Voluntary guidelines on ‘ethical practices’ have been the response by stakeholders to address the growing concern over harmful social consequences of artificial intelligence and digital technologies. Issued by dozens of actors from industry, government and professional associations, the guidelines are creating a consensus on core standards and principles for ethical design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). Using human rights principles (equality, participation and accountability) and attention to the right to privacy, this paper reviews 15 guidelines preselected to be strongest on human rights, and on global health. We find about half of these ground their guidelines in international human rights law and incorporate the key principles; even these could go further, especially in suggesting ways to operationalize them. Those that adopt the ethics framework are particularly weak in laying out standards for accountability, often focusing on ‘transparency’, and remaining silent on enforceability and participation which would effectively protect the social good. These guidelines mention human rights as a rhetorical device to obscure the absence of enforceable standards and accountability measures, and give their attention to the single right to privacy. These ‘ethics’ guidelines, disproportionately from corporations and other interest groups, are also weak on addressing inequalities and discrimination. We argue that voluntary guidelines are creating a set of de facto norms and re-interpretation of the term ‘human rights’ for what would be considered ‘ethical’ practice in the field. This exposes an urgent need for action by governments and civil society to develop more rigorous standards and regulatory measures, grounded in international human rights frameworks, capable of holding Big Tech and other powerful actors to account.

中文翻译：

---

关于“道德人工智能”的新共识：利益相关者准则的人权批判

关于“道德实践”的自愿准则是利益相关者的回应，以解决人们对人工智能和数字技术有害社会后果日益增长的担忧。该指南由来自行业、政府和专业协会的数十个参与者发布，正在就人工智能 (AI) 的道德设计、开发和部署的核心标准和原则达成共识。本文利用人权原则（平等、参与和问责）和对隐私权的关注，回顾了 15 项预先选定的最有力的人权和全球健康指南。我们发现其中约有一半以国际人权法为指导方针，并纳入了关键原则；甚至这些都可以走得更远，尤其是在建议实施它们的方法方面。那些采用道德框架的人在制定问责标准方面尤其薄弱，通常侧重于“透明度”，而对可有效保护社会利益的可执行性和参与保持沉默。这些指导方针提到人权是一种修辞手段，以掩盖缺乏可执行标准和问责措施，并关注单一的隐私权。这些“道德”指导方针不成比例地来自公司和其他利益集团，在解决不平等和歧视方面也很薄弱。我们认为，自愿准则正在创建一套事实上的规范，并重新解释“人权”一词，用于在该领域被视为“道德”实践。