Bernd Carsten Stahl

Prof. Bernd Carsten Stahl

Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
24 March 2023 in Artificial Intelligence Review
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BSBernd Carsten Stahl
Bernd Carsten Stahl
JAJosephina Antoniou
Josephina Antoniou
NBNitika Bhalla
Nitika Bhalla
LBLaurence Brooks
Laurence Brooks
PJPhilip Jansen
Philip Jansen
DWDavid Wright
David Wright
Artificial intelligence (AI) is producing highly beneficial impacts in many domains, from transport to healthcare, from energy distribution to marketing, but it also raises concerns about undesirable ethical and social consequences. AI impact assessments (AI-IAs) are a way of identifying positive and negative impacts early on to safeguard AI’s benefits and avoid its downsides. This article describes the first systematic review of these AI-IAs. Working with a population of 181 documents, the authors identified 38 actual AI-IAs and subjected them to a rigorous qualitative analysis with regard to their purpose, scope, organisational context, expected issues, timeframe, process and methods, transparency and challenges. The review demonstrates some convergence between AI-IAs. It also shows that the field is not yet at the point of full agreement on content, structure and implementation. The article suggests that AI-IAs are best understood as means to stimulate reflection and discussion concerning the social and ethical consequences of AI ecosystems. Based on the analysis of existing AI-IAs, the authors describe a baseline process of implementing AI-IAs that can be implemented by AI developers and vendors and that can be used as a critical yardstick by regulators and external observers to evaluate organisations’ approaches to AI.

17 December 2020 in Policy and Society
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
IUInga Ulnicane
Inga Ulnicane
WKWilliam Knight
William Knight
TLTonii Leach
Tonii Leach
BSBernd Carsten Stahl
Bernd Carsten Stahl
WWWinter-Gladys Wanjiku
Winter-Gladys Wanjiku
This paper examines how the governance in AI policy documents have been framed as way to resolve public controversies surrounding AI. It draws on the studies of governance of emerging technologies, the concept of policy framing, and analysis of 49 recent policy documents dedicated to AI which have been prepared in the context of technological hype expecting fast advances of AI that will fundamentally change economy and society. The hype about AI is accompanied by major public controversy about positive and negative effects of AI. Against the backdrop of this policy controversy, governance emerges as one of the frames that diagnoses the problems and offers prescriptions. Accordingly, the current governance characterized by oligopoly of a small number of large companies is indicated as one of the reasons for problems such as lack of consideration of societal needs and concerns. To address these problems, governance frame in AI policy documents assigns more active and collaborative roles to the state and society. Amid public controversies, the state is assigned the roles of promoting and facilitating AI development while at the same time being a guarantor of risk mitigation and enabler of societal engagement. High expectations are assigned to public engagement with multiple publics as a way to increase diversity, representation and equality in AI development and use. While this governance frame might have a normative appeal, it is not specific about addressing some well-known challenges of the proposed governance mode such as risks of capture by vested interests or difficulties to achieve consensus.

1 December 2016 in Robotics and Autonomous Systems
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
BSBernd Carsten Stahl
Bernd Carsten Stahl
MCMark Coeckelbergh
Mark Coeckelbergh
This is an Open Access article How can we best identify, understand, and deal with ethical and societal issues raised by healthcare robotics? This paper argues that next to ethical analysis, classic technology assessment, and philosophical speculation we need forms of reflection, dialogue, and experiment that come, quite literally, much closer to innovation practices and contexts of use. The authors discuss a number of ways how to achieve that.. Informed by their experience with “embedded” ethics in technical projects and with various tools and methods of responsible research and innovation, the paper identifies “internal” and “external” forms of dialogical research and innovation and reflects on the possibilities and limitations of these forms of ethical-technological forms of innovation and explores a number of ways how they can be supported by policy at national and supranational level

16 February 2021 in AI & SOCIETY
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BSBernd Carsten Stahl
Bernd Carsten Stahl
JAJosephina Antoniou
Josephina Antoniou
MRMark Ryan
Mark Ryan
Kevin MacnishKevin Macnish
Kevin Macnish
TJTilimbe Jiya
Tilimbe Jiya
The ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) is a widely discussed topic. There are numerous initiatives that aim to develop the principles and guidance to ensure that the development, deployment and use of AI are ethically acceptable. What is generally unclear is how organisations that make use of AI understand and address these ethical issues in practice. While there is an abundance of conceptual work on AI ethics, empirical insights are rare and often anecdotal. This paper fills the gap in our current understanding of how organisations deal with AI ethics by presenting empirical findings collected using a set of ten case studies and providing an account of the cross-case analysis. The paper reviews the discussion of ethical issues of AI as well as mitigation strategies that have been proposed in the literature. Using this background, the cross-case analysis categorises the organisational responses that were observed in practice. The discussion shows that organisations are highly aware of the AI ethics debate and keen to engage with ethical issues proactively. However, they make use of only a relatively small subsection of the mitigation strategies proposed in the literature. These insights are of importance to organisations deploying or using AI, to the academic AI ethics debate, but maybe most valuable to policymakers involved in the current debate about suitable policy developments to address the ethical issues raised by AI.

19 September 2013 in Science and Public Policy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BSBernd Carsten Stahl
Bernd Carsten Stahl
The concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) is increasingly used to describe novel ways of governing research and the relationship between key research stakeholders including researchers, industry, policy-makers and civil society. It is thus of key importance for science, research and innovation policy. This paper defines RRI as a higher-level responsibility or meta-responsibility that aims to shape, maintain, develop, coordinate and align existing and novel research and innovation-related processes, actors and responsibilities with a view to ensuring desirable and acceptable research outcomes. It shows the role privacy has in the developing framework of RRI. The paper discusses dimensions of RRI as well as weaknesses of the current approach towards RRI and provides future directions for research and practice that will allow RRI to live up to its promise and ensure that past and present work on privacy and data protection find an appropriate place within this framework.

18 March 2021
Verified
Book Chapter
Open access
PDF file
BSBernd Carsten Stahl
Bernd Carsten Stahl
This chapter discusses the ethical issues that are raised by the development, deployment and use of AI. It starts with a review of the (ethical) benefits of AI and then presents the findings of the SHERPA project, which used case studies and a Delphi study to identify what people perceived to be ethical issues. These are discussed using the categorisation of AI technologies introduced earlier. Detailed accounts are given of ethical issues arising from machine learning, from artificial general intelligence and from broader socio-technical systems that incorporate AI.