Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 57 references

Towards Transparent Ethical AI: A Roadmap for Trustworthy Robotic Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that transparency in AI decision-making is fundamental to ethical and trustworthy robotic systems, and outlines a framework to achieve it.

desk verdict A competent abstract for a paper that doesn't exist yet — nothing here to referee until the full text is provided. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05846 v1 pith:M3LI7EVI submitted 2025-08-07 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HCcs.LGcs.RO

Ahmad Farooq , Kamran Iqbal This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HCcs.LGcs.RO
keywords transparencyexplainableAIroboticsethicstrustworthyaccountabilityinformedconsentethicalalgorithmsregulatorypolicy
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

Robotic systems are entering everyday life, and their decisions carry ethical weight. This paper argues that transparency—making a robot's decision process legible—is not an optional feature but the condition for trustworthy and ethically aligned AI. From transparency, the paper derives three outcomes: accountability for what the robot does, informed consent for those it affects, and the ability to debug ethical algorithms when they fail. To achieve these in dynamic, real-world settings, it outlines a framework combining standardized transparency metrics, explainable AI techniques, and user-friendly interfaces. The paper positions transparency as a design principle that should shape how robotic systems are built, regulated, and trusted.

What carries the argument

The framework is the paper's central mechanism. It has three coupled components: standardized transparency metrics (to measure how openly a system reveals its reasoning), explainable AI techniques (to produce usable explanations of decisions), and user-friendly interfaces (to convey those explanations to non-experts). Together these are meant to convert the abstract value of transparency into concrete, auditable properties of a robotic system, including in messy, dynamic environments rather than only in controlled settings.

What would settle it

Run a comparative field deployment: robots performing a real task, half with the proposed transparency framework and half without, measured on user ability to predict and attribute responsibility for robot actions, quality of consent, and speed of identifying ethical faults; indistinguishable results would falsify the framework's causal claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that transparency is the load-bearing element in ethical AI: a robotic system that cannot explain its decisions cannot be held accountable, cannot enable meaningful consent, and cannot be corrected when its ethical reasoning goes wrong. It treats transparency as a fundamental design element rather than a technical add-on, and supports this by mapping the technical, ethical, and practical obstacles to transparency in real-time, changing environments. Its constructive answer is a tripartite framework: standardized metrics to define what counts as transparent, explainable AI to generate the explanations, and user-friendly interfaces to put those explanations in fron

Load-bearing premise

The framework's promised benefits—accountability, informed consent, ethical debugging—depend on the premise that transparency can actually be operationalized by metrics, explainable AI, and interface design in real-world dynamic robotic contexts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If transparency is fundamental, future robotic systems should be designed from the start with explainability as a hard requirement, not a post-hoc overlay.
  • Regulators could mandate transparency metrics and interface standards for any robot whose decisions affect people, turning an ethical principle into a compliance criterion.
  • With transparent decision processes, accountability becomes traceable: regulators and courts can identify where an ethical failure originated rather than treating the robot as a black box.
  • Informed consent becomes operational: a user can be told, in plain terms, what a robot intends to do and why, before agreeing to its actions.
  • Public trust in robotics would plausibly rise if transparency were a standard property, because the systems become legible and verifiable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open how the framework scales to multi-agent or swarm robotics, where a single decision is distributed; a plausible extension is collective transparency, where the group's behavior is explained rather than each agent's.
  • Because the paper emphasizes dynamic contexts, the framework implies time-sensitive explanations that update as a robot's situation evolves; testable designs could compare static vs. adaptive explanations for user comprehension.
  • The standardized metrics are not specified in detail; a concrete next step would be to define measurable proxies, such as the fraction of decision-relevant factors a robot can verbalize, and validate them in user studies.
  • A direct empirical test: deploy identical robots with and without the transparency interface and measure users' accuracy in predicting robot behavior and assigning blame after a failure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper, as represented by its abstract, argues that transparency in AI decision-making is fundamental to trustworthy and ethically aligned robotic systems. It claims that transparency facilitates accountability, enables informed consent, and supports debugging of ethical algorithms. To this end, it proposes a framework combining standardized metrics, explainable AI techniques, and user-friendly interfaces, and discusses challenges in dynamic, real-world contexts plus implications for public trust and regulation.

Significance. The topic is timely and important, and the abstract articulates a clear and plausible thesis: transparency as a foundational design principle for ethical robotics. If the full paper delivers a concrete, operationalized framework with validation, it could make a useful contribution by bridging technical transparency mechanisms with ethical requirements. However, the supplied text is only the abstract; it asserts a causal chain from transparency tools to accountability, consent, and debuggability without presenting definitions, mechanisms, case studies, or comparison to prior work. The significance is therefore conditional on the full manuscript providing the missing support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract (first sentence)] The central claim that transparency 'facilitates accountability, enables informed consent, and supports the debugging of ethical algorithms' is asserted without any definition of transparency or the proposed metrics. Since the paper's contribution is a framework, the abstract should at least indicate how these outcomes are supposed to be produced. Please provide a concrete operationalization of transparency and a causal model linking the proposed tools to human outcomes.
  2. [Abstract (second sentence)] The paper says it focuses on 'specific challenges of achieving transparency in dynamic, real-world contexts,' but the abstract names none of them. A roadmap paper should identify at least one concrete domain (e.g., autonomous vehicles, healthcare robots, industrial automation) and indicate how the proposed approaches succeed or fail there. Without this, the claimed focus is not substantiated.
  3. [Abstract (third sentence)] The proposed 'novel approaches' (standardized metrics, explainable AI techniques, user-friendly interfaces) are enumerated but not specified. The novelty is unverifiable without a comparison to existing XAI and robot-ethics frameworks. The paper should identify baseline approaches and state what is new about this framework relative to them.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (general)] Several phrases are vague ('increasingly permeate society', 'avenues for future research'). Consider making the contribution more concrete, for example by naming the framework and summarizing its structure.
  2. [Abstract (final sentence)] The abstract ends with a generic aspiration to 'add to the ongoing discussion.' If the paper indeed introduces a framework, the abstract should state the framework's name or components, even at a high level, so readers can assess its scope.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is an argumentative roadmap with no fitted parameters, equations, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The supplied text is an abstract only; no equations, fitted parameters, empirical predictions, or formal derivations appear anywhere in it. The argumentative chain is: transparency is fundamental to trustworthy AI (premise) -> transparency facilitates accountability, consent, and debugging (claimed benefits) -> challenges exist -> the paper proposes metrics, XAI techniques, and interfaces (suggested remedy) -> a framework connects technical implementation with ethical considerations. None of these steps reduces a claimed result to its own input by definition. The only quasi-self-referential structure is that the proposed remedy ('enhance transparency') is the same concept as the asserted goal ('transparency is fundamental'), but this is thematic alignment in a roadmap paper, not a circular derivation. There are no self-citations to prior work, no uniqueness theorems, no renamed empirical patterns, and no fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The strongest potential criticism is that the framework's implementability is asserted without operational definitions, evaluation, or failure-mode analysis; however, missing evidence is a correctness/support problem, which the reviewing rules explicitly exclude from circularity. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains three domain assumptions, all drawn from the abstract's first paragraph. There are no free parameters because the paper makes no quantitative claims. There are no invented physical entities: the only new artifact mentioned is the proposed framework, which is too underspecified in the abstract to audit as an entity. The paper's contribution is a normative framework, so all its load-bearing content is assumption-shaped.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Transparency in AI decision-making processes is fundamental to developing trustworthy and ethically aligned robotic systems.
    Stated in the abstract's first sentence; the entire roadmap is built on this normative premise, which is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Transparency facilitates accountability, enables informed consent, and supports the debugging of ethical algorithms.
    Stated in the abstract's second sentence; a causal claim about what transparency delivers, asserted without evidence in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Standardized metrics, explainable AI techniques, and user-friendly interfaces can be implemented to achieve transparency in dynamic, real-world robotic contexts.
    Stated in the abstract's third and fourth sentences; the feasibility of the proposed framework depends entirely on this assumption, which is not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Transparent Ethical AI: A Roadmap for Trustworthy Robotic Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M3LI7EVI

@misc{pith2026250805846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Transparent Ethical AI: A Roadmap for Trustworthy Robotic Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M3LI7EVI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05846}
}
read the original abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics increasingly permeate society, ensuring the ethical behavior of these systems has become paramount. This paper contends that transparency in AI decision-making processes is fundamental to developing trustworthy and ethically aligned robotic systems. We explore how transparency facilitates accountability, enables informed consent, and supports the debugging of ethical algorithms. The paper outlines technical, ethical, and practical challenges in implementing transparency and proposes novel approaches to enhance it, including standardized metrics, explainable AI techniques, and user-friendly interfaces. This paper introduces a framework that connects technical implementation with ethical considerations in robotic systems, focusing on the specific challenges of achieving transparency in dynamic, real-world contexts. We analyze how prioritizing transparency can impact public trust, regulatory policies, and avenues for future research. By positioning transparency as a fundamental element in ethical AI system design, we aim to add to the ongoing discussion on responsible AI and robotics, providing direction for future advancements in this vital field.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    4" FUNCTION default.is.dash.repeated.names #1 FUNCTION default.name.format.string

    11em plus .33em minus .07em @technote 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 #1 #1 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEauthorblockconfadjspace -0.25em \@IEEEauthorblockNtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorblockAtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorblockNinterlinespace 2.6ex \@IEEEauthorblockAinte...

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" initialize.prev.this.status FUNCTION begin.bib " write newline preamble empty 'skip preamble write newline if " thebibliography " longest.label * " " * write newline " [1] #1 " write newline " url@samestyle " write newline " " write newline " [2] #2 " write newline " =0pt " write newline " " ALTinterwordstretchfactor * " " * write newli...

  3. [3]

    A. F. Winfield and M. Jirotka, ``Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems,'' Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 376, no. 2133, p. 20180085, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    A. B. Arrieta, N. D \' az-Rodr \' guez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. G.-L. Garcia, D. Molina, R. Benjamins, R. Chatila et al., ``Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible ai,'' Information Fusion, vol. 58, pp. 82--115, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    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 recommendations,'' Minds and Machines, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 689--707, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Rudin, ``Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol

    C. Rudin, ``Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206--215, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Doshi-Velez and B

    F. Doshi-Velez and B. Kim, ``Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Cave and K

    S. Cave and K. Dihal, ``Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 74--78, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Bryson and A

    J. Bryson and A. Winfield, ``Standardizing ethical design for artificial intelligence and autonomous systems,'' Computer, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 116--119, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Z. C. Lipton, ``The mythos of model interpretability,'' Queue, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 31--57, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Wachter, B

    S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and L. Floridi, ``Transparent, explainable, and accountable ai for robotics,'' Science Robotics, vol. 2, no. 6, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Dignum, Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way

    V. Dignum, Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer Nature, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    E. Awad, S. Dsouza, R. Kim, J. Schulz, J. Henrich, A. Shariff, J.-F. Bonnefon, and I. Rahwan, ``The moral machine experiment,'' Nature, vol. 563, no. 7729, pp. 59--64, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Jobin, M

    A. Jobin, M. Ienca, and E. Vayena, ``The global landscape of ai ethics guidelines,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 389--399, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Tegmark, Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence

    M. Tegmark, Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Knopf, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Gunning and D

    D. Gunning and D. W. Aha, ``Darpa's explainable artificial intelligence (xai) program,'' AI Magazine, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 44--58, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Russell, Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control

    S. Russell, Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Penguin, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    K. A. Hoff and M. Bashir, ``Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust,'' Human Factors, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 407--434, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Samek, G

    W. Samek, G. Montavon, A. Vedaldi, L. K. Hansen, and K.-R. M \"u ller, Eds., Explainable AI: Interpreting, explaining and visualizing deep learning. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer Nature, 2019, vol. 11700

    2019

  12. [20]

    Mehrabi, F

    N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan, ``A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,'' ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1--35, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Fjeld, N

    J. Fjeld, N. Achten, H. Hilligoss, A. Nagy, and M. Srikumar, ``Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for ai,'' Berkman Klein Center Research Publication, no. 2020-1, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    I. D. Raji, A. Smart, R. N. White, M. Mitchell, T. Gebru, B. Hutchinson, J. Smith-Loud, D. Theron, and P. Barnes, ``Closing the ai accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing,'' in Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accou...

    2020

  15. [23]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, ``Deep learning,'' Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436--444, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    L. H. Gilpin, D. Bau, B. Z. Yuan, A. Bajwa, M. Specter, and L. Kagal, ``Explaining explanations: An overview of interpretability of machine learning,'' in 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 201...

    2018

  17. [25]

    Adadi and M

    A. Adadi and M. Berrada, ``Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai),'' IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 52\,138--52\,160, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Gunning, M

    D. Gunning, M. Stefik, J. Choi, T. Miller, S. Stumpf, and G.-Z. Yang, ``Xai—explainable artificial intelligence,'' Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 37, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Deng, ``Artificial intelligence in the rising wave of deep learning: The historical path and future outlook [perspectives],'' IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol

    L. Deng, ``Artificial intelligence in the rising wave of deep learning: The historical path and future outlook [perspectives],'' IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 180--177, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Wachter, B

    S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, ``Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the gdpr,'' Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 31, p. 841, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Lepri, N

    B. Lepri, N. Oliver, E. Letouz \'e , A. Pentland, and P. Vinck, ``Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes,'' Philosophy & Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 611--627, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Amodei, C

    D. Amodei, C. Olah, J. Steinhardt, P. Christiano, J. Schulman, and D. Man \'e , ``Concrete problems in ai safety,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Miller, ``Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol

    T. Miller, ``Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 267, pp. 1--38, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    R. R. Hoffman, S. T. Mueller, G. Klein, and J. Litman, ``Metrics for explainable ai: Challenges and prospects,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04608, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Anjomshoae, A

    S. Anjomshoae, A. Najjar, D. Calvaresi, and K. Fr \"a mling, ``Explainable agents and robots: Results from a systematic literature review,'' in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2019). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em...

    2019

  26. [34]

    M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, ``Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classifier,'' in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em ACM, 2016, pp. 1135--1144

    2016

  27. [35]

    Doshi-Velez, M

    F. Doshi-Velez, M. Kortz, R. Budish, C. Bavitz, S. Gershman, D. O'Brien, S. Schieber, J. Waldo, D. Weinberger, and A. Wood, ``Accountability of ai under the law: The role of explanation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01134, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mohseni, N

    S. Mohseni, N. Zarei, and E. D. Ragan, ``A multidisciplinary survey and framework for design and evaluation of explainable ai systems,'' ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), vol. 11, no. 3--4, pp. 1--45, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Brundage, S

    M. Brundage, S. Avin, J. Wang, H. Belfield, G. Krueger, G. Hadfield, H. Khlaaf, J. Yang, H. Toner, M. Anderljung et al., ``Toward trustworthy ai development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07213, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  30. [38]

    I. D. Raji and J. Buolamwini, ``Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial ai products,'' in Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em ACM, 2019, pp. 429--435

    2019

  31. [39]

    Rudin and J

    C. Rudin and J. Radin, ``Why are we using black box models in ai when we don't need to? a lesson from an explainable ai competition,'' Harvard Data Science Review, vol. 1, no. 2, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, ``A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,'' in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017, pp. 4765--4774

    2017

  33. [41]

    F. K. Do s ilovi \'c , M. Br c i \'c , and N. Hlupi \'c , ``Explainable artificial intelligence: A survey,'' in 2018 41st International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2018, pp. ...

    2018

  34. [42]

    Abdul, J

    A. Abdul, J. Vermeulen, D. Wang, B. C. Y. Lim, and M. Kankanhalli, ``Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An hci research agenda,'' in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0...

    2018

  35. [43]

    D. Wang, Q. Yang, A. Abdul, and B. C. Y. Lim, ``Designing theory-driven user-centric explainable ai,'' in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em ACM, 2019, pp. 1--15

    2019

  36. [44]

    D. S. Weld and G. Bansal, ``The challenge of crafting intelligible intelligence,'' Communications of the ACM, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 70--79, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Dignum, M

    V. Dignum, M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, M. Caon, R. Chatila, L. Dennis et al., ``Ethics by design: Necessity or curse?'' in Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em ACM, 2018, pp. 60--66

    2018

  38. [46]

    Wright and M

    D. Wright and M. Friedewald, ``Integrating privacy and ethical impact assessments,'' Science and Public Policy, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 755--766, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    Hagendorff, ``The ethics of ai ethics: An evaluation of guidelines,'' Minds and Machines, vol

    T. Hagendorff, ``The ethics of ai ethics: An evaluation of guidelines,'' Minds and Machines, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 99--120, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    E. J. de Visser, R. Pak, and T. H. Shaw, ``From 'automation' to 'autonomy': The importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction,'' Ergonomics, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 1409--1427, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Shneiderman, ``Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy,'' International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol

    B. Shneiderman, ``Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy,'' International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 495--504, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Floridi, ``Establishing the rules for building trustworthy ai,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol

    L. Floridi, ``Establishing the rules for building trustworthy ai,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 261--262, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    C. Cath, S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, M. Taddeo, and L. Floridi, ``Artificial intelligence and the 'good society': The us, eu, and uk approach,'' Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 505--528, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Theodorou and V

    A. Theodorou and V. Dignum, ``Towards ethical and socio-legal governance in ai,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 10--12, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    J. K. Kingston, ``Artificial intelligence and legal liability,'' in Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXXIII. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, Cham, 2018, pp. 269--279

    2018

  46. [54]

    Dafoe, E

    A. Dafoe, E. Hughes, Y. Bachrach, T. Collins, K. R. McKee, J. Z. Leibo, K. Larson, and T. Graepel, ``Open problems in cooperative ai,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08630, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S. Cave, K. Coughlan, and K. Dihal, ``Scary robots: Examining public responses to ai,'' in Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em ACM, 2019, pp. 331--337

    2019

  48. [56]

    Long and B

    D. Long and B. Magerko, ``What is ai literacy? competencies and design considerations,'' in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em ACM, 2020, pp. 1--16

    2020

  49. [57]

    Trocin, P

    C. Trocin, P. Mikalef, Z. Papamitsiou, and K. Conboy, ``Responsible ai for digital health: a synthesis and a research agenda,'' Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 2139--2157, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.