mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Building Ethically Bounded AI

arXiv 1812.03980 ↗First posted 10 Dec 2018cs.AI cs.CY cs.LGcited by 22

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The more AI agents are deployed in scenarios with possibly unexpected situations, the more they need to be flexible, adaptive, and creative in achieving the goal we have given them. Thus, a certain level of freedom to choose the best path to the goal is inherent in making AI robust and flexible enough. At the same time, however, the pervasive deployment of AI in our life, whether AI is autonomous or collaborating with humans, raises several ethical challenges. AI agents should be aware and follow appropriate ethical principles and should thus exhibit properties such as fairness or other virtues. These ethical principles should define the boundaries of AI's freedom and creativity. However, it is still a challenge to understand how to specify and reason with ethical boundaries in AI agents and how to combine them appropriately with subjective preferences and goal specifications. Some initial attempts employ either a data-driven example-based approach for both, or a symbolic rule-based approach for both. We envision a modular approach where any AI technique can be used for any of these essential ingredients in decision making or decision support systems, paired with a contextual approach to define their combination and relative weight. In a world where neither humans nor AI systems work in isolation, but are tightly interconnected, e.g., the Internet of Things, we also envision a compositional approach to building ethically bounded AI, where the ethical properties of each component can be fruitfully exploited to derive those of the overall system. In this paper we define and motivate the notion of ethically-bounded AI, we describe two concrete examples, and we outline some outstanding challenges.

Key facts. Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 10 Dec 2018.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 5; 2022: 4; 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 9.

22 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Survey of Architectures, Applications, and Future Directionscited by 48
  2. 2021Thinking Fast and Slow in AI: the Role of Metacognitioncited by 11
  3. 2021Making Human-Like Trade-offs in Constrained Environments by Learning from Demonstrationscited by 7
  4. 2022Combining Fast and Slow Thinking for Human-like and Efficient Navigation in Constrained Environmentscited by 5
  5. 2022When Is It Acceptable to Break the Rules? Knowledge Representation of Moral Judgement Based on Empirical Datacited by 5
  6. 2023Minimum Levels of Interpretability for Artificial Moral Agentscited by 5
  7. 2025Ethical AI: Towards Defining a Collective Evaluation Frameworkcited by 3
  8. 2022Learning Behavioral Soft Constraints from Demonstrationscited by 2
  9. 2021Constraint-Guided Reinforcement Learning: Augmenting the Agent-Environment-Interactioncited by 1
  10. 2021Measuring Ethics in AI with AI: A Methodology and Dataset Constructioncited by 1
  11. 2023Computational-level Analysis of Constraint Compliance for General Intelligencecited by 1
  12. 2023Value-based Fast and Slow AI Nudgingcited by 1
10 more
  1. 2025ValuePilot: A Two-Phase Framework for Value-Driven Decision-Makingcited by 1
  2. 2021An AGM Approach to Revising Preferencescited by 0
  3. 2022Logic-Based Ethical Planningcited by 0
  4. 2024Toward Constraint Compliant Goal Formulation and Planningcited by 0
  5. 2025AI Ethics and Social Norms: Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities From What to Howcited by 0
  6. 2025HAVA: Hybrid Approach to Value-Alignment through Reward Weighing for Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
  7. 2025A cybersecurity AI agent selection and decision support frameworkcited by 0
  8. 2025The Algebra of Meaning: Why Machines Need Montague More Than Moore's Lawcited by 0
  9. 2025Toward Virtuous Reinforcement Learning: A Critique and Roadmapcited by 0
  10. 2025ValuePilot: A Two-Phase Framework for Value-Driven Decision-Makingcited by 0