Roboethics principles and policies in Europe and North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are revolutionizing all spheres of human life. From industrial processes to graphic design, the implementation of automated intelligent systems is changing how industries work. The spread of robots and AI systems has triggered academic institutions to closely examine how these technologies may affect the humanity-this is how the fields of roboethics and AI ethics have been born. The identification of ethical issues for robotics and AI and creation of ethical frameworks were the first steps to creating a regulatory environment for these technologies. In this paper, we focus on regulatory efforts in Europe and North America to create enforceable regulation for AI and robotics. We describe and compare ethical principles, policies, and regulations that have been proposed by government organizations for the design and use of robots and AI. We also discuss proposed international regulation for robotics and AI. This paper tries to highlight the need for a comprehensive, enforceable, and agile policy to ethically regulate technology today and in the future. Through reviewing existing policies, we conclude that the European Unition currently leads the way in defining roboethics and AI ethical principles and implementing them into policy. Our findings suggest that governments in Europe and North America are aware of the ethical risks that robotics and AI pose, and are engaged in policymaking to create regulatory policies for these new technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".