Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

From Incidents to Insights: Patterns of Responsibility following AI Harms

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The AI Incident Database's primary value is as a record of societal responses to AI harms, not as a tool for preventing implementation failures.

desk verdict A solid exploratory re-read of the AIID that deserves serious refereeing, but the comparative accountability claims should be treated as hypotheses given how noisy the response tags are. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04291 v1 pith:AOKH6RLR submitted 2025-05-07 cs.CY

Isabel Richards , Claire Benn , Miri Zilka This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords AIIncidentDatabasealgorithmicaccountabilitysociallearningharmsresponsedeepfakesmediareportingresponsibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the AI Incident Database is best understood not as an aviation-style failure log for engineers, but as a record of how society reacts when AI causes harm. Analyzing 962 incidents and 4,743 reports, the authors find that having an identifiable responsible party does not reliably lead to accountability: many incidents involving major technology companies drew few or no formal responses, while anonymous deepfake incidents stimulated the most public outcry and legislative action. They also find that the likelihood and substance of a response depend on context, including who was harmed and whether deployment was direct or third-party. The paper concludes that the database's real value lies in documenting patterns of harm, institutional response, and social learning around AI failures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the AIID's 'response'-tagged reports: 163 reports spread over 48 incidents that the database editors marked as public official responses from an entity allegedly responsible for developing or deploying the AI system. The paper treats these tags not as reliable corporate disclosures but as traces of societal reaction, and supplements them with qualitative reading of all 638 reports attached to response incidents. The method is a three-tier analysis: first, all 962 incidents are categorised by developer/deployer relationship and harmed group; second, the response-tagged incidents are examined qualitatively; third, inductive 'typical incident' categories, such as Big Tech user harm, third-party LLM deployment, government applications, and deepfakes, are compared to find which contextual factors make a substantive response more or less likely. This machinery lets the authors make meaningful comparisons between similar incidents with and without responses, despite acknowledging that the database is not representative of all AI harms.

What would settle it

Check whether response rates track media attention rather than actual accountability: for a sample of incidents, compare the AIID's response tags against primary-source records such as court filings, regulatory findings, and company statements. If anonymous deepfake incidents show no response advantage once media attention is controlled for, or if most of their 'responses' are simply more news articles rather than actions by institutions, then the pattern that unknown responsible parties stimulate accountability would collapse into an artifact of media selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in Section 5, is that the primary value of the AI Incident Database is not learning to avoid implementation failure, but learning about the state of incidents and the responses of different actors in the wake of AI harm. Through a three-tier mixed-methods analysis of 962 incidents and 4,743 reports, the authors show that the presence of identifiable responsible parties does not necessarily lead to increased accountability. Incidents where a major technology company is both developer and deployer, such as Tesla crashes and social media harms, are proportionally less likely to receive responses than incidents where the responsible parties are unknown, which are mostly deepfake cases that generated substantial societal reaction and calls for legislation. When substantive responses do occur, they are shaped by context: organisational victims tend to receive more formal investigations than individual users, and regulatory or legal pressure often accounts for the difference. The authors also find that 97% of reports tagged as responses in the database do not meet the definition of an official developer or deployer response, and that the few official responses that exist are superficial. They conclude that the AIID serves as a record of societal accountability and social learning, and that both controversy-rich and controversy-absent incidents offer insight into how society negotiates responsibility for AI harms.

Load-bearing premise

The central patterns depend on the AIID's media-sourced reports and response tags being a sufficiently faithful record of real societal and institutional responses that comparisons across categories—developer type, harmed group, response presence—are meaningful rather than artifacts of what got reported and tagged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI incident databases can be read as social records: they show how society negotiates responsibility after AI harms, even though they cannot support aviation-style technical failure-avoidance learning.
  • Knowing the responsible party is not enough: incidents with named Big Tech developers and deployers are less likely than anonymous deepfake incidents to receive a substantive response.
  • The quality of response is context-dependent: organisational victims often get formal investigations while individual users get blog posts or silence, unless regulation or courts force a stronger response.
  • The near-total absence of official developer/deployer responses means that voluntary corporate response reporting has not produced the technical learning loop the AIID originally sought.
  • Absence of controversy is itself diagnostic: incidents where governments harmed the public with AI, such as wrongful arrests, drew little response and reveal accountability blind spots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the response patterns hold, regulators could use incident databases as early-warning sensors for accountability gaps, flagging categories where harms recur with no meaningful response.
  • The same three-tier method could be applied to other incident collections, such as AIAAIC or future EU AI Act complaint logs, to test whether new regulation shifts response patterns over time.
  • The finding that organisational victims receive more substantive responses suggests a testable hypothesis: as AI procurement shifts toward institutions, accountability will concentrate where economic leverage exists, potentially leaving individual consumers underserved.
  • A direct extension would be to code the language of corporate responses for 'learning signals'—specific technical changes, apologies, or commitments—and test whether any response type correlates with reduced recurrence of similar incidents.
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 uses the AI Incident Database (AIID) to argue that the database's primary value lies not in technical failure analysis but in documenting how developers, deployers, harmed groups, and wider society respond to AI harms. The authors perform a three-tier mixed-methods analysis of 962 incidents and 4,743 reports, focusing on 48 incidents with 'response' tags. They find that identifiable responsible parties do not necessarily generate more documented responses, that incidents with unknown developers/deployers (mostly deepfakes) attract more societal and legislative responses, and that the content of responses depends on who was harmed and whether deployment was direct or third-party. The paper proposes that AI incident databases can serve as resources for studying accountability and social learning around AI harms.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a valuable contribution by reframing AI incident databases as records of societal accountability and social learning rather than only as engineering failure logs. The mixed-methods design, the qualitative re-examination of response tags, and the detailed case study of Incident 597 are genuine strengths, and the authors are appropriately candid about the exploratory nature of the analysis and the database's sampling biases. The main findings, however, rest on a small and potentially biased response-tagged subset (48 incidents; only 5 official responses by the authors' own reclassification), and the paper's central comparative claims depend on treating the absence of a response tag as the absence of a response. This assumption is not validated and is load-bearing for the conclusion that unknown responsible parties lead to greater societal response. The paper therefore offers a plausible and interesting reframing, but the empirical support for its specific comparative patterns is fragile and requires additional analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figure 7, Section 5] The central comparative claims, including the finding that incidents with unknown developers/deployers have a higher response proportion (0.17 vs 0.09 in Figure 7), treat absence of an AIID response tag as absence of a response. However, response tagging began in 2023 (Section 3.2.2), and the manuscript does not establish whether tags were applied retrospectively to the large number of pre-2023 incidents in the corpus. If tags are only assigned to recently submitted reports, then older incident categories (e.g., Tesla crashes, government AI applications) would be systematically under-tagged, and the observed response-rate differences could be an artifact of submission timing and editorial practice rather than a genuine accountability pattern. The authors should test the missing-tag assumption, for example by restricting the comparison to incidents with reports submitted after the tagging initiative, or by auditing a random sample of untagged incidents for evidence of unrecorded responses.
  2. [Section 4.2] The reclassification of the 163 response-tagged reports (97% of which do not meet the official response definition) into 'societal actor responses', 'indirect acknowledgements', and 'official responses' is a manual coding exercise with no reported codebook, inter-rater reliability, or adjudication procedure. Because the subsequent findings—such as the rarity of official responses and the prevalence of societal responses in unknown-developer cases—depend on this reclassification, the coding rubric and reliability statistics (e.g., Cohen's kappa for a subset scored by both authors) should be reported. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the reclassification is stable or idiosyncratic to the authors.
  3. [Section 4.3.2] The claim that 'there were no responses in the cases of LLMs deployed by third parties' is based on a small, inductively defined category and on the absence of response tags. Given the tagging and submission biases discussed above, and the fact that corporate statements, regulatory filings, or court actions may exist without being captured by AIID media reports, this absence cannot be interpreted as evidence that no responses occurred. The authors should report the number of incidents in this category and the number of reports examined, and should present a sensitivity analysis or a manual check for undetected responses before treating this as a substantive finding.
  4. [Section 5] The statement that 'the presence of identifiable responsible parties does not necessarily lead to increased accountability' is phrased as a general claim about accountability, but the operational measure is the presence of a response tag in the AIID, which the paper itself shows is mostly not an official response (97% of tagged reports fail the official definition). The paper should either qualify the claim to refer to 'documented responses in the AIID' or provide a clear argument for why the response-tag proxy, after the authors' reclassification, is a valid measure of accountability. As written, the abstract's second claim overstates what the data can show.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Only 5 out of the 64 reports are official and proactive responses from the developer or deployer' conflicts with the earlier statement that there are 163 response-tagged reports; if 97% of 163 do not meet the definition, the correct denominator should be 163, and '64' appears to be a typo or an unexplained subset. Please clarify.
  2. [Section 4.3.2] The phrase 'delating changes to how Detroit police uses facial recognition' appears to contain a typo; it should likely be 'detailing changes' or 'delineating changes'.
  3. [Section 3.2.1] The harmed-group labelling is described as 'checked for consistency by cross-labelling,' but no quantitative inter-rater agreement is reported. For reproducibility, please provide a measure such as Cohen's kappa on a shared subset.
  4. [Appendix E, Figure 7] The heatmap's two columns are not explicitly defined in the caption or legend. The text should state clearly that the two columns represent, for each developer/deployer category, the share of all incidents and the share of response-tagged incidents (or whatever the intended comparison is).
  5. [Section 2.1.2] The reference to 'WIRED's Artificial Intelligence Database' links to WIRED's general AI coverage rather than to a structured incident database; this is misleading and should be corrected or replaced with an actual database reference.
  6. [Section 2.1.1] The statement that 'since the response initiative began, only 5.8% of new incidents have responses' is not reconciled with the 48/962 (5%) figure elsewhere; please clarify the denominator and whether responses are tagged retrospectively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the study is an empirical analysis of AIID records. The only self-reference is a minor, non-load-bearing citation.

full rationale

The paper does not derive predictions from fitted parameters; it is an exploratory mixed-methods study of 962 AIID incidents and 4,743 reports. The central claims—that identifiable responsible parties do not necessarily increase accountability and that the AIID's value lies in documenting societal responses—are descriptive patterns read off the database fields and from the authors' own qualitative reclassification of the 163 response-tagged reports. That reclassification is independent evidence: the authors report that '97% of the tagged responses do not meet the definition of a response' (Section 4.2), so the conclusions are not simply a restatement of the AIID's labels. The one self-citation (Camilleri et al. 2023, co-authored by Zilka) appears in Section 3.2.4 to support the generic point that media reports 'are embedded with assumptions rooted in geography and industry'; it is not load-bearing for any finding. The acknowledged limitation that missing response tags may reflect documentation practice (Section 3.2.4) is a data-validity concern, not a circularity: the paper never equates 'no tag' with 'no response' in its formal reasoning, and it repeatedly cautions that the database is not representative. No equation, definition, or imported theorem is shown to make an output equivalent to an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical qualitative study rather than a derivation, so there are no fitted numerical constants. The load-bearing choices are hand-built classification schemes: the harmed-group taxonomy, the Big Tech company list, and the rule for coding unknown parties. These function as free parameters in the qualitative sense because changing them could change the reported percentages. The axioms are domain assumptions about the validity of media reports and AIID tags as evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • Big Tech company list = 16 companies
    Manually assembled from iterative Google searches (Section 3.2.1 footnote 5); used to classify 35% of incidents and central to the Developer=Deployer response patterns.
  • Harmed group categories = 9 inductive categories
    Developed inductively by two authors from incident descriptions and tags (Section 3.2.1, Table 1); no inter-rater reliability statistic reported; used for all harmed-group percentages.
  • Unknown party coding rule = e.g., 'unknown-hacker' treated as unknown
    Ad hoc data-cleaning rule for Developer/Deployer fields (Section 3.2.1); affects the 9.4% unknown/unknown category that anchors the deepfake finding.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AIID download of 10 March 2025 is a complete and accurate snapshot
    All quantitative statements use this snapshot (Section 3.1), but no version hash or export artifact is provided.
  • domain assumption Media reports are a valid record of societal actors' responses and expectations
    The entire method treats media reports as evidence of responses (Sections 2.2, 3.2), an STS premise the authors adopt rather than test.
  • domain assumption Editorial tagging of 'responses' is usable signal after reclassification
    The paper relies on response tags to select 48 incidents, then finds 97% do not meet the definition; the reclassification itself is qualitative and not independently audited (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption Comparison within a biased database can support claims about patterns
    Authors argue comparisons of similar incidents mitigate sampling bias (Sections 3.2.4, 5), but no formal argument rules out differential bias across categories.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Incidents to Insights: Patterns of Responsibility following AI Harms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AOKH6RLR

@misc{pith2026250504291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Incidents to Insights: Patterns of Responsibility following AI Harms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AOKH6RLR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04291}
}
read the original abstract

The AI Incident Database was inspired by aviation safety databases, which enable collective learning from failures to prevent future incidents. The database documents hundreds of AI failures, collected from the news and media. However, criticism highlights that the AIID's reliance on media reporting limits its utility for learning about implementation failures. In this paper, we accept that the AIID falls short in its original mission, but argue that by looking beyond technically-focused learning, the dataset can provide new, highly valuable insights: specifically, opportunities to learn about patterns between developers, deployers, victims, wider society, and law-makers that emerge after AI failures. Through a three-tier mixed-methods analysis of 962 incidents and 4,743 related reports from the AIID, we examine patterns across incidents, focusing on cases with public responses tagged in the database. We identify 'typical' incidents found in the AIID, from Tesla crashes to deepfake scams. Focusing on this interplay between relevant parties, we uncover patterns in accountability and social expectations of responsibility. We find that the presence of identifiable responsible parties does not necessarily lead to increased accountability. The likelihood of a response and what it amounts to depends highly on context, including who built the technology, who was harmed, and to what extent. Controversy-rich incidents provide valuable data about societal reactions, including insights into social expectations. Equally informative are cases where controversy is notably absent. This work shows that the AIID's value lies not just in preventing technical failures, but in documenting patterns of harms and of institutional response and social learning around AI incidents. These patterns offer crucial insights for understanding how society adapts to and governs emerging AI technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04291 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: proportion of all incidents by harmed group (not mutually exclusive; see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: A breakdown of incidents based on whether the developer and the deployer are known and whether they are the same organisation if they are both known. Right: Shown separately for each harmed group. 4.2 Responses Since the initiative to tag official responses from developers and deployers began, 3.4% of the submitted reports have been tagged as responses. This corresponds to 163 reports, unevenly distributed amo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A distribution of number of reports per incident [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The number of reports submitted by individual submitters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A histogram of reports per submitter. Outliers are excluded. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The number of reports and responses reports for each incidents with at least one response. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Proportion of incidents with and without responses by Developer/Deployer category. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Incident 597 reports and response timeline. Copied from the AIID website [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Are robots the solution to the crisis in older-person care? Nature, 2024

    T Worth. Are robots the solution to the crisis in older-person care? Nature, 2024. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-01184-4

    work page doi:10.1038/d41586-024-01184-4 2024

  2. [2]

    Google rolls out ai to optimise traffic lights and cut emissions

    C Carey. Google rolls out ai to optimise traffic lights and cut emissions. Cities Today, October 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    New ey research finds ai investment is surging, with senior leaders seeing more positive roi as hype continues to become reality

    L McWilliams. New ey research finds ai investment is surging, with senior leaders seeing more positive roi as hype continues to become reality. EY Newsroom, July 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Talking ai into being: The narratives and imaginaries of national ai strategies and their performative politics

    J Bareis and C Katzenbach. Talking ai into being: The narratives and imaginaries of national ai strategies and their performative politics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47 0 (5): 0 855--881, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Brave new world: Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning

    A Groza and A Marginean. Brave new world: Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning. 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    The artificial intelligence shock and socio-political polarization

    J Jacobs. The artificial intelligence shock and socio-political polarization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 199: 0 123006, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    The ethical permissibility of chatting with the dead: Towards a normative framework for 'deathbots

    NF Lindemann. The ethical permissibility of chatting with the dead: Towards a normative framework for 'deathbots. Publications of the Institute of Cognitive Science 2022, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Preventing repeated real world ai failures by cataloging incidents: The ai incident database

    Sean McGregor. Preventing repeated real world ai failures by cataloging incidents: The ai incident database. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    When artificial intelligence fails: The emerging role of incident databases

    R Rodrigues, A Resseguier, and N Santiago. When artificial intelligence fails: The emerging role of incident databases. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 8 0 (2): 0 17--28, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Analyzing failures in artificial intelligent learning systems (fails)

    F Durso, MS Raunak, R Kuhn, and R Kacker. Analyzing failures in artificial intelligent learning systems (fails). 2022 IEEE 29th Annual Software Technology Conference (STC), pages 7--8, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Risky artificial intelligence: The role of incidents in the path to ai regulation

    G Lupo. Risky artificial intelligence: The role of incidents in the path to ai regulation. Law, Technology and Humans, 5 0 (1): 0 133--152, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    How to deal with an ai near-miss: Look to the skies

    K Shrishak. How to deal with an ai near-miss: Look to the skies. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 79 0 (3): 0 166--169, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Why we need to know more: Exploring the state of ai incident documentation practices

    V Turri and R Dzombak. Why we need to know more: Exploring the state of ai incident documentation practices. pages 576--583, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    The evolution of ai incident reporting: A comparative analysis

    Kelsey Atherton. The evolution of ai incident reporting: A comparative analysis. AI Safety Journal, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    URL https://incidentdatabase.ai/about

    Ai incident database - about, 2024. URL https://incidentdatabase.ai/about

    2024

  8. [16]

    Software bugs in ai systems: A classification framework

    Mohamad Kassab and Joanna DeFranco. Software bugs in ai systems: A classification framework. IEEE Software, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Model monitoring failures in production ai systems

    Thomas Schröder and Andreas Weber. Model monitoring failures in production ai systems. Journal of Machine Learning Operations, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Threat assessment of ai systems: An incident-based analysis

    Lionel Tidjon and Sarath Pradeep. Threat assessment of ai systems: An incident-based analysis. Security and Privacy, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Understanding autonomous vehicle risk: A case study analysis

    Carl Macrae. Understanding autonomous vehicle risk: A case study analysis. Safety Science, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Enhancing ai incident reports through developer response

    Roy Schwartz and Dennis Cunningham. Enhancing ai incident reports through developer response. Journal of Responsible AI, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Expert labeling methodologies for ai safety incidents

    Nicholas Pittaras and David Chen. Expert labeling methodologies for ai safety incidents. AI Safety Engineering, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Adding structure to ai harm

    Mia Hoffmann and Heather Frase. Adding structure to ai harm. Center for Security and Emerging Technology Publications. https://cset. georgetown. edu/publication/adding-structure-to-ai-harm, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Ai ethics issues in real world: Evidence from ai incident database

    Mengyi Wei and Zhixuan Zhou. Ai ethics issues in real world: Evidence from ai incident database. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07635, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    How does ai fail us? a typological theorization of ai failures

    Xinhui Zhan, Heshan Sun, and Shaila M Miranda. How does ai fail us? a typological theorization of ai failures. 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    The ai incident database as an educational tool to raise awareness of ai harms: A classroom exploration of efficacy, limitations, & future improvements

    Michael Feffer, Nikolas Martelaro, and Hoda Heidari. The ai incident database as an educational tool to raise awareness of ai harms: A classroom exploration of efficacy, limitations, & future improvements. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algori...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars

    J Stilgoe. Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars. Social Studies of Science, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Yampolskiy

    Roman V. Yampolskiy. First fatal crash of a tesla model s in autonomous mode. Autonomous Systems and Society, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Mapping controversies with social media: The case for symmetry

    N Marres and D Moats. Mapping controversies with social media: The case for symmetry. Social Media, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Freedom and resentment

    Peter F Strawson et al. Freedom and resentment. Free will, 2: 0 72--93, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Conversation & responsibility

    Michael McKenna. Conversation & responsibility. Oup Usa, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    What we owe to each other

    Thomas M Scanlon. What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press, 2000

    2000

  24. [32]

    Moral dimensions: Permissibility, meaning, blame

    Thomas M Scanlon. Moral dimensions: Permissibility, meaning, blame. Harvard University Press, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Outsider oversight: Designing a third party audit ecosystem for ai governance

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Peggy Xu, Colleen Honigsberg, and Daniel Ho. Outsider oversight: Designing a third party audit ecosystem for ai governance. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 557--571, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Constraining condemning

    Roger Wertheimer. Constraining condemning. Ethics, 108 0 (3): 0 489--501, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    Casting the first stone: Who can, and who can't, condemn the terrorists? 1

    Gerald A Cohen. Casting the first stone: Who can, and who can't, condemn the terrorists? 1. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 58: 0 113--136, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Reasoning practically

    Gerald Dworkin. Reasoning practically. Oxford University Press, 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    The epistemic norm of blame

    D Justin Coates. The epistemic norm of blame. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 0 457--473, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Skepticism about moral responsibility

    Gideon Rosen. Skepticism about moral responsibility. Philosophical perspectives, 18: 0 295--313, 2004

    2004

  31. [39]

    Responsibility and the problem of many hands in networks

    Sjoerd D Zwart. Responsibility and the problem of many hands in networks. In Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Many Hands, pages 131--166. Routledge, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Richard swinburne

    Paul Helm. Richard swinburne. responsibility and atonement. pp. 213.(oxford, the clarendon press, 1989.). Religious Studies, 26 0 (3): 0 431--433, 1990

    1989

  33. [41]

    Freezing out: Legacy media's shaping of ai as a cold controversy

    G Dandurand, F McKelvey, and J Roberge. Freezing out: Legacy media's shaping of ai as a cold controversy. Big Data & Society, 10 0 (2): 0 20539517231219242, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars

    J Stilgoe. Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars. Social Studies of Science, 48 0 (1): 0 25--56, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama

    S Hilgartner. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford University Press, 2000

    2000

  36. [44]

    Why map issues? on controversy analysis as a digital method

    N Marres. Why map issues? on controversy analysis as a digital method. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40 0 (5): 0 655--686, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    No issues without media, the changing politics of public controversy in digital societies

    N Marres. No issues without media, the changing politics of public controversy in digital societies. 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor

    R Nixon. Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Harvard University Press, 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    The problem with incident reporting

    C Macrae. The problem with incident reporting. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25 0 (2): 0 71--75, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Media coverage of predictive policing: Bias, police engagement, and the future of transparency

    H Camilleri, C Ashurst, N Jaisankar, A Weller, and M Zilka. Media coverage of predictive policing: Bias, police engagement, and the future of transparency. Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, pages 1--19, 2023. doi:10.1145/3600211.3604700

    2023

  41. [49]

    Fortinsky

    S. Fortinsky. Sports illustrated responds to accusations it published ai-generated content. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4330197-sports-illustrated-responds-to-accusations-it-published-ai-generated-content/, 2023. [Accessed 08-01-2025]

    2023

  42. [50]

    T ik T ok deepfakes: M r B east, T om H anks, G ayle K ing; call for ban

    Ben Lovejoy. T ik T ok deepfakes: M r B east, T om H anks, G ayle K ing; call for ban. https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/04/tiktok-deepfakes/, 2023. [Accessed 08-01-2025]

    2023

  43. [51]

    News anchors targeted by deepfake scammers on facebook

    The Straits Times. News anchors targeted by deepfake scammers on facebook. https://www.straitstimes.com/world/news-anchors-targeted-by-deepfake-scammers-on-facebook, 2023. [Accessed 08-01-2025]

    2023

  44. [52]

    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, 3 0 (1): 0 2053951715622512, 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Accountability in an algorithmic society: Relationality, responsibility, and robustness in machine learning

    AF Cooper, E Moss, B Laufer, and H Nissenbaum. Accountability in an algorithmic society: Relationality, responsibility, and robustness in machine learning. pages 864--876, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Governing algorithms: A provocation piece

    S Barocas, S Hood, and M Ziewitz. Governing algorithms: A provocation piece. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013

    2013

  47. [55]

    Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability

    M Ananny and K Crawford. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20 0 (3): 0 973--989, 2018

    2018

  48. [56]

    The sociology of expectations in science and technology

    M Borup, N Brown, K Konrad, and H Van Lente. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18 0 (3--4): 0 285--298, 2006

    2006

  49. [57]

    C hat G P T I ncidents and I ssues --- incidentdatabase.ai

    Khoa Lam. C hat G P T I ncidents and I ssues --- incidentdatabase.ai. https://incidentdatabase.ai/blog/chatgpt-incidents-and-issues/, 2023. [Accessed 23-01-2025]

    2023

  50. [58]

    The distinct wrong of deepfakes

    A de Ruiter. The distinct wrong of deepfakes. Philosophy & Technology, 34 0 (4): 0 1311--1332, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Accountability in a computerized society

    H Nissenbaum. Accountability in a computerized society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2 0 (1): 0 25--42, 1996

    1996

  52. [60]

    Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction

    MC Elish. Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 5: 0 40--60, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Who's Driving Innovation?: New Technologies and the Collaborative State

    J Stilgoe. Who's Driving Innovation?: New Technologies and the Collaborative State. Springer International Publishing, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.