Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

This paper argues that responsible AI governance is a paradox-management problem, not a trade-off optimization problem, and that trade-off logic formally amplifies the tensions it tries to resolve.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:05 UTC pith:SUHUCSQF

load-bearing objection The qualitative paradox-theory framing is worth reading, but the paper's advertised formal proof that trade-off logic amplifies tension is an asserted equation, not a derivation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21095 v1 pith:SUHUCSQF submitted 2026-01-28 cs.AI

Responsible AI: The Good, The Bad, The AI

Akbar Anbar Jafari , Cagri Ozcinar , Gholamreza Anbarjafari This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords responsible AIAI governanceparadox theorytrade-off logicprinciples-to-practices gapPRAIG frameworkstrategic information systemsAI ethics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the persistent gap between AI ethics principles and organizational practice is not an implementation failure but a category error: organizations treat value creation and risk mitigation as a trade-off to be optimized, while the two are actually contradictory yet interdependent and persistent. It formalizes this as a paradox and offers a formal result that trade-off logic drives tension intensity up over time. If correct, the right response is to stop seeking an optimal balance and instead build capacity to live with the tension, using one of four strategies — acceptance, temporal separation, spatial separation, or integration. The paper packages this as the PRAIG framework, along with a taxonomy of AI benefits, risks, and governance practices.

Core claim

The central claim is that the value–responsibility relationship in AI deployment satisfies the formal criteria of paradox — contradiction, interdependence, and persistence — and that applying trade-off optimization to a paradox makes things worse. Proposition 2 states that an organization optimizing a weighted combination of value minus risk while the environment shifts will experience monotonically increasing tension intensity, because it chases configurations that were optimal for past conditions with a lag. On this basis the paper asserts that paradox acceptance, not optimization, yields higher long-run utility when environmental volatility is high, and it supplies contingency conditions

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the formal constructs of Section 3: the deployment configuration C=(T,G,E), value function V, risk function R, and the tension intensity Φ(t) defined as the product of gradients of V and R when both move together (Eq. 3). Proposition 2's proof turns on Eq. (5), which expresses dΦ/dt as a positive product of second cross-partials and a lag factor, used to show monotonic increase under trade-off logic. Also central is the four-element strategy space S — acceptance, temporal separation, spatial separation, integration — with Theorem 1 assigning optimality conditions, and the multiplicative governance-effectiveness specification with complementarity (Eq. 6).

Load-bearing premise

Everything hangs on Eq. (5), where the paper asserts — without deriving it from the model — that dΦ/dt is positive; if that asserted inequality does not follow from Eqs. (1)-(3), the monotone-amplification result collapses.

What would settle it

Simulate the model defined by Eqs. (1)-(3) with a trade-off optimizer (Eq. 4), a slowly drifting environment θ_t, and a positive lag τ; if the resulting tension intensity Φ(t) does not increase monotonically in typical runs, Proposition 2 is false. A shorter check: derive Eq. (5) from Eqs. (1)-(3) — the paper does not supply that derivation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If trade-off logic amplifies rather than resolves tension, then organizations that keep optimizing the value–risk balance will experience growing frustration and inconsistency — the principles-to-practices gap is a predicted outcome, not a fixable implementation bug.
  • Paradox acceptance is the better long-run strategy once environmental volatility exceeds a threshold σ*, because trade-off logic drives utility toward negative infinity while acceptance keeps tension bounded.
  • No single governance strategy is best; Theorem 1 ties acceptance to high volatility/low adaptation capacity, temporal separation to heterogeneous stakeholder time horizons, spatial separation to modular AI portfolios, and integration to high dynamic capabilities.
  • Governance effectiveness is multiplicative: weakness in structural, procedural, or relational practices limits overall effectiveness, and practices reinforce each other (Proposition 4).
  • Portfolio governance (Corollary 1) implies organizations should deploy different paradox strategies in different contexts rather than one uniform policy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Proposition 2's monotonicity holds, then current compliance regimes that reward steady optimization of a single risk metric may be counterproductive; regulators might instead encourage governance processes that institutionalize dual objectives and periodic rebalancing.
  • A natural empirical test follows from the model: track tension intensity (e.g., frequency of governance rework, audit findings, ethical incidents) in firms before and after they switch from trade-off logic to explicit paradox acceptance; the model predicts a downward or stabilizing slope.
  • The threshold σ* in Proposition 3 is not computed; deriving a closed-form bound on volatility from Eqs. (1)-(3) would turn a qualitative proposition into a testable prediction.
  • The paper's own limitation section concedes the framework is conceptual and expert evaluation is preliminary; a longitudinal field study across organizations of different sizes and AI centrality would be needed before the contingency conditions in Theorem 1 can be treated as calibrated.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reconceptualizes responsible AI governance as paradox management rather than trade-off optimization. It reports a systematic literature review and expert evaluation, then develops the PRAIG framework linking antecedents, practices, outcomes, and feedback loops. Formal propositions claim to show that the value-responsibility relationship is paradoxical and that trade-off logic amplifies tension, motivating four paradox management strategies (acceptance, temporal separation, spatial separation, integration) with contingency conditions. The paper is intended for the Journal of Strategic Information Systems and promises formal demonstrations in addition to a qualitative framework.

Significance. If the formal propositions were valid, the paper would make a substantive contribution by reframing the 'principles-to-practices gap' as a consequence of using the wrong governance logic, and by offering a theoretically grounded taxonomy with contingency conditions. The paper has real strengths: the SLR is described with protocols, inter-rater agreement, quality thresholds, and theoretical saturation; the taxonomy of benefits, risks, and strategies is useful and actionable; and the mapping of spatial separation to EU AI Act risk categories is a practical contribution. However, the advertised formal core is not established. The central proposition—that trade-off logic amplifies tension—rests on an asserted differential equation that is not derived from the model, and several other formal results are either restatements of definitions, deferred proofs, or unsupported assertions. The paper's significance therefore depends on claims that are not currently supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (5) (Proposition 2)] Equation (5) is asserted, not derived. It is not a consequence of Definitions 1–4 or of the lagged optimization in Eq. (4). Notation is undefined: C is a tuple (T,G,E), but ∂²V/(∂C∂θ) is not a well-defined derivative; θ, dθ/dt, τ, and τ0 are not formally introduced. Even if the expression were accepted, the right-hand side is a product of norms and a lag term in [0,1). It is nonnegative, not strictly positive: it vanishes whenever dθ/dt=0, when the mixed partials vanish, or when τ=0. 'Monotonically increasing' requires strict positivity for all t, which the equation does not guarantee. Norms also discard sign information, so the expression cannot establish the direction of change. The proof of Proposition 2 thus reduces to an assumption, leaving the paper's central formal claim unsupported.
  2. [§3.2, Proposition 1] The proof of Proposition 1 restates the criteria in Definition 3 rather than deriving them from the model. Contradiction is shown by choosing C1 and C2 and asserting V(C1)>V(C2) and R(C1)>R(C2); nothing in Eqs. (1)–(2) guarantees these inequalities for arbitrary parameter values—for example, if governance costs β_j·c(g_j) are large, V(C1)>V(C2) can fail. Interdependence is asserted only because V and R share determinants, but the partial derivatives ∂V/∂R and ∂R/∂V are never defined. Persistence assumes from the outset that no configuration simultaneously maximizes V and minimizes R, but this is not proved. The proposition therefore adds no content beyond Definition 3 and does not establish existence of paradox for non-trivial contexts.
  3. [§3.3, Proposition 3] The proof is deferred: 'The proof follows from showing...' is not a proof. No formal model of long-run expected utility is specified, the threshold σ* is undefined, and the claims that trade-off logic leads to 'tension explosion' and utility tending to negative infinity are not derived from the preceding equations. As stated, Proposition 3 is a conjecture about the comparison between paradox acceptance and trade-off logic, not a demonstrated result. This matters because the paper's practical prescription—adopt paradox acceptance rather than trade-off optimization—depends on this proposition.
  4. [§3.4, Theorem 1 and Proposition 4] Theorem 1 lists four optimality conditions without proof and without formal definitions of the objective function, environmental volatility σ, adaptation capacity κ, or what 'optimal' means. Corollary 1 inherits these gaps. Proposition 4's Eq. (6) is an unparameterized multiplicative ansatz: it is not derived from the preceding model, the complementarity coefficient δ is introduced without justification, and the claimed implication that weakness in any domain limits overall effectiveness is simply asserted. Presenting these as formal results overstates the support provided by the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (1)–(3)] Typesetting and notation: Eq. (1) uses 'nX' and Eq. (2) 'mY' where summation and product symbols are intended; the indicator in Eq. (3) is written as '⊮' instead of a standard indicator function notation, and the convention should be defined explicitly.
  2. [§3.3] The variable θ_t is introduced in the proof of Proposition 2 but never defined in Definitions 1–4. Please define environmental changes θ_t, their dynamics dθ/dt, the lag τ, and the time constant τ0, or remove these quantities from the formal statement.
  3. [§4.1] The SLR reports κ=0.81 and quality thresholds, but lacks the search string, a PRISMA-style flow diagram, and a list of the 88 included studies. This restricts reproducibility and verifiability of the claimed synthesis.
  4. [§4.2] The methodology claims 'demonstrated application through case studies,' but no case studies are presented in the paper. The expert evaluation is described, but the case demonstrations are not. Please either include the cases or remove the claim.
  5. [§5.4.3 and Table 2] The mapping of spatial separation to the EU AI Act risk categories is presented as a framework output, but it is not clear whether this mapping is derived from the SLR or is the authors' synthesis. Clarify the evidential status of the table.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Prop. 2's 'proof' is an asserted differential equation whose positivity is built in; the central tension-amplification result is an assumption, not a derivation.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Proposition 2, Eq. (5)]
    "Tension intensity evolves as: dΦ/dt = ||∂²V/(∂C∂θ) · dθ/dt|| · ||∂²R/(∂C∂θ) · dθ/dt|| · (1−e^{−τ/τ0}) > 0 establishing monotonic increase."

    The proof of Proposition 2 does not derive Eq. (5) from Definitions 1–4 or Eq. (4); it simply declares that tension intensity 'evolves as' this expression. The expression is constructed to be strictly positive: the norms are nonnegative, the mixed-partial terms are products of norms, and the extra factor (1−e^{−τ/τ0}) is asserted positive. Thus the conclusion 'monotonically increasing tension' is placed into the equation by construction rather than shown to follow from trade-off logic. This is the paper's central formal result: the Remark uses it to 'explain the principles-to-practices gap' and later sections use it to justify paradox acceptance. Without an independent derivation, Proposition 2 is an assumption restated as a theorem.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.2, Definition 3 and Proposition 1]
    "Definition 3: A paradoxical tension exists when: (1) Contradiction: ∃C1,C2 such that V(C1)>V(C2) and R(C1)>R(C2); ... Proposition 1: For any non-trivial AI deployment context (where technology has positive value potential and non-zero inherent risk), a paradoxical tension exists."

    Proposition 1 is presented as a formal result, but its 'non-trivial' assumption is exactly the existence of configurations with positive value potential and non-zero inherent risk, and its proof invokes the same comparisons (V(C1)>V(C2), R(C1)>R(C2)) that Definition 3 already uses to define a paradoxical tension. The proposition therefore restates the definition's criteria rather than deriving the existence of paradox from independent premises.

full rationale

The load-bearing formal chain is: Definition 3 → Proposition 1 → Proposition 2 → Remark (explaining the principles-to-practices gap) → paradox acceptance as the correct governance logic. Proposition 1 is essentially the existential content of Definition 3 wrapped in a proof that assumes the named 'non-trivial' conditions. More importantly, Proposition 2—the advertised formal demonstration that trade-off logic amplifies tension—does not follow from Eqs. (1)–(4). Eq. (5) is introduced as an assertion: a product of norms and a positive lag factor, declared '> 0' and hence 'establishing monotonic increase.' The positivity is manufactured by the form of the right-hand side; no derivation of the mixed-partial dynamics or of dθ/dt, τ, or τ0 is supplied. Since the Remark then uses Prop. 2 to explain the principles-to-practices gap, the paper's central theoretical contribution is an assumption restated as a theorem. No relevant self-citation chain is load-bearing: the author's own references are peripheral empirical/prior-work items and are not used to force the formal results. External benchmarks are absent, so nothing independently constrains Eq. (5). The underlying qualitative paradox-theory argument may still be plausible, but the formal derivation itself is circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central formal claims rest on a set of uncalibrated symbolic coefficients and on functional forms chosen ad hoc. The paradox criteria are imported from the cited theory, and the lag/volatility mechanism in Proposition 2 is asserted. No empirical data or external benchmarks constrain these choices.

free parameters (6)
  • α_i, β_j, γ_ij (Eq. 1 value weights)
    Introduced to parameterize the value function; no estimation or justification of magnitudes.
  • ρ_i, μ_ij (Eq. 2 risk weights and mitigation effectiveness)
    Unspecified symbolic coefficients; no empirical calibration or measurement.
  • λ (Eq. 4 trade-off weight)
    Arbitrary weight in the trade-off optimization objective; no basis for choosing it.
  • τ, τ0 (Eq. 5 lag and time constant)
    Introduced ad hoc to produce a positive derivative and monotonic amplification.
  • σ* (Proposition 3 volatility threshold)
    Threshold for paradox acceptance optimality; never defined or estimated.
  • δ (Eq. 6 complementarity coefficient)
    Added to create a complementarity effect; no empirical support.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Paradox criteria from Smith & Lewis (2011) apply to the value-responsibility relationship in AI governance
    Section 3.1 asserts contradiction, interdependence, and persistence; the proof of Proposition 1 simply invokes these criteria.
  • ad hoc to paper Value function Eq. (1) and risk function Eq. (2) are separable/multiplicative and adequately represent organizational outcomes
    No empirical support for the functional forms; the proof outcomes depend on these forms (e.g., risk reduction via multiplicative product of governance terms).
  • ad hoc to paper Environmental changes θ_t shift the optimal trade-off frontier and organizations respond with lag τ > 0
    Section 3.3, Proposition 2; this lag and instability are asserted to make Eq. (5) positive; no evidence is provided.
  • domain assumption Organizations currently apply trade-off logic, producing the principles-to-practices gap
    Section 2.3 and the Remark after Proposition 2; a causal claim asserted without empirical data.
  • standard math Standard calculus and limit arguments
    Used in the proof sketches for Propositions 1-3 and Theorem 1.
invented entities (2)
  • PRAIG framework no independent evidence
    purpose: Integrated model linking antecedents, practices, outcomes, and feedback for responsible AI governance
    No falsifiable predictions or external validation; expert evaluation (n=12) is the only check.
  • Tension intensity Φ(t) no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantify paradox tension in Eq. (3)
    Defined symbolically; no measurement instrument or empirical calibration provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9925 in / 14554 out tokens · 140733 ms · 2026-08-03T07:05:08.504753+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence across organizational contexts has generated profound strategic opportunities while introducing significant ethical and operational risks. Despite growing scholarly attention to responsible AI, extant literature remains fragmented and is often adopting either an optimistic stance emphasizing value creation or an excessively cautious perspective fixated on potential harms. This paper addresses this gap by presenting a comprehensive examination of AI's dual nature through the lens of strategic information systems. Drawing upon a systematic synthesis of the responsible AI literature and grounded in paradox theory, we develop the Paradox-based Responsible AI Governance (PRAIG) framework that articulates: (1) the strategic benefits of AI adoption, (2) the inherent risks and unintended consequences, and (3) governance mechanisms that enable organizations to navigate these tensions. Our framework advances theoretical understanding by conceptualizing responsible AI governance as the dynamic management of paradoxical tensions between value creation and risk mitigation. We provide formal propositions demonstrating that trade-off approaches amplify rather than resolve these tensions, and we develop a taxonomy of paradox management strategies with specified contingency conditions. For practitioners, we offer actionable guidance for developing governance structures that neither stifle innovation nor expose organizations to unacceptable risks. The paper concludes with a research agenda for advancing responsible AI governance scholarship.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.21095 by Akbar Anbar Jafari, Cagri Ozcinar, Gholamreza Anbarjafari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Research Design: Three-Phase Mixed Methodology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Taxonomy of Strategic AI Benefits (“The Good”) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Taxonomy of AI Risks and Harms (“The Bad”) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The PRAIG Framework: Integrated Model of Responsible AI Governance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Paradox Management Strategies: Characteristics and Conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier,

    McKinsey Global Institute, “The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier,”McKinsey & Company Research Report, June 2023, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our- insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next-productivity-frontier

    2023

  2. [2]

    Winning with AI,

    S. Ransbotham, S. Khodabandeh, D. Kiron, F. Candelon, M. Chu, and B. LaFountain, “Winning with AI,”MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Artificial intelligence and business value: A literature review,

    I. M. Enholm, E. Papagiannidis, P. Mikalef, and J. Krogstie, “Artificial intelligence and business value: A literature review,”Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1709–1734, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women,

    J. Dastin, “Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women,” inEthics of Data and Analytics. Auerbach Publications, 2022, pp. 296–299

    2022

  5. [5]

    Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it’s biased against blacks,

    J. Angwin, J. Larson, S. Mattu, and L. Kirchner, “Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it’s biased against blacks,”ProPublica, May 2016, available at: https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing. 12 Running Title for Header

    2016

  6. [6]

    Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classifica- tion,

    J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru, “Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classifica- tion,” inProceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 2018, pp. 77–91

    2018

  7. [7]

    Responsible ai: Gender bias assessment in emotion recognition,

    A. Domnich and G. Anbarjafari, “Responsible ai: Gender bias assessment in emotion recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11436, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Ethical ai in facial expression analysis: racial bias,

    A. H. Sham, K. Aktas, D. Rizhinashvili, D. Kuklianov, F. Alisinanoglu, I. Ofodile, C. Ozcinar, and G. Anbarjafari, “Ethical ai in facial expression analysis: racial bias,”Signal, Image and Video Processing, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 399–406, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Thinking responsibly about responsible AI and ‘the dark side’ of AI,

    P. Mikalef, K. Conboy, J. E. Lundström, and A. Popoviˇc, “Thinking responsibly about responsible AI and ‘the dark side’ of AI,”European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 257–268, 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    Quantifying gender bias in large language models using information-theoretic and statistical analysis,

    I. Mirza, A. A. Jafari, C. Ozcinar, and G. Anbarjafari, “Quantifying gender bias in large language models using information-theoretic and statistical analysis,”Information, vol. 16, no. 5, p. 358, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    A mathematical framework for ai singularity: Conditions, bounds, and control of recursive improvement,

    A. A. Jafari, C. Ozcinar, and G. Anbarjafari, “A mathematical framework for ai singularity: Conditions, bounds, and control of recursive improvement,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10668, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    AI4People—an ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations,

    L. Floridi, J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V . Dignum, C. Luetge, R. Madelin, U. Pagallo, F. Rossiet al., “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

    2018

  13. [13]

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI act),

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union, “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI act),” 2024, official Journal of the European Union, L Series

    2024

  14. [14]

    Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework,

    E. Papagiannidis, P. Mikalef, and K. Conboy, “Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework,”Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 34, p. 101885, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,

    N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan, “A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1–35, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI,

    B. Mittelstadt, “Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI,”Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 501–507, 2019

    2019

  17. [17]

    What’s next for AI ethics, policy, and governance? a global overview,

    D. Schiff, J. Biddle, J. Borenstein, and K. Laas, “What’s next for AI ethics, policy, and governance? a global overview,” pp. 153–158, 2020

    2020

  18. [18]

    Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance,

    P. Mikalef and M. Gupta, “Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance,”Information & Management, vol. 58, no. 3, p. 103434, 2021

    2021

  19. [19]

    A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation,

    A. S. Bharadwaj, “A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation,”MIS Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 169–196, 2000

    2000

  20. [20]

    Artificial intelligence for the real world,

    T. H. Davenport and R. Ronanki, “Artificial intelligence for the real world,”Harvard Business Review, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 108–116, 2018

    2018

  21. [21]

    Agrawal, J

    A. Agrawal, J. Gans, and A. Goldfarb,Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2018

    2018

  22. [22]

    Artificial intelligence in service,

    M.-H. Huang and R. T. Rust, “Artificial intelligence in service,”Journal of Service Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 155–172, 2018

    2018

  23. [23]

    How AI capabilities enable business model innovation: Scaling AI through co-evolutionary processes and feedback loops,

    D. Sjödin, V . Parida, M. Palmie, and J. Wincent, “How AI capabilities enable business model innovation: Scaling AI through co-evolutionary processes and feedback loops,”Journal of Business Research, vol. 134, pp. 574–587, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms,

    V . Sambamurthy, A. Bharadwaj, and V . Grover, “Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms,”MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 237–263, 2003

    2003

  25. [25]

    Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence,

    R. Verganti, L. Vendraminelli, and M. Iansiti, “Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 212–227, 2020

    2020

  26. [26]

    Artificial intelligence and machine learning as business tools: A framework for diagnosing value destruction potential,

    A. I. Canhoto and F. Clear, “Artificial intelligence and machine learning as business tools: A framework for diagnosing value destruction potential,”Business Horizons, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 183–193, 2020

    2020

  27. [27]

    High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence,

    E. J. Topol, “High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence,”Nature Medicine, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 44–56, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    AI in finance: Challenges, techniques, and opportunities,

    L. Cao, “AI in finance: Challenges, techniques, and opportunities,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1–38, 2022. 13 Running Title for Header

    2022

  29. [29]

    Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations,

    Z. Obermeyer, B. Powers, C. V ogeli, and S. Mullainathan, “Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations,”Science, vol. 366, no. 6464, pp. 447–453, 2019

    2019

  30. [30]

    How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms,

    J. Burrell, “How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms,”Big Data & Society, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2016

    2016

  31. [31]

    Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI,

    A. B. Arrieta, N. Díaz-Rodríguez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. Garcia, S. Gil-Lopez, D. Molina, R. Benjaminset al., “Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI,”Information Fusion, vol. 58, pp. 82–115, 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,

    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

  33. [33]

    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. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019

    2019

  34. [34]

    Accountability in a computerized society,

    H. Nissenbaum, “Accountability in a computerized society,”Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–42, 1996

    1996

  35. [35]

    Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples,

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Shlens, and C. Szegedy, “Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015

    2015

  36. [36]

    Dataset shift in machine learning,

    J. Quiñonero-Candela, M. Sugiyama, A. Schwaighofer, and N. D. Lawrence, “Dataset shift in machine learning,” inDataset Shift in Machine Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009

    2009

  37. [37]

    Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment,

    I. Gabriel, “Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment,”Minds and Machines, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 411–437, 2020

    2020

  38. [38]

    D. J. Solove,Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011

    2011

  39. [39]

    Crawford,Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence

    K. Crawford,Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021

    2021

  40. [40]

    Green AI,

    R. Schwartz, J. Dodge, N. A. Smith, and O. Etzioni, “Green AI,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 54–63, 2020

    2020

  41. [41]

    The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines,

    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

  42. [42]

    Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing,

    W. K. Smith and M. W. Lewis, “Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 381–403, 2011

    2011

  43. [43]

    Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward,

    J. Schad, M. W. Lewis, S. Raisch, and W. K. Smith, “Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward,”Academy of Management Annals, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 5–64, 2016

    2016

  44. [44]

    Using paradox to build management and organization theories,

    M. S. Poole and A. H. Van de Ven, “Using paradox to build management and organization theories,”Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 562–578, 1989

    1989

  45. [45]

    Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide,

    M. W. Lewis, “Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide,”Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 760–776, 2000

    2000

  46. [46]

    Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering,

    B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering,” Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University, 2007

    2007

  47. [47]

    The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,

    M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrowet al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,”BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021

    2020

  48. [48]

    Design science in information systems research,

    A. R. Hevner, S. T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, “Design science in information systems research,”MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75–105, 2004

    2004

  49. [49]

    A design science research methodology for information systems research,

    K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, M. A. Rothenberger, and S. Chatterjee, “A design science research methodology for information systems research,”Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 45–77, 2007. 14

    2007