It is argued that considerations of AI ethics must extend beyond models and data to encompass the hardware infrastructures on which they depend, and that embedding stakeholder reflection is critical for anticipatory governance in the physical infrastructure of AI.
Abstract
As the foundation of contemporary AI systems, the semiconductor industry is increasingly shaped by critical social, environmental, and geopolitical challenges. Nonetheless, prior research has often examined these issues in isolation and within disciplinary silos, leaving a gap in understanding them through an integrative socio-technical, cross-disciplinary lens. To address this gap, we conducted a participatory futuring workshop with experts from academia, industry, and policy. The results of our analysis show that the aforementioned challenges are highly interdependent, and participants envisioned interconnected socio-technical pathways linking present frictions to normative goals. Drawing from their perspectives, we highlight three central tensions: the sovereignty--sustainability tension, where national protectionism undermines ecological survival; supply chain opacity, which obscures accountability for labor and environmental harms; and a growing knowledge divide that risks excluding smaller economies from shaping the AI future. Participants envisioned futures centered on interdependence and inclusive access, proposing measures such as a standardized emissions labeling system to translate technical data into public accountability. They also suggested frameworks for strategic interdependence to balance local resilience with global cooperation, and epistemic redistribution initiatives to lower barriers of entry and democratize access to hardware infrastructure. We argue that considerations of AI ethics must extend beyond models and data to encompass the hardware infrastructures on which they depend, and that embedding stakeholder reflection is critical for anticipatory governance in the physical infrastructure of AI.
An integrated governance framework that incorporates MacIntyrean categories of practices, institutions, and traditions while explicitly addressing the environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and organizational dimensions of the common good is developed, illustrating how virtues can guide the responsible design, deploy...
Dulce M. Redín, M. C. Ames· Journal of Business Ethics· 0 citations
Sustainable artificial intelligence (AI) has gained increasing prominence in academic, policy, and industry discussions, yet the concept remains underspecified and frequently deployed in ways that obscure the environmental and social harms associated with contemporary AI systems. This article argues that, for industry,...
Aimee van Wynsberghe, Chelsea Haramia· IEEE Energy Sustainability M...· 0 citations
This paper addresses the “AI-Green Paradox,” wherein opaque or biased algorithms can inadvertently undermine environmental, social, and governance (ESG) outcomes, and provides a highly specific, condition-aware “Monday Morning Checklist” for C-suite executives and policymakers.
Zhiyin Xiao, Guangfei Wu· Strategy & Leadership· 0 citations
It is concluded that RAI is not merely a compliance burden but the core enabling infrastructure for Industry 5.0, with its successful implementation dependent on a symbiotic fusion of policy, technology, and organizational governance.
Saurabh Chandravanshi, M. Ahmed· International Journal of Inf...· 0 citations
The Qualitative Model of Ethics (QME), a naturalistic and teleological framework grounded in a single evaluative scalar: the generative capacity of the Whole Living System (WLS), provides a unified and operational framework for AI governance at scale.
It is proposed to rethink social and tech ethics from the standpoint of a renewed attention to the constitutions of these economic actors within the capitalist system.
J. Schulz, Laura Robinson, Katia Moles· International journal of kno...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.