledge (Table 3) and relatability (Table 6) and treats these as evidence for the tool's value.
  • domain assumption The nine respondents are adequately representative of the practitioners the tool is meant to serve.
    The paper generalizes from N=9 to conclusions about the field's need for contextualized tools (Section 4), while acknowledging selection bias in Appendix D.1.
  • domain assumption Normative ethical frameworks (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics) are instantiated correctly by the listed tools and resources.
    The tool assigns an 'Algorithm Ethics' label to each resource in Appendix A, but the paper does not show that these assignments were validated by ethicists or practitioners.
invented entities (1)
  • The Third Moment of AI Ethics
    purpose: A framing concept that identifies the authors' proposed phase of AI ethics focused on relatable, contextualized tools.
    The concept is introduced by the authors and used to position the tool, but there is no independent empirical evidence that this marks a new historical phase rather than a rhetorical framing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Third Moment of AI Ethics: Developing Relatable and Contextualized Tools." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OBVPIOCH

@misc{pith2026250116954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Third Moment of AI Ethics: Developing Relatable and Contextualized Tools},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OBVPIOCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16954}
}
read the original abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics has gained significant momentum, evidenced by the growing body of published literature, policy guidelines, and public discourse. However, the practical implementation and adoption of AI ethics principles among practitioners has not kept pace with this theoretical development. Common barriers to adoption include overly abstract language, poor accessibility, and insufficient practical guidance for implementation. Through participatory design with industry practitioners, we developed an open-source tool that bridges this gap. Our tool is firmly grounded in normative ethical frameworks while offering concrete, actionable guidance in an intuitive format that aligns with established software development workflows. We validated this approach through a proof of concept study in the United States autonomous driving industry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16954 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From Morley Typology Review to the Tool Development [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The AI Ethics Tool Schematic Representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. AI Ethics Tool Development Cycle: Proof of Concept Study with Continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. J. Ali, A. Christin, A. Smart, and R. Katila. Walking the walk of ai ethics: Or- ganizational challenges and the individualization of risk among ethics entrepreneurs. In 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , F AccT ’23. ACM, June 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Ashok, R

    M. Ashok, R. Madan, A. Joha, and U. Sivarajah. Ethical framework for artificial intelligence and digital technologies. International Journal of Information Management , 62:102433, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Ayling and A

    J. Ayling and A. Chapman. Putting ai ethics to work: are the tools fit for purpose? AI and Ethics , 2(3):405–429, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Bonnefon, A

    J.-F. Bonnefon, A. Shariff, and I. Rahwan. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293):1573–1576, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Bonnefon, A

    J.-F. Bonnefon, A. Shariff, and I. Rahwan. The trolley, the bull bar, and why engineers should care about the ethics of autonomous cars [point of view]. Proceedings of the IEEE, 107(3):502–504, 2019. 9

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    A. O. Brightman, N. D. Fila, J. L. Hess, A. J. Kerr, D. Kim, M. C. Loui, and C. B. Zoltowski. Applying phenomenography to develop a comprehensive understanding of ethics in engineering practice. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) , pages 1–5, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    T. H. Byers and T. L. Seelig. Empowering future engineers with ethical thinking. The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society , 50(S):111–114, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    N. K. Corrˆ ea, C. Galv˜ ao, J. W. Santos, C. Del Pino, E. P. Pinto, C. Barbosa, D. Mass- mann, R. Mambrini, L. Galv˜ ao, E. Terem, and N. de Oliveira. Worldwide ai ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for ai governance.Patterns, 4(10):100857, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Eitel-Porter

    R. Eitel-Porter. Beyond the promise: implementing ethical ai. AI and Ethics , 1:73–80, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    White paper on artificial intelligence: A european approach to excellence and trust

    European Commission. White paper on artificial intelligence: A european approach to excellence and trust. Technical Report COM (2020) 65 final, European Commission, Brussels, February 2020. Accessed: 31 January 2024

    2020

  3. [11]

    Floridi and J

    L. Floridi and J. Cowls. A unified framework of five principles for ai in society. Machine learning and the city: Applications in architecture and urban design , pages 535–545, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Floridi, J

    L. Floridi, J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, C. Luetge, R. Madelin, U. Pagallo, F. Rossi, B. Schafer, P. Valcke, and E. Vayena. Ai4people—an ethical framework for a good ai society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recom- mendations. Minds & ...

    2018

  5. [13]

    I. Gabriel. Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines , 30:411– 437, 09 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Georgieva, C

    I. Georgieva, C. Lazo, T. Timan, and A. F. van Veenstra. From ai ethics principles to data science practice: a reflection and a gap analysis based on recent frameworks and practical experience. AI and Ethics , 2(4):697–711, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Hagendorff

    T. Hagendorff. The ethics of ai ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and machines, 30(1):99–120, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Hagendorff

    T. Hagendorff. The ethics of ai ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1):99–120, Mar. 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Hagendorff

    T. Hagendorff. A virtue-based framework to support putting ai ethics into practice. Philosophy & Technology, 35(3):55, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hagendorff

    T. Hagendorff. Mapping the ethics of generative ai: A comprehensive scoping review, 2024. 10

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ethics guidelines for trustworthy ai

    High-Level Expert Group on AI. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy ai. Technical report,

  12. [20]

    Introducing the principled artificial intelligence project, 2019

    Hilligoss, Hannah and Fjeld, Jessica. Introducing the principled artificial intelligence project, 2019. Accessed: 31 January 2024

    2019

  13. [21]

    Jobin, M

    A. Jobin, M. Ienca, and E. Vayena. The global landscape of ai ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence , 1(9):389–399, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    John-Mathews, D

    J.-M. John-Mathews, D. Cardon, and C. Balagu´ e. From reality to world. a critical perspective on ai fairness. Journal of Business Ethics , 178(4):945–959, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Johnson and J

    B. Johnson and J. Smith. Towards ethical data-driven software: Filling the gaps in ethics research & practice. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Ethics in Software Engineering Research and Practice (SEthics) , pages 18–25, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    N. S. A. Karim, F. A. Ammar, and R. Aziz. Ethical software: Integrating code of ethics into software development life cycle. In 2017 International Conference on Computer and Applications (ICCA) , pages 290–298, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Martinho

    A. Martinho. Surveying judges about artificial intelligence: profession, judicial adjudi- cation, and legal principles. AI & SOCIETY , pages 1–16, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Martinho, N

    A. Martinho, N. Herber, M. Kroesen, and C. Chorus. Ethical issues in focus by the autonomous vehicles industry. Transport reviews, 41(5):556–577, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Martinho, M

    A. Martinho, M. Kroesen, and C. Chorus. A healthy debate: Exploring the views of medical doctors on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 121:102190, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Martins Martinho Bessa

    A. Martins Martinho Bessa. Empirical Essays in Artificial Intelligence Ethics . PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Mittelstadt

    B. Mittelstadt. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical ai. Nature machine intelli- gence, 1(11):501–507, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Morley, A

    J. Morley, A. Elhalal, F. Garcia, L. Kinsey, J. M¨ okander, and L. Floridi. Ethics as a service: a pragmatic operationalisation of ai ethics. Minds and Machines, 31(2):239–256, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Morley, L

    J. Morley, L. Floridi, L. Kinsey, and A. Elhalal. From what to how: an initial review of publicly available ai ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and engineering ethics , 26(4):2141–2168, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Morley, L

    J. Morley, L. Kinsey, A. Elhalal, F. Garcia, M. Ziosi, and L. Floridi. Operationalising ai ethics: barriers, enablers and next steps. AI & SOCIETY , pages 1–13, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    L. Munn. The uselessness of ai ethics. AI and Ethics , 3(3):869–877, 2023. 11

    2023

  26. [34]

    Orr and J

    W. Orr and J. L. Davis. Attributions of ethical responsibility by artificial intelligence practitioners. Information, Communication & Society , 23(5):719–735, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Penuel, D

    W. Penuel, D. Briggs, K. Davidson, C. Herlihy, D. Sherer, H. Hill, C. Farrell, and A.-R. Allen. How school and district leaders access, perceive, and use research. AERA Open, 3(2):1–17, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    E. Prem. From ethical ai frameworks to tools: a review of approaches. AI and Ethics , pages 1–18, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    A. Renda. Ethics, algorithms and self-driving cars a csi of the ’trolley problem’. 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Schiff, J

    D. Schiff, J. Biddle, J. Borenstein, and K. Laas. What’s next for ai ethics, policy, and governance? a global overview. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 153–158, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    C. Stix. Actionable principles for artificial intelligence policy: three pathways. Science and engineering ethics , 27(1):15, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    E. Tabassi. Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0). Technical Report NIST AI 100-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Theodorou and V

    A. Theodorou and V. Dignum. Towards ethical and socio-legal governance in ai. Nature Machine Intelligence , 2(1):10–12, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Vakkuri, K.-K

    V. Vakkuri, K.-K. Kemell, M. Jantunen, E. Halme, and P. Abrahamsson. Eccola—a method for implementing ethically aligned ai systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 182:111067, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Vakkuri, K.-K

    V. Vakkuri, K.-K. Kemell, J. Kultanen, and P. Abrahamsson. The current state of industrial practice in artificial intelligence ethics. IEEE Software, 37(4):50–57, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Vakkuri, K.-K

    V. Vakkuri, K.-K. Kemell, J. Tolvanen, M. Jantunen, E. Halme, and P. Abrahamsson. How do software companies deal with artificial intelligence ethics? a gap analysis. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pages...

    2022

  37. [45]

    Wilson and M

    C. Wilson and M. Van Der Velden. Sustainable ai: An integrated model to guide public sector decision-making. Technology in Society, 68:101926, 2022. A Tools and resources from the Morley Typology for the AI Ethics Tool 12 Phase Value Key elements Algorithm Ethics Development B...

    2022

  38. [2019]

    Accessed: 31 January 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.