Who is Responsible When AI Fails? Mapping Causes, Entities, and Consequences of AI Privacy and Ethical Incidents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has raised major privacy and ethical concerns. However, existing AI incident taxonomies and guidelines lack grounding in real-world cases, limiting their effectiveness for prevention and mitigation. We analyzed 202 real-world AI privacy and ethical incidents to develop a taxonomy that classifies them across AI lifecycle stages and captures contributing factors, including causes, responsible entities, sources of disclosure, and impacts. Our findings reveal widespread harms from poor organizational decisions and legal non-compliance, limited corrective interventions, and rare reporting from AI developers and adopting entities. Our taxonomy offers a structured approach for systematic incident reporting and emphasizes the weaknesses of current AI governance frameworks. Our findings provide actionable guidance for policymakers and practitioners to strengthen user protections, develop targeted AI policies, enhance reporting practices, and foster responsible AI governance and innovation, especially in contexts such as social media and child protection.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".