Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 82 references

Ethical Concerns of Generative AI and Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Mapping Study

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 systematic mapping of 39 studies finds that LLM ethics mitigation strategies are mostly conceptual, with only 5 of 39 fully evaluated in practice.

desk verdict Useful cross-domain mapping of LLM ethics, but the headline 5/39 evaluation statistic needs an audit trail before it can carry the weight the paper puts on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00015 v3 pith:Q6I7ASFB submitted 2025-01-08 cs.CY cs.AI

Yutan Huang , Chetan Arora , Wen Cheng Houng , Tanjila Kanij , Anuradha Madulgalla , John Grundy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords generativeAIethicslargelanguagemodelssystematicmappingstudymitigationstrategiesethicaldimensionsempiricalevaluationgovernanceframeworks
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 sets out to map, across application domains, the ethical concerns raised by generative AI and large language models, the strategies proposed to mitigate them, and the barriers to putting those strategies into practice. It reviews 39 primary studies and codes their concerns through five ethical dimensions: safety, privacy, transparency, bias, and accountability. The central finding is that ethical concerns are multi-dimensional and context-dependent, and that proposed mitigation strategies are overwhelmingly unevaluated: only 5 of 39 studies (12.8 percent) fully evaluate their proposed strategy or recommendation. The paper argues that implementation challenges are most acute in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and public governance, and that existing ethical frameworks lack the adaptability to track evolving societal expectations. A sympathetic reader would care because the map identifies where the field's remedies are untested and where future empirical work is most needed.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is a five-dimensional coding scheme—safety, privacy, transparency, bias, and accountability—derived from four selected international guidelines and regulatory frameworks and used to classify every ethical concern, mitigation strategy, and implementation challenge in the 39 primary studies. A second instrument is an evaluation-status rubric that distinguishes strategies that were not evaluated, partially evaluated, or fully evaluated, applied to determine whether a proposed mitigation has real empirical support. These two instruments together produce the paper's counts, the domain-by-dimension gap table, and the conclusion that most mitigation strategies remain conceptual.

What would settle it

Re-code the same 39 papers with an independent team using the same five dimensions and report inter-rater agreement; or re-run the search in the same six databases and check whether the 39-study set is reproduced. If agreement is low, if a sixth dimension such as fairness or autonomy materially changes the domain counts, or if the snowballing step finds many additional eligible studies, then the reported gaps are properties of the coding choices rather than of the literature itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a structured evidence-base: across 39 studies published from 2020 to 2024, the ethical concerns of LLM use cluster into five dimensions—safety, privacy, transparency, bias, and accountability—and every proposed mitigation strategy or recommendation can be classified by whether it was not evaluated, partially evaluated, or fully evaluated. The result is that 26 of 39 studies are conceptual, only 13 conduct some empirical evaluation, and only 5 of 39 fully evaluate a mitigation strategy. Domain-level coding shows uneven coverage, with accountability absent from the cybersecurity and public-safety papers, transparency absent from cybersecurity, and minimal transparency attention in education, societal impact, legal, and public-safety papers. The authors conclude that ethical issues themselves hinder practical implementation of mitigation strategies, especially in healthcare and public governance, and that existing frameworks are not adaptable enough for evolving societal expectations and diverse contexts. The paper also flags in its validity section that, because most included studies are conceptual, author perspective bias and publication bias may skew the prominence of particular ethical dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on the assumption that the five ethical dimensions chosen before coding—safety, privacy, transparency, bias, and accountability—are the correct and complete lens for labelling every study's concerns, and that the labelling was applied consistently across all 39 papers without measuring inter-rater reliability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adopting a mitigation strategy from this literature without independent validation is risky: fewer than one in eight studies fully evaluates what it proposes.
  • Domain-specific gaps are actionable: cybersecurity research on LLM ethics rarely discusses transparency or accountability, and education and public-safety research under-weights accountability.
  • High-stakes domains such as healthcare and public governance report the most severe implementation barriers, so pilots in those settings need the most careful empirical assessment.
  • Ethical frameworks should be treated as living documents with scheduled review cycles, not one-time checklists, because regulations and societal expectations change on multi-year cycles.
  • The evaluation rubric gives future reviewers and practitioners a shared way to classify whether an ethics strategy is a proposal or a validated fix.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 12.8 percent fully-evaluated rate generalizes beyond the 39 studies, then current AI-ethics guidelines should be read as hypotheses rather than validated best practices.
  • The five-dimension frame folds neighbouring values (fairness into bias, autonomy into accountability, consent into privacy); a finer-grained ontology might change the reported domain gaps, and the absence of inter-rater reliability means the counts should be treated as indicative.
  • A testable extension is to require an evaluation-status label in ethics papers that propose mitigation strategies, similar to preregistration in medical research, which would make the field's evidence base auditable.
  • The domain-gap analysis suggests concrete empirical priorities: study transparency and accountability in cybersecurity LLM use, and accountability in education and public safety, where the map currently shows near silence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a systematic mapping study of 39 primary studies (2020–2024) on ethical concerns of large language models. The authors define five ethical dimensions (safety, privacy, transparency, bias, accountability) derived from four industry/governmental frameworks, map the selected studies and the 130 identified ethical issues onto these dimensions, categorize mitigation strategies into five themes, and analyze implementation challenges grouped into six themes. The paper's headline findings are that only 5/39 (12.8%) mitigation strategies were fully evaluated and that ethical issues hinder practical implementation, especially in healthcare and public governance, with existing frameworks lacking adaptability.

Significance. If the results hold, the study makes a useful contribution to the AI-ethics secondary literature: it is cross-domain, includes both peer-reviewed studies and grey literature, and explicitly codes the empirical evaluation status of mitigation strategies and implementation challenges. The authors are transparent about their search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and use of snowballing. The most distinctive quantitative claim, the 5/39 fully-evaluated rate, would differentiate this mapping from earlier reviews such as Atlam et al. However, because that statistic and the RQ1 dimension counts depend on coding decisions that are not fully auditable, the strength of the contribution rests on the revisions described below.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1 vs §4.3] The paper's distinctive claim that mitigation strategies are rarely evaluated is internally inconsistent and not auditable. Section 1 states that 13 of the 39 studies "conducted some form of empirical evaluation," while Section 4.3 reports that strategies were "fully evaluated only in 5/39 (12.8%) studies" and that partially evaluated strategies are treated as not evaluated. The difference of 8 studies is never explicitly reconciled, and no appendix or table identifies which 5 studies were fully evaluated, which 8 partially evaluated, and which 26 not evaluated. Because the abstract and conclusion use the evaluation gap as a load-bearing result, the manuscript should provide a per-study evaluation-status table and an explicit reconciliation of the 13-study and 5-study counts.
  2. [§3.2.3, §4.3] No inter-rater reliability is reported for the coding that produces the headline statistics. The data-analysis description states that the first and third authors extracted data and that discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and Section 4.3 says the authors independently applied the evaluation rubric, but no agreement metric (e.g., Cohen's kappa) or coding artifact is provided. For a mapping study whose main contributions are counts of ethical dimensions and evaluation status, the absence of reliability evidence is a substantial construct-validity threat; at minimum, the authors should report agreement rates and provide the coding matrix as an appendix or repository.
  3. [§4.2] The RQ1 dimension counts are partly circular. The authors state that the five dimensions were selected because they are "the most frequently emphasized across the four major frameworks" and "also emerged as the most recurrent themes during our coding," and they then use these dimensions as the coding frame for all 39 studies. This makes the prominence of the five dimensions in Table 3 and Table 5 an artifact of the chosen frame rather than an independent finding about the literature. The folding of fairness into bias, autonomy into accountability, and consent into privacy is reasonable, but the paper should either present the coding frame as a sensitivity analysis or explicitly temper claims such as "accountability is rarely addressed in the education and public safety domains" and "transparency ... completely absent from the cybersecurity literature" (Section 4.1) so that they are stated relative to the chosen framework, not as absolute properties of the field.
  4. [Table 3 vs §4.1] Table 3 is inconsistent with the domain list in Section 4.1. Section 4.1 describes an Economics domain, but Table 3 contains no Economics row; the table also does not list several primary studies that appear in the paper (e.g., P12 and P36), and some papers appear in more than one row (P1, P2, P27) without any note on how multiple domain assignments were handled. Because Section 5.1 draws conclusions about the contextual significance of ethical dimensions from these per-domain counts, the domain mapping needs to be completed and made reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6] The internal-validity paragraph states that the timeframe for the SMS was "between 2023 and July 2024," but Section 3.2.2 reports that the search was conducted between April and May 2024 and Figure 3 shows selected studies from 2020 to 2024. This should be corrected to reflect the actual publication window.
  2. [§4.1] The figure references appear to be off by one: "as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3" and "The bar chart in Figure 2" should refer to Figure 3 (distribution by year) and Figure 4 (distribution by publication), respectively; Figure 2 is already used for the data-analysis process in Section 3.2.3.
  3. [§4.2] The cross-reference "Table 4.2.1 shows the primary studies addressing each dimension" should be to Table 5 (Ethical Dimensions Identified from papers).
  4. [§4.3] In the list for "User Empowerment and Transparency in AI Interactions," the entry "P1, P2 P2, P5" contains a duplicated "P2"; please correct.
  5. [§3.2.1] The phrase "shown in 9" should be "shown in Appendix B" (the database search strings are presented in Section 9).
  6. [§3 / references] The guidelines author is Petersen et al., not "Peterson et al.," in the methodology text; the reference list already uses the correct spelling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mapping's descriptive claims and evaluation-status counts are coding outcomes rather than results forced by the paper's own definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

This is a qualitative systematic mapping study; there are no fitted parameters, mathematical derivations, or equations whose outputs collapse into their inputs. The five ethical dimensions are adopted from four named external frameworks (IEEE, NIST, Microsoft, EU AI Act) in Section 2.5 and applied as a coding lens in Section 4.2. Although the authors note that the dimensions also 'emerged as the most recurrent themes during our coding of the 39 primary studies,' this is a standard iterative coding procedure in mapping studies, not a prediction derived from the coding frame. The reported prominence of the dimensions is a descriptive summarization of the coding, not a tautological conclusion. The central quantitative claim—that mitigation strategies and recommendations were fully evaluated in only 5/39 (12.8%) studies—rests on the stated rubric in Section 4.3 ('Fully evaluated: the strategy has been subjected to quantitative or qualitative assessment...'; partial evaluation is treated as not evaluated). This is a coding judgment with no reported inter-rater reliability and no per-study coding table, so it is an auditability and construct-validity concern, not circularity. The self-citations present in the reference list (e.g., [2], [11], [77]) are used as background or related work and are not load-bearing for the paper's conclusions. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renamed known result is invoked. The paper is therefore self-contained as a synthesis and does not reduce to its own inputs.

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

The paper's conclusions rest on the chosen five-dimension lens, the four selected frameworks, the screening criteria, and the reliability of the authors' coding. No free parameters or invented entities are involved because this is a qualitative literature synthesis.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The five ethical dimensions (safety, privacy, transparency, bias, accountability) are the appropriate organizing lens.
    The authors derive these from four selected frameworks (IEEE, NIST, Microsoft, EU AI Act) in Section 2.5 and then code all 39 studies into them, so the dimension set is a premise rather than a finding.
  • domain assumption The four selected guidelines/frameworks are authoritative and sufficient to define the core dimensions.
    Section 2.5 selects IEEE, NIST, Microsoft, EU AI Act 'due to their availability, authority, and significant impact'; other frameworks could yield different dimensions.
  • domain assumption The inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2) select a representative sample of the relevant literature.
    The authors exclude non-English, short (<4 pages), and opinion papers, and search only six databases plus arXiv; the paper acknowledges external validity limits and a Western bias in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Coding of papers into themes is reliable despite being performed by the first and third authors with no reported inter-rater reliability metric.
    Section 3.2.3 describes iterative coding and consensus meetings but does not report kappa or similar reliability statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ethical Concerns of Generative AI and Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Mapping Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6I7ASFB

@misc{pith2026250200015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ethical Concerns of Generative AI and Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Mapping Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6I7ASFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00015}
}
read the original abstract

[Context] Generative AI technologies, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), have transformed numerous domains by enhancing convenience and efficiency in information retrieval, content generation, and decision-making processes. However, deploying LLMs also presents diverse ethical challenges, and their mitigation strategies remain complex and domain-dependent. [Objective] This paper aims to identify and categorize the key ethical concerns associated with using LLMs, examine existing mitigation strategies, and assess the outstanding challenges in implementing these strategies across various domains. [Method] We conducted a systematic mapping study, reviewing 39 studies that discuss ethical concerns and mitigation strategies related to LLMs. We analyzed these ethical concerns using five ethical dimensions that we extracted based on various existing guidelines, frameworks, and an analysis of the mitigation strategies and implementation challenges. [Results] Our findings reveal that ethical concerns in LLMs are multi-dimensional and context-dependent. While proposed mitigation strategies address some of these concerns, significant challenges still remain. [Conclusion] Our results highlight that ethical issues often hinder the practical implementation of the mitigation strategies, particularly in high-stake areas like healthcare and public governance; existing frameworks often lack adaptability, failing to accommodate evolving societal expectations and diverse contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00015 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study Search Process 3.1. Research Questions We formulated three high-level research questions (RQs): RQ1 - What are the ethical dimensions defined in the use of generative AI across various fields? RQ2 - What strategies are used or proposed to address the ethical concerns of using generative AI across various fields? RQ3 - What are the challenges when implementing the strategies? We use these RQs to identify studie… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Data Analysis Process These categories were refined through an iterative process of condensing and open coding. We highlighted the relevant information for each RQ from the extracted data. We coded them according to the key information, and similar codes were then combined into themes. Throughout this phase, all authors met regularly to discuss coding decisions, reconcile discrepancies and reach consensus. 4. Result… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Study Distribution by Year Our selected primary studies span multiple application domains. Each domain brings its own set of challenges and ethical considerations, reflecting the diverse applications and potential impacts of LLMs. This section categorizes the studies according to their respective domains mentioned in the primary studies, offering a detailed exploration of how ethical concerns manifest in different c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Study Distribution by publication relevant ethical challenges across multiple sectors where AI is deployed. • Healthcare: Healthcare is a domain that frequently engages with ethical con￾cerns such as privacy, safety, and bias, especially with the increasing use of AI a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RQ1 codes and themes mapping Accountability also emerged as a crucial dimension, highlighted in both the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and Microsoft Responsible AI Standard, which call for strong accountability measures to hold developers and operators re￾sponsible…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alawida, S

    M. Alawida, S. Mejri, A. Mehmood, B. Chikhaoui, O. Isaac Abiodun, A compre- hensive study of chatgpt: advancements, limitations, and ethical considerations in natural language processing and cybersecurity, Information 14 (8) (2023) 462

    2023

  2. [2]

    Arora, J

    C. Arora, J. Grundy, M. Abdelrazek, Advancing requirements engineering through generative ai: Assessing the role of llms, in: Generative AI for Effective Software Development, Springer, 2024, pp. 129–148

    2024

  3. [3]

    A. A. Linkon, M. Shaima, M. S. U. Sarker, N. Nabi, M. N. U. Rana, S. K. Ghosh, M. A. Rahman, H. Esa, F. R. Chowdhury, et al., Advancements and applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models on business management: A comprehensive review, Journal of Computer Science and Technology Studies 6 (1) (2024) 225–232

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    D. H. Hagos, R. Battle, D. B. Rawat, Recent advances in generative ai and large language models: Current status, challenges, and perspectives, IEEE Transac- tions on Artificial Intelligence (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Bengesi, H

    S. Bengesi, H. El-Sayed, M. K. Sarker, Y. Houkpati, J. Irungu, T. Oladunni, Advancements in generative ai: A comprehensive review of gans, gpt, autoen- coders, diffusion model, and transformers., IEEE Access (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Reddy, Generative ai in healthcare: an implementation science informed translational path on application, integration and governance, Implementation Science 19 (1) (2024) 27

    S. Reddy, Generative ai in healthcare: an implementation science informed translational path on application, integration and governance, Implementation Science 19 (1) (2024) 27

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Y. J. P. Bautista, C. Theran, R. Al´ o, Ethical considerations of generative ai: A survey exploring the role of decision makers in the loop, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, Vol. 3, 2024, pp. 391–398

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Bontridder, Y

    N. Bontridder, Y. Poullet, The role of artificial intelligence in disinformation, Data & Policy 3 (2021) e32. 43

    work page 2021

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Germani, G

    F. Germani, G. Spitale, N. Biller-Andorno, The dual nature of ai in information dissemination: Ethical considerations, JMIR AI 3 (2024) e53505–

    2024

  2. [10]

    T. W. Sanchez, M. Brenman, X. Ye, The ethical concerns of artificial intelligence in urban planning, Journal of the American Planning Association (2024) 1–14

    2024

  3. [11]

    Rezaei Nasab, M

    A. Rezaei Nasab, M. Dashti, M. Shahin, M. Zahedi, H. Khalajzadeh, C. Arora, P. Liang, Fairness concerns in app reviews: A study on ai-based mobile apps, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Kitchenham, L

    B. Kitchenham, L. Madeyski, D. Budgen, Segress: Software engineering guide- lines for reporting secondary studies, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineer- ing 49 (3) (2022) 1273–1298

    2022

  5. [13]

    Petersen, S

    K. Petersen, S. Vakkalanka, L. Kuzniarz, Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update, Information and software technology 64 (2015) 1–18

    2015

  6. [14]

    F. Li, N. Ruijs, Y. Lu, Ethics & ai: A systematic review on ethical concerns and related strategies for designing with ai in healthcare, Ai 4 (1) (2022) 28–53

    2022

  7. [15]

    Morley, L

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

    2020

  8. [16]

    Atlam, M

    E. Atlam, M. Almaliki, A. Alfahaid, I. Gad, G. Elmarhomy, M. Alwateer, A. Ahmed, Slm-aie: A systematic literature map of artificial intelligence ethics (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Dewey, J

    J. Dewey, J. H. Tufts, Ethics, DigiCat, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Sivasubramaniam, D

    S. Sivasubramaniam, D. H. Dlabolov´ a, V. Kralikova, Z. R. Khan, Assisting you to advance with ethics in research: an introduction to ethical governance and application procedures, International Journal for Educational Integrity 17 (2021) 1–18

    2021

  11. [19]

    D. C. Poff, Academic ethics and academic integrity, in: Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics, Springer, 2023, pp. 11–16

    2023

  12. [20]

    Jobin, M

    A. Jobin, M. Ienca, E. Vayena, The global landscape of ai ethics guidelines, Nature machine intelligence 1 (9) (2019) 389–399. 44

    2019

  13. [21]

    S. L. Anderson, M. Anderson, Ai and ethics, AI and Ethics 1 (1) (2021) 27–31

    2021

  14. [22]

    P˜ oder, Ai ethics–a review of three recent publications (2021)

    J.-C. P˜ oder, Ai ethics–a review of three recent publications (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Kazim, A

    E. Kazim, A. S. Koshiyama, A high-level overview of ai ethics, Patterns 2 (9) (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Coeckelbergh, AI ethics, Mit Press, 2020

    M. Coeckelbergh, AI ethics, Mit Press, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    B. D. Mittelstadt, P. Allo, M. Taddeo, S. Wachter, L. Floridi, The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate, Big Data & Society 3 (2) (2016) 2053951716679679

    2016

  18. [26]

    Floridi, J

    L. Floridi, J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, C. Luetge, R. Madelin, U. Pagallo, F. Rossi, et al., Ai4people—an ethical frame- work for a good ai society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommenda- tions, Minds and machines 28 (2018) 689–707

    2018

  19. [27]

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

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

    2021

  20. [28]

    Hickman, M

    E. Hickman, M. Petrin, Trustworthy ai and corporate governance: the eu’s ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence from a company law perspective, European Business Organization Law Review 22 (2021) 593–625

    2021

  21. [29]

    Goodfellow, J

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, Y. Bengio, Generative adversarial nets, Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Vaswani, Attention is all you need, Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems (2017)

    A. Vaswani, Attention is all you need, Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    T. B. Brown, Language models are few-shot learners, arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Alto, Modern Generative AI with ChatGPT and OpenAI Models: Leverage the capabilities of OpenAI’s LLM for productivity and innovation with GPT3 and GPT4, Packt Publishing Ltd, 2023

    V. Alto, Modern Generative AI with ChatGPT and OpenAI Models: Leverage the capabilities of OpenAI’s LLM for productivity and innovation with GPT3 and GPT4, Packt Publishing Ltd, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, S. Shmitchell, On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?, in: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2021, pp. 610–623. 45

    2021

  26. [34]

    Rudin, Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead, Nature machine intelligence 1 (5) (2019) 206–215

    C. Rudin, Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead, Nature machine intelligence 1 (5) (2019) 206–215

    2019

  27. [35]

    Shokri, M

    R. Shokri, M. Stronati, C. Song, V. Shmatikov, Membership inference attacks against machine learning models, in: 2017 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP), IEEE, 2017, pp. 3–18

    2017

  28. [36]

    J. Li, W. Xiao, C. Zhang, Data security crisis in universities: identification of key factors affecting data breach incidents, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10 (1) (2023) 1–18

    2023

  29. [37]

    Kibriya, W

    H. Kibriya, W. Z. Khan, A. Siddiqa, M. K. Khan, Privacy issues in large language models: a survey, Computers and Electrical Engineering 120 (2024) 109698

    2024

  30. [38]

    Madiega, Artificial intelligence act, European Parliament: European Parlia- mentary Research Service (2021)

    T. Madiega, Artificial intelligence act, European Parliament: European Parlia- mentary Research Service (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Jillson, Aiming for truth, fairness, and equity in your company’s use of ai, Federal Trade Commission 19 (2021)

    E. Jillson, Aiming for truth, fairness, and equity in your company’s use of ai, Federal Trade Commission 19 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    AI, Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (2024)

    N. AI, Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Migliorini, China’s interim measures on generative ai: Origin, content and significance, Computer Law & Security Review 53 (2024) 105985

    S. Migliorini, China’s interim measures on generative ai: Origin, content and significance, Computer Law & Security Review 53 (2024) 105985

    2024

  34. [42]

    I. S. Association, et al., The ieee global initiative on ethics of autonomous and intelligent systems. ieee. org. retrieved march 12, 2021 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Pichai, Ai at google: our principles, The Keyword 7 (2018) (2018) 1–3

    S. Pichai, Ai at google: our principles, The Keyword 7 (2018) (2018) 1–3

    2018

  36. [44]

    OpenAI, Openai safety standards, https://openai.com/safety-standards/ (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    M. C. Buiten, Towards intelligent regulation of artificial intelligence, European Journal of Risk Regulation 10 (1) (2019) 41–59

    2019

  38. [46]

    IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, Ethi- cally aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems, version 2, http://standards.ieee.org/wp-content/ uploads/import/documents/other/ead_v2.pdf (2017). 46

    2017

  39. [47]

    AI, Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0) (2023)

    N. AI, Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0) (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    pdf (2022)

    Microsoft, Microsoft responsible ai standard, version 2: General requirements, https://blogs.microsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/prod/sites/5/2022/ 06/Microsoft-Responsible-AI-Standard-v2-General-Requirements-3. pdf (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Oketunji, M

    A. Oketunji, M. Anas, D. Saina, Large language model (llm) bias index—llmbi, Data & Policy (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, 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, 2016, pp. 1135–1144

    2016

  43. [51]

    McMahan, E

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, B. A. y Arcas, Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data, in: Artificial intelligence and statistics, PMLR, 2017, pp. 1273–1282

    2017

  44. [52]

    on AI, Annual report 2021 (2021)

    P. on AI, Annual report 2021 (2021). URL https://partnershiponai.org/resource/annual-report-2021/

    2021

  45. [53]

    Palumbo, D

    G. Palumbo, D. Carneiro, V. Alves, Objective metrics for ethical ai: a systematic literature review, International Journal of Data Science and Analytics (2024) 1– 21

    2024

  46. [54]

    C. Wohlin, Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering, in: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, 2014, pp. 1– 10

    2014

  47. [55]

    Leslie, Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05684 (2019)

    D. Leslie, Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05684 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Floridi, J

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

    2022

  49. [57]

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

    V. Dignum, Responsible artificial intelligence: how to develop and use AI in a responsible way, Vol. 2156, Springer, 2019. 47

    2019

  50. [58]

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

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

    2020

  51. [59]

    Anawati, H

    A. Anawati, H. Fleming, M. Mertz, J. Bertrand, J. Dumond, S. Myles, J. Leblanc, B. Ross, D. Lamoureux, D. Patel, et al., Artificial intelligence and social accountability in the canadian health care landscape: A rapid literature review, PLOS Digital Health 3 (9) (2024) e0000597

    2024

  52. [60]

    Smith, Clinical ai: opacity, accountability, responsibility and liability, Ai & Society 36 (2) (2021) 535–545

    H. Smith, Clinical ai: opacity, accountability, responsibility and liability, Ai & Society 36 (2) (2021) 535–545

    2021

  53. [61]

    N. H. Shah, M. A. Pfeffer, M. Ghassemi, The need for continuous evaluation of artificial intelligence prediction algorithms, JAMA Network Open 7 (9) (2024) e2433009–e2433009

    2024

  54. [62]

    Ortega-Bola˜ nos, J

    R. Ortega-Bola˜ nos, J. Bernal-Salcedo, M. Germ´ an Ortiz, J. Galeano Sarmiento, G. A. Ruz, R. Tabares-Soto, Applying the ethics of ai: a systematic review of tools for developing and assessing ai-based systems, Artificial Intelligence Review 57 (5) (2024) 110

    2024

  55. [63]

    Kijewski, E

    S. Kijewski, E. Ronchi, E. Vayena, The rise of checkbox ai ethics: a review, AI and Ethics (2024) 1–10

    2024

  56. [64]

    Srikumar, R

    M. Srikumar, R. Finlay, G. Abuhamad, C. Ashurst, R. Campbell, E. Campbell- Ratcliffe, H. Hongo, S. R. Jordan, J. Lindley, A. Ovadya, et al., Advancing ethics review practices in ai research, Nature Machine Intelligence 4 (12) (2022) 1061–1064

    2022

  57. [65]

    Y. Li, S. Goel, Making it possible for the auditing of ai: A systematic review of ai audits and ai auditability, Information Systems Frontiers (2024) 1–31

    2024

  58. [66]

    Prem, From ethical ai frameworks to tools: a review of approaches, AI and Ethics 3 (3) (2023) 699–716

    E. Prem, From ethical ai frameworks to tools: a review of approaches, AI and Ethics 3 (3) (2023) 699–716

    2023

  59. [67]

    A. A. Khan, M. A. Akbar, M. Fahmideh, P. Liang, M. Waseem, A. Ahmad, M. Niazi, P. Abrahamsson, Ai ethics: an empirical study on the views of prac- titioners and lawmakers, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 10 (6) (2023) 2971–2984

    2023

  60. [68]

    Vakkuri, K.-K

    V. Vakkuri, K.-K. Kemell, Implementing ai ethics in practice: An empirical evaluation of the resolvedd strategy, in: Software Business: 10th International 48 Conference, ICSOB 2019, Jyv¨ askyl¨ a, Finland, November 18–20, 2019, Proceed- ings 10, Springer, 2019, pp. 260–275

    2019

  61. [69]

    C. Deng, Y. Duan, X. Jin, H. Chang, Y. Tian, H. Liu, H. P. Zou, Y. Jin, Y. Xiao, Y. Wang, et al., Deconstructing the ethics of large language models from long- standing issues to new-emerging dilemmas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05392 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. A. Khan, S. Badshah, P. Liang, M. Waseem, B. Khan, A. Ahmad, M. Fah- mideh, M. Niazi, M. A. Akbar, Ethics of ai: A systematic literature review of principles and challenges, in: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engine...

    2022

  63. [71]

    Fjeld, N

    J. Fjeld, N. Achten, H. Hilligoss, A. Nagy, M. Srikumar, Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to prin- ciples for ai, Berkman Klein Center Research Publication (2020-1) (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Binns, Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy, in: Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, PMLR, 2018, pp

    R. Binns, Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy, in: Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, PMLR, 2018, pp. 149– 159

    2018

  65. [73]

    Hoffmann-Riem, Artificial intelligence as a challenge for law and regulation, Regulating artificial intelligence (2020) 1–29

    W. Hoffmann-Riem, Artificial intelligence as a challenge for law and regulation, Regulating artificial intelligence (2020) 1–29

    2020

  66. [74]

    C. Cath, Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportu- nities and challenges, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Math- ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376 (2133) (2018) 20180080

    2018

  67. [75]

    Murphy, E

    K. Murphy, E. Di Ruggiero, R. Upshur, D. J. Willison, N. Malhotra, J. C. Cai, N. Malhotra, V. Lui, J. Gibson, Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature, BMC medical ethics 22 (2021) 1–17

    2021

  68. [76]

    Hagerty, I

    A. Hagerty, I. Rubinov, Global ai ethics: a review of the social impacts and ethical implications of artificial intelligence, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07892 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    S. Pink, E. Quilty, J. Grundy, R. Hoda, Trust, artificial intelligence and software practitioners: an interdisciplinary agenda, AI & SOCIETY (2024) 1–14

    2024

  70. [78]

    Al-kfairy, D

    M. Al-kfairy, D. Mustafa, N. Kshetri, M. Insiew, O. Alfandi, Ethical challenges and solutions of generative ai: An interdisciplinary perspective, in: Informatics, Vol. 11, MDPI, 2024, p. 58. 49

    2024

  71. [79]

    Keles, Navigating in the moral landscape: analysing bias and discrimination in ai through philosophical inquiry, AI and Ethics (2023) 1–11

    S. Keles, Navigating in the moral landscape: analysing bias and discrimination in ai through philosophical inquiry, AI and Ethics (2023) 1–11

    2023

  72. [80]

    Gianni, S

    R. Gianni, S. Lehtinen, M. Nieminen, Governance of responsible ai: From eth- ical guidelines to cooperative policies, Frontiers in Computer Science 4 (2022) 873437

    2022

  73. [81]

    (2023, December)

    Appendix A: Selected Primary Studies P1 : Sathe, N., Deodhe, V., Sharma, Y., & Shinde, A. (2023, December). A Com- prehensive Review of AI in Healthcare: Exploring Neural Networks in Medical Imaging, LLM-Based Interactive Response Systems, NLP-Based EHR Systems, Ethics, and Be...

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Large Language Model*

    Appendix B: Database Search Strings Database Search String IEEE ((“Large Language Model*” OR LLMs) AND (guideline* OR standard* OR framework* OR compliance OR principles OR practices OR governance OR impact OR oversight OR algorithmic OR policy OR policies) AND (development OR...

Pith tools

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