arXiv AI By Thao Do Ngoc, Emma Carmel

Beyond the principle-practice gap: Responsible AI as situated epistemic and ethical practice

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper argues that the commonly cited gap between ethical principles and AI practice is not merely a matter of implementation or compliance, but arises from the complex institutional and professional contexts in which AI actors operate. Through interviews with designers and governors of anti‑trafficking AI systems, it identifies four interconnected moments—perception, judgement, situated action, and socio‑technical materialisation—through which ethical concerns are recognised, weighed, and either realised or sidelined. The authors contend that responsible AI governance must build epistemic infrastructures that transcend these constraints, enabling the knowledge of affected communities and potential harms to be effectively integrated into design and governance.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.

By Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Lost in Translation: How Universal Ethical Values Fail to Translate Across Global Contexts

The paper titled "Lost in Translation: How Universal Ethical Values Fail to Translate Across Global Contexts" examines how AI ethics frameworks that assume values such as fairness, transparency, and accountability are universal actually differ in practice. By interviewing 14 experts from 10 countries, the authors find that these values are reinterpreted to fit local moral logics—privacy becomes collective, transparency becomes trust‑building, and fairness becomes equity in access—revealing translation gaps between global frameworks and local practices. The study proposes plural governance pathways that redistribute epistemic authority and treat ethical negotiation as an ongoing, context‑sensitive process.

By Ozioma C. Oguine, Munachimso B. Oguine, Cesar Cervera, Jenny Yang, Pooja Voladoddi, Mario Rodriguez, Saif Eddin Bani Malhem, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Daricia Wilkinson