Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Envisioning Stakeholder-Action Pairs to Mitigate Negative Impacts of AI: A Participatory Approach to Inform Policy Making

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 A new participatory method lets laypeople map who should fix AI harms, producing 228 stakeholder-action pairs that prioritize fact-checking over outright bans.

desk verdict A solid, honest methods paper with new empirical data; the "enriches expert mitigation" claim needs an expert baseline before it's demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.14869 v1 pith:AXICZ6Y7 submitted 2025-01-24 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

Julia Barnett , Kimon Kieslich , Natali Helberger , Nicholas Diakopoulos This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC
keywords participatorygovernancestakeholder-actionpairsgenerativeAIriskmitigationscenario-basedsurveysanticipatorypolicyfactsheetslaystakeholderinputimpactassessment
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

The paper tries to establish a participatory method for AI risk mitigation that starts from lay stakeholders rather than experts. The authors show that when ordinary people are given short fictional scenarios of generative AI harms in the news environment, they can brainstorm mitigation ideas and prioritize them, yielding 228 stakeholder-action pairs across ten impact types. These pairs name who should act (most often government, technology companies, and news publishers) and what they should do, with fact-checking emerging as the most valued action. The authors argue this approach fills blind spots in expert-centered impact assessments and provides empirically grounded input for policymakers, delivered as LLM-generated one-page fact sheets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stakeholder-action pair (SAP): an assignment of a specific mitigating or preventing action to a specific actor, e.g., 'news publishers should fact check AI-generated content.' The method pairs these with GPT-4-generated narrative scenarios that contextualize each impact for lay readers, a two-survey workflow (brainstorming, then agreement/priority ranking), and a final GPT-4o prompt step that converts ranked SAPs into one-page policy fact sheets under an expert's guidance. The machinery carries the burden of showing that non-expert input can be both broad and prioritized, and that it can be translated into a usable policy artifact.

What would settle it

Run the same two-survey pipeline on a nationally representative sample and have professional policy analysts work with the resulting fact sheets alongside expert-authored mitigation summaries; if the lay-derived sheets change no decisions or simply duplicate the expert lists, the method's added value is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Lay stakeholders can produce a usable map of responsibility for AI harm mitigation. Survey 1 had 40 US participants brainstorm, after reading GPT-4-written scenarios, stakeholder-action pairs (SAPs) for ten negative impacts such as fake news, manipulation, and addiction; after consolidation this produced 228 SAPs, 12 stakeholder types, and 41 actions. Survey 2 had 86 different participants rate each SAP for agreement and priority. The rankings show fact-checking as the highest priority across impact types, assigned mainly to news publishers, technology companies, and social media platforms; government was the most frequently named actor in brainstorming yet fell to fourth in priority rankings; and outright bans or heavy restrictions consistently ranked low. The paper claims this demonstrates that a broader participative base can enrich expert-driven mitigation strategies and inform policy in a format policymakers can actually use.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a small, non-representative group of US crowdworkers, reacting to short AI-written stories, produces stakeholder-action pairs that are meaningful and useful for real policy, and that a single expert's judgment is enough to validate the policy fact sheets built from them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lay brainstorming surfaces actors that expert-dominated lists tend to miss, such as schools, unions, and local communities, and assigns them concrete responsibilities.
  • Fact-checking and transparency emerge as the public's top mitigation priorities, pointing policymakers toward investment in verification infrastructure rather than outright restrictions.
  • The consistently low priority given to bans suggests public opinion in the US context favors targeted oversight over prohibitive AI regulation.
  • The fact-sheet format offers a template for converting crowdsourced survey data into one-page briefs that can enter existing policy workflows.
  • The approach is portable: the same scenario-plus-ranking pipeline can be applied to other emerging technologies where harms are still being anticipated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not compare its SAP output against expert-generated mitigation lists, so the strongest version of its claim—that lay input adds information experts would miss—remains untested; a direct comparison would settle it.
  • Because the sample is small and US-only, the low support for bans may reflect the American self-regulatory context, and a European replication under the AI Act would likely produce different priority rankings.
  • The fact-sheet validation rests on one author's expertise, so the final step of the pipeline should be treated as a proof of concept until tested with actual policy staff; a randomized usefulness trial would be the natural next test.
  • The use of LLM-written scenarios and LLM-generated summaries creates a possible risk of circularity: the same technology being governed is also the instrument that elicits and condenses public input.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a participatory, forward-looking method for eliciting lay-stakeholder input to inform AI policy. Using ten negative impact types of generative AI in the media environment (selected from prior scenario-based work), the authors run two Prolific surveys: Survey 1 asks forty participants to brainstorm stakeholder-action pairs (SAPs) after reading LLM-written scenarios; Survey 2 asks eighty-six participants to rate a subset of the resulting 228 SAPs for agreement and priority. The ranked SAPs are then synthesized into one-page policy fact sheets using GPT-4o with prompt engineering. The authors report descriptive findings: government, technology companies, and news publishers are most frequently named as responsible actors; fact-checking is the most highly valued action; and actions involving bans or limits are generally rated lower in priority and agreement. They frame the work as a proof-of-concept to enrich expert-centered risk mitigation with democratic, participatory input.

Significance. If the method is taken as a proof of concept rather than as an effectiveness demonstration, it makes a useful contribution: it shows a concrete, transparent pipeline for turning brief, scenario-based stimuli into a structured map of lay-proposed responsibilities and actions, and it makes all ranked tables and stimuli available in the appendix. The paper is unusually candid about its limitations, including non-representative sampling, single-expert validation of the fact sheets, and the absence of policy-maker testing. It also ships reproducible materials, fair-pay recruitment details, and a positionality statement, which are strengths. The main significance hinges on whether the 'enrichment' claim over expert-centered methods is actually demonstrated; as it stands, the paper establishes feasibility of the pipeline but not the added value relative to existing expert-generated mitigation frameworks.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §5] The central claim that the approach 'enriches the development of risk mitigation strategies' is not supported by a comparison against expert-generated mitigation strategies. The two surveys elicit lay SAPs and rank them, but there is no expert baseline for the same ten impact types, so the paper cannot show that lay input contributes non-redundant actions, novel responsibility allocations, or blind spots beyond expert-centered checklists. I recommend adding an expert or literature-baseline condition (e.g., having policy/domain experts produce SAPs for the same scenarios, or coding the lay SAPs against existing risk frameworks such as the EU AI Act or NIST AI RMF) and reporting overlap and novelty. If such a comparison is outside the scope, the abstract and Section 5 should be reworded to claim feasibility of eliciting and ranking lay input rather than 'enrichment.'
  2. [§3.1] The selection of the ten impact types is not fully data-driven. The paper first computes a weighted average of severity, plausibility, magnitude, and specificity (with severity weighted 0.4), but then one author replaces three of the top ten ('Labor: Changing Job Roles', 'Media Quality: Clickbait', 'Political: Opinion Monopoly') with three from the top 20 based on the question 'Which impact types ... are likely receptive to policy intervention?'. This expert overlay changes the set that all downstream results depend on, and the rationale for the replacements is not justified beyond a one-sentence question. Please report the full ranked list, the criteria used for the replacements, and a sensitivity analysis (e.g., whether the main findings about government/tech/news-publisher responsibility allocations and fact-checking value hold under alternative impact-type selections).
  3. [§3.3] The consensus threshold is arbitrary and partly circular. The paper states that 'the average standard deviation of the agreement scores was 1.5, so we designate any score with a standard deviation less than or equal to 1.5 as higher consensus and those above 1.5 as lower consensus.' Because 1.5 is the average of the sample, this rule mechanically labels roughly half the SAPs as lower consensus regardless of the actual degree of agreement. This categorization feeds into Section 4.2 and 5.2's claims about 'contested' actions. Either justify a substantive threshold (e.g., SD < 1 on a 7-point scale) or report the continuous SD values and use a regression or correlation analysis for agreement 'controversiality', and test robustness of the conclusions to the threshold.
  4. [§5.1; §5.4] The paper generalizes from small, non-representative Prolific samples (N=40 and N=86) to 'lay stakeholders' and 'the public'. While Section 5.4 acknowledges non-representativeness, Section 4.2 and 5.1 use phrases like 'in the eyes of the public' and 'in the eyes of laypeople' without qualification. For a policy-facing method, this is more than a presentational issue: the estimates of priority and agreement are sample-specific and likely influenced by the US-context scenarios. Recommend consistently framing all results as 'in this sample' and adding an explicit statement that the method's output is illustrative for policy exploration, not an estimate of population preferences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.5 / §5.3] The paper says the policy fact sheets were 'validated by an expert' and 'guide the usefulness,' while Section 5.4 states validation with policy makers was not performed. The wording should be consistent; suggest 'reviewed by one policy expert' rather than 'validated.'
  2. [§3.2] The claim that human-written scenarios 'tend to be more complex, often intertwining several impact types' is presented without evidence or citation; please soften or support it.
  3. [Appendix A.3] Table 8 skips the number 15 in the SAP numbering, Table 9 has two items numbered 19, and Table 4 has a row with the stakeholder label split by the table line break. Please correct numbering and formatting for readability.
  4. [§4.1] Some percentages in Figure 2/Figure 4 are not fully defined (e.g., how the 228 SAPs distribute across the 12 stakeholders and 41 actions). Adding a counts table would improve transparency.
  5. [§5.1] There is a grammatical typo: 'lay people perceptions' should be 'lay people's perceptions.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the study generates new survey data through an empirical pipeline, and its use of prior work is cumulative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs—228 stakeholder-action pairs, the priority/agreement rankings from Survey 2, and the LLM-generated policy fact sheets—are produced from newly collected participant responses, not derived from the paper's inputs by definition or by fitted parameters. No equation-level reduction occurs, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The authors do rely on their own prior work for the scenario stimuli and impact typology ([6] and [34]), but these are used as contextual materials and a sampling frame for impact types, not as premises that logically force the empirical results. The paper's claim that the approach 'enriches' expert-centered mitigation strategies is a comparative value claim that lacks an expert-generated baseline, and the fact-sheet validation relies on a single author's expertise; however, these are limitations in evidence and generalizability, not circularity. The manuscript itself acknowledges the missing policymaker validation and the single-expert limitation in Section 5.4. Because the derivation chain is self-contained empirical survey work, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is empirical and transparent, but several hand-chosen design decisions (impact selection, consensus cutoff, sample sizes) shape the results. No new physical or conceptual entities are invented beyond the organizational label 'stakeholder-action pair', which is a unit of analysis rather than a postulated entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Severity weight for impact-type selection = 0.4 severity, 0.2 for plausibility, magnitude, and specificity
    Used in Section 3.1 to rank impact types; chosen by the authors, not derived from data.
  • Manual replacement of three impact types = Replaced Labor: Changing Job Roles, Media Quality: Clickbait, and Political: Opinion Monopoly with three other types
    One author's expert judgment about 'receptive to policy intervention' changed the object of study (Section 3.1).
  • Consensus standard-deviation threshold = 1.5
    Section 3.3 divides higher vs. lower consensus at SD <= 1.5 without justification.
  • Number of brainstormed SAPs per participant = 4 per impact type, 3 impact types per participant
    Design choice in Survey 1 (Section 3.2) that bounds the SAP space.
  • Survey 2 subset size per participant = 14 SAPs per participant
    Chosen to limit respondent fatigue (Section 3.3); affects precision of mean priority estimates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lay stakeholders possess situated knowledge that enriches expert-driven assessments.
    Section 2.2 and Section 5.1; the core premise of the method.
  • domain assumption LLM-written scenarios are more easily understood and adequately isolate single impact types.
    Section 3.2 asserts this without a comprehension test or comparison to human-written scenarios.
  • domain assumption Free-text SAPs can be reliably aggregated into shared stakeholder and action categories.
    Section 3.2 describes qualitative cleaning by the authors; inter-coder reliability is not reported.
  • domain assumption One expert's judgment is sufficient to validate the usefulness of the policy fact sheets.
    Section 5.4 acknowledges this as a limitation but the paper still treats the fact sheets as a contribution.
  • domain assumption Descriptive statistics from non-representative Prolific samples can inform policy priorities.
    Sections 3.4 and 5.2 use means and consensus from convenience samples while generalizing to 'the public' in places.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Envisioning Stakeholder-Action Pairs to Mitigate Negative Impacts of AI: A Participatory Approach to Inform Policy Making." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXICZ6Y7

@misc{pith2026250214869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Envisioning Stakeholder-Action Pairs to Mitigate Negative Impacts of AI: A Participatory Approach to Inform Policy Making},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXICZ6Y7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.14869}
}
read the original abstract

The potential for negative impacts of AI has rapidly become more pervasive around the world, and this has intensified a need for responsible AI governance. While many regulatory bodies endorse risk-based approaches and a multitude of risk mitigation practices are proposed by companies and academic scholars, these approaches are commonly expert-centered and thus lack the inclusion of a significant group of stakeholders. Ensuring that AI policies align with democratic expectations requires methods that prioritize the voices and needs of those impacted. In this work we develop a participative and forward-looking approach to inform policy-makers and academics that grounds the needs of lay stakeholders at the forefront and enriches the development of risk mitigation strategies. Our approach (1) maps potential mitigation and prevention strategies of negative AI impacts that assign responsibility to various stakeholders, (2) explores the importance and prioritization thereof in the eyes of laypeople, and (3) presents these insights in policy fact sheets, i.e., a digestible format for informing policy processes. We emphasize that this approach is not targeted towards replacing policy-makers; rather our aim is to present an informative method that enriches mitigation strategies and enables a more participatory approach to policy development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.14869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow diagram detailing the approach proposed in this work. We first ask lay stakeholders to brainstorm possible stakeholder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stacked bar chart displaying how often lay stakeholders allocate responsibility to various stakeholders to take an action, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmap displaying the frequency of stakeholder-action pairs across the various impact types brainstormed by lay stakeholders, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stacked bar chart displaying how often lay stakeholders brainstormed various actions they wanted stakeholders to take, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example “Policy Fact Sheet” for unemployment impacts generated using GPT-4o, prompt engineering, and the data from this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Scenarios in Computing Research: A Systematic Review of the Use of Scenario Methods for Exploring the Future of Computing Technologies in Society

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 59 computing papers finds scenarios are used for five goals, most often gathering stakeholder needs, with participation usually limited to consultation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    AlgorithmWatch. 2025. Statement on Meta’s Announcement to Gut Moderation and Fact-checking. https://algorithmwatch.org/en/full-statement- on-meta-announcement/ 15 Barnett et al

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Daim, and Antonie Jetter

    Muhammad Amer, Tugrul U. Daim, and Antonie Jetter. 2013. A review of scenario planning. Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies 46 (Feb. 2013), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.003 ISBN: 0016-3287

    doi:10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.003 2013

  3. [3]

    Per Dannemand Andersen, Meiken Hansen, and Cynthia Selin. 2021. Stakeholder inclusion in scenario planning—A review of European projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 169 (Aug. 2021), 120802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120802

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Maria Teresa Baldassarre, Danilo Caivano, Berenice Fernandez Nieto, Domenico Gigante, and Azzurra Ragone. 2023. The Social Impact of Generative AI: An Analysis on ChatGPT. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good . ACM, Lisbon Portugal, 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582515.3609555

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Julia Barnett and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2022. Crowdsourcing impacts: exploring the utility of crowds for anticipating societal impacts of algorithmic decision making. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 56–67

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Julia Barnett, Kimon Kieslich, and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2024. Simulating Policy Impacts: Developing a Generative Scenario Writing Method to Evaluate the Perceived Effects of Regulation. 7 (2024), 82–93

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Joseph Biden. E.O. 14110 of Oct 30, 2023. Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Ungless, and Atoosa Kasirzadeh

    Charlotte Bird, Eddie L. Ungless, and Atoosa Kasirzadeh. 2023. Typology of Risks of Generative Text-to-Image Models. http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05543 arXiv:2307.05543 [cs]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Andrea Bonaccorsi, Riccardo Apreda, and Gualtiero Fantoni. 2020. Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them. Technological forecasting &amp; social change 151 (Feb. 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119855 ISBN: 0040-1625

    2020

  2. [10]

    Philip Brey. 2017. Ethics of emerging technology. The ethics of technology: Methods and approaches (2017), 175–191

    2017

  3. [11]

    Philip A. E. Brey. 2012. Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies.Nanoethics 6, 1 (April 2012), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0141-7 ISBN: 1871-4757

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Lena Börjeson, Mattias Höjer, Karl-Henrik Dreborg, Tomas Ekvall, and Göran Finnveden. 2006. Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures 38, 7 (2006), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002 ISBN: 0016-3287

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    Irina Carnat. 2024. Addressing the risks of generative AI for the judiciary: The accountability framework(s) under the EU AI Act. Computer Law & Security Review 55 (Nov. 2024), 106067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106067

    2024

  6. [14]

    Chun Chu-Ke and Yujie Dong. 2024. Misinformation and literacies in the era of generative artificial intelligence: A brief overview and a call for future research. Emerging Media 2, 1 (2024), 70–85

    2024

  7. [15]

    European Commission. 2024. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts, Pub. L. No. COM(2021) 206 final

    2021

  8. [16]

    Hannes Cools and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2024. Uses of Generative AI in the Newsroom: Mapping Journalists’ Perceptions of Perils and Possibilities. Journalism Practice (Aug. 2024), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2394558

    2024

  9. [17]

    Cybersecurity Administration of China. No. 15, July 13, 2023. Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services. https://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-07/13/c_1690898327029107.htm

    2023

  10. [18]

    Nicholas Diakopoulos, Hannes Cools, Charlotte Li, Natali Helberger, Ernest Kung, and Aimee Rinehart. 2024. Generative AI in Journalism: The Evolution of Newswork and Ethics in a Generative Information Ecosystem . Technical Report. The Associated Press

    2024

  11. [19]

    Nicholas Diakopoulos and Deborah Johnson. 2021. Anticipating and addressing the ethical implications of deepfakes in the context of elections. New Media & Society 23, 7 (2021), 2072–2098. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820925811

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Mark Diaz and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2019. Whose Walkability?: Challenges in Algorithmically Measuring Subjective Experience. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359228

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Martin Ebers. 2024. Truly Risk-Based Regulation of Artificial Intelligence-How to Implement the EU’s AI Act. A vailable at SSRN (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    G Ezeani, A Koene, R Kumar, N Santiago, and D Wright. 2021. A survey of artificial intelligence risk assessment methodologies. The global state of play and leading practices identified (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Francesca Foffano, Teresa Scantamburlo, and Atia Cortés. 2023. Investing in AI for social good: an analysis of European national strategies. AI & society 38, 2 (2023), 479–500

    2023

  16. [24]

    International Organization for Standardization. 2019. Risk management: risk assessment techniques (edition 2.0 ed.). Number 31010 in Norme internationale / CEI, Commission Electrotechnique Internationale. IEC Central Office, Commission Electrotechnique Internationale, Geneva

    2019

  17. [25]

    Leon Fuerth. 2011. Operationalizing Anticipatory Governance. PRISM 2, 4 (2011), 31–46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26469147 Publisher: Institute for National Strategic Security, National Defense University

    2011

  18. [26]

    Raphaël Gellert. 2020. The Risk-Based Approach to Data Protection (1 ed.). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198837718. 001.0001

    2020

  19. [27]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2024. Generative AI and the politics of visibility. Big Data & Society 11, 2 (June 2024), 20539517241252131. https://doi.org/10. 1177/20539517241252131

    2024

  20. [28]

    Rachel Griffin. 2024. What do we talk about when we talk about risk? Risk politics in the EU’s Digital Services Act. https://dsa-observatory.eu/ 2024/07/31/what-do-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-risk-risk-politics-in-the-eus-digital-services-act/

    2024

  21. [29]

    David H. Guston. 2013. Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science 44, 2 (2013), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0306312713508669

    2013

  22. [30]

    David Hartmann, José Renato Laranjeira De Pereira, Chiara Streitbörger, and Bettina Berendt. 2024. Addressing the regulatory gap: moving towards an EU AI audit ecosystem beyond the AI Act by including civil society. AI and Ethics (Nov. 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024...

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Viviane Herdel, Sanja Šćepanović, Edyta Bogucka, and Daniele Quercia. 2024. ExploreGen: Large language models for envisioning the uses and risks of AI technologies. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , Vol. 7. 584–596

    2024

  24. [32]

    Mia Hoffmann and Heather Frase. 2023. Adding Structure to AI Harm . Technical Report. Center for Security and Emerging Technology. https: //cset.georgetown.edu/publication/adding-structure-to-ai-harm/

    2023

  25. [33]

    Kimon Kieslich. 2024. The role of public opinion on ethical AI principles and its implication for a common good-oriented implementation. Ph. D. Dissertation. Universität Hohenheim. https://hohpublica.uni-hohenheim.de/handle/123456789/15939

    2024

  26. [34]

    Kimon Kieslich, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Natali Helberger. 2024. Anticipating impacts: using large-scale scenario-writing to explore diverse implications of generative AI in the news environment. AI and Ethics (May 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00497-4

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Kimon Kieslich, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Natali Helberger. 2024. Using Scenario-Writing for Identifying and Mitigating Impacts of Generative AI. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2410.23704 Version Number: 1

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kimon Kieslich and Marco Lünich. 2024. Regulating AI-Based Remote Biometric Identification. Investigating the Public Demand for Bans, Audits, and Public Database Registrations. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . ACM, Rio de Janeiro Brazi...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Kate Knibbs. 2025. Meta Now Lets Users Say Gay and Trans People Have ‘Mental Illness’. WIRED (2025). https://www.wired.com/story/meta- immigration-gender-policies-change/

    2025

  30. [38]

    Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Ranjit Singh, and Madeleine Clare Elish. 2021. Algorithmic impact assessments and accountability: the co-construction of impacts. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2021). h...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Anna-Katharina Meßmer and Martin Degeling. 2023. Auditing Recommender Systems. Putting the DSA into practice wit a risk-scenario-based approach . Technical Report. Stiftung Neue Verantwortung. https://www.stiftung-nv.de/sites/default/files/auditing.recommender.systems.pdf

    2023

  32. [40]

    Brent Mittelstadt. 2019. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence 1, 11 (Nov. 2019), 501–507. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s42256-019-0114-4

    2019

  33. [41]

    Ben Fairweather

    Brent Daniel Mittelstadt, Bernd Carsten Stahl, and N. Ben Fairweather. 2015. How to Shape a Better Future? Epistemic Difficulties for Ethical Assessment and Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18, 5 (Nov. 2015), 1027–1047. https:...

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    Emanuel Moss, Elizabeth Watkins, Ranjit Singh, Madeleine Clare Elish, and Jacob Metcalf. 2021. Assembling Accountability: Algorithmic Impact Assessment for the Public Interest. SSRN Electronic Journal (2021). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3877437

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Priyanka Nanayakkara, Jessica Hullman, and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2021. Unpacking the expressed consequences of AI research in broader impact statements. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 795–806

    2021

  36. [44]

    Nic Newman and Federica Cherubini. 2025. Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions 2025 . Technical Report. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://doi.org/10.60625/RISJ-VTE1-X706

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Blagovesta Nikolova. 2014. The rise and promise of participatory foresight. European Journal of Futures Research 2, 1 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40309-013-0033-2 ISBN: 2195-4194

    2014

  38. [46]

    Sanchita Nishal and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2023. Envisioning the Applications and Implications of Generative AI for News Media. (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    2024.Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile

    Gaithersburg Md Nist. 2024.Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile. Technical Report NIST AI NIST AI 600-1. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. NIST AI NIST AI 600–1 pages. https://doi.org/10.6...

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Carsten Orwat, Jascha Bareis, Anja Folberth, Jutta Jahnel, and Christian Wadephul. 2024. Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence. NanoEthics 18, 2 (Aug. 2024), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-024-00454-9

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Frank Pasquale. 2023. Power and Knowledge in Policy Evaluation: From Managing Budgets to Analyzing Scenarios.Law and Contemporary Problems 86, 3 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Iyad Rahwan. 2018. Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology 20, 1 (March 2018), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    Rafael Ramirez and Angela Wilkinson. 2016. Strategic reframing: The Oxford scenario planning approach . Oxford University Press

    2016

  44. [52]

    Daniel Schiff. 2022. Education for AI, not AI for education: The role of education and ethics in national AI policy strategies. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 32, 3 (2022), 527–563

    2022

  45. [53]

    Daniel Schlagwein, Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic, and Benjamin Hanckel. 2019. Ethical norms and issues in crowdsourcing practices: A Habermasian analysis. Information Systems Journal 29, 4 (2019), 811–837

    2019

  46. [54]

    Cremers, and Maximilian Poretschkin

    Anna Schmitz, Michael Mock, Rebekka Görge, Armin B. Cremers, and Maximilian Poretschkin. 2024. A global scale comparison of risk aggregation in AI assessment frameworks. AI and Ethics (May 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00479-6

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    Andrew D. Selbst. 2021. AN INSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF ALGORITHMIC IMPACT. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 35, 1 (2021). Publisher: HeinOnline

    2021

  48. [56]

    Renee Shelby, Shalaleh Rismani, Kathryn Henne, AJung Moon, Negar Rostamzadeh, Paul Nicholas, N’Mah Yilla, Jess Gallegos, Andrew Smart, Emilio Garcia, and Gurleen Virk. 2023. Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction. http: //arxiv.org/a...

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Boaz Shmueli, Jan Fell, Soumya Ray, and Lun-Wei Ku. 2021. Beyond fair pay: Ethical implications of NLP crowdsourcing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10097 (2021). 17 Barnett et al

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Peter Slattery, Alexander K Saeri, Emily A C Grundy, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel, Risto Uuk, James Dao, Soroush Pour, Stephen Casper, and Neil Thompson. 2024. The AI Risk Repository: A Comprehensive Meta-Review, Database, and Taxonomy of Risks From Artificial Intelligence. (20...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Irene Solaiman, Zeerak Talat, William Agnew, Lama Ahmad, Dylan Baker, Su Lin Blodgett, Hal Daumé III, Jesse Dodge, Ellie Evans, Sara Hooker, Yacine Jernite, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Alberto Lusoli, Margaret Mitchell, Jessica Newman, Marie-Therese Png, Andrew Strait, and Apost...

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bernd Carsten Stahl, Josephina Antoniou, Nitika Bhalla, Laurence Brooks, Philip Jansen, Blerta Lindqvist, Alexey Kirichenko, Samuel Marchal, Rowena Rodrigues, Nicole Santiago, Zuzanna Warso, and David Wright. 2023. A systematic review of artificial intelligence impact assessme...

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    Jeroen van der Heijden. 2021. Risk as an approach to regulatory governance: An evidence synthesis and research agenda. Sage Open 11, 3 (2021), 21582440211032202. Publisher: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA

    2021

  54. [62]

    Ari Ezra Waldman. 2019. Privacy law’s false promise. Wash. UL Rev. 97 (2019), 773. Publisher: HeinOnline

    2019

  55. [63]

    Diduck, A

    Heidi Walker, Jenny Pope, Angus Morrison-Saunders, Alan Bond, Alan P. Diduck, A. John Sinclair, Brendan Middel, and Francois Retief. 2024. Identifying and promoting qualitative methods for impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 42, 3 (May 2024), 294–305. ht...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Laura Weidinger, Maribeth Rauh, Nahema Marchal, Arianna Manzini, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Juan Mateos-Garcia, Stevie Bergman, Jackie Kay, Conor Griffin, Ben Bariach, et al. 2023. Sociotechnical safety evaluation of generative ai systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11986 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Laura Weidinger, Jonathan Uesato, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Po-Sen Huang, John Mellor, Amelia Glaese, Myra Cheng, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, et al. 2022. Taxonomy of risks posed by language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability,...

    2022

  58. [66]

    Georg Wenzelburger, Pascal D König, Julia Felfeli, and Anja Achtziger. 2024. Algorithms in the public sector. Why context matters. Public Administration 102, 1 (2024), 40–60

    2024

  59. [67]

    Yi Zeng, Kevin Klyman, Andy Zhou, Yu Yang, Minzhou Pan, Ruoxi Jia, Dawn Song, Percy Liang, and Bo Li. 2024. AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024): From Government Regulations to Corporate Policies. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2406.17864 Version Number: 1

    2024 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    government

    Baobao Zhang and Allan Dafoe. 2020. US public opinion on the governance of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 187–193. 18 Envisioning Action-Stakeholder Pairs to Mitigate Negative Impacts of AI A APPENDIX A.1 Stakeho...

    2020

Pith tools

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