Luciano Floridi

A compilation of cutting-edge, comprehensive insights into digital ethics from leading scholars As digital technologies shape every aspect of today's society, ethical considerations have never been more pressing. In A Companion to Digital Ethics, editors Luciano Floridi and Mariarosaria Taddeo bring together leading experts to analyse key ethical challenges posed by artificial intelligence, privacy, cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, sustainability, digital consent, and many other topics. With a multidisciplinary approach, this authoritative volume introduces all the relevant topics in digital ethics clearly and accessibly, integrating insights from philosophy, law, computer science, and the social sciences. Unlike other collections that focus on specialised research or introductory overviews, this Companion strikes a critical balance—offering a systematic, comprehensive, simple yet rigorous examination of digital ethics that is both conceptually rich and practically relevant. Each chapter can be read as part of the whole or independently. Throughout the book, the contributing authors equip the reader with diverse perspectives for navigating ethical dilemmas in the evolving digital landscape, with an essential list of references and further readings. Integrating real-world examples and case studies throughout, A Companion to Digital Ethics: Explores the ethical value and implications of digital technologies and their applications Offers clear and precise analysis of both current and potential ethical challenges Includes discussions of ethical issues in contexts of technology governance and digital law Helps professionals and policymakers implement ethical principles in AI and digital technologies Contains authoritative and cutting-edge chapters, edited by two leading experts in digital ethics Whether used in academic courses or professional discussions on responsible digital innovation, A Companion to Digital Ethics is an essential guide to understanding and addressing the ethical questions of the digital age. It is a must-have resource for undergraduate and postgraduate students in any academic discipline, as well as policymakers and practitioners seeking to implement ethical frameworks for emerging technologies.

This is the first of two volumes of the proceedings from the 30th International Wittgenstein Symposium in Kirchberg, August 2007. In addition to several new contributions to Wittgenstein research, this volume contains articles with a special focus on digital Wittgenstein research and Wittgenstein's role for the understanding of the digital turn, as well as discussions - not necessarily from a Wittgensteinian perspective - about issues in the philosophy of information, including computational ontologies.

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) offer significant therapeutic opportunities for a variety of neurophysiological and neuropsychiatric disorders and may perhaps one day lead to augmenting the cognition and decision-making of the healthy brain. However, existing regulatory frameworks designed for implantable medical devices (IMDs) are inadequate to address the unique ethical, legal, and social risks associated with next-generation networked brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). In this article, we make nine recommendations to support developers in the design of BCIs and nine recommendations to support policymakers in the application of BCIs, drawing insights from the regulatory history of IMDs and principles from AI ethics. We begin by outlining the historical development of IMDs and the regulatory milestones that have shaped their oversight. Next, we summarize similarities between IMDs and emerging implantable BCIs, identifying existing provisions for their regulation. We then use two case studies of emerging cutting-edge BCIs-the HALO (Hardware Architecture for LOw-power BCIs) and SCALO (SCalable Architecture for LOw-power BCIs) computer systems-to highlight distinctive features in the design and application of nextgeneration BCIs arising from contemporary chip architectures, which necessitate reevaluating regulatory approaches. We identify critical ethical considerations for these BCIs, including unique conceptions of autonomy, identity, and mental privacy. Based on these insights, we suggest potential avenues for the ethical regulation of BCIs, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and proactive mitigation of potential harms. The goal is to support the responsible design and application of new BCIs, ensuring their safe and ethical integration into medical practice.

The article introduces the concept of “semantic pareidolia” - our tendency to attribute consciousness, intelligence, and emotions to AI systems that lack these qualities. It examines how this psychological phenomenon leads us to perceive meaning and intentionality in statistical pattern-matching systems, similar to seeing faces in clouds. It analyses the converging forces intensifying this tendency: increasing digital immersion, profit-driven corporate interests, social isolation, and AI advancement. The article warns of progression from harmless anthropomorphism to problematic AI idolatry, and calls for responsible design practices that help users maintain critical distinctions between simulation and genuine consciousness. It is the English translation and adaptation of an article originally published in Italian in Harvard Business Review Italia, June 2025.

This article introduces a systematic methodology, called red reading, for critical textual analysis that adapts red teaming techniques from computer science and artificial intelligence (AI) into a comprehensive diagnostic protocol, supported by Large Language Models (LLMs), to analyse written documents. As the methodological counterpart of distant writing, which transforms text production through AI-assisted design, red reading expands human analytical capabilities and critical reading by embedding adversarial analysis in a constructive framework powered by LLMs. The approach employs a rigorously tested, diagnostic protocol that stresstests texts across structural, rhetorical, logical, and stylistic dimensions, while strengthening interpretive understanding. The methodology shows how LLM-supported, textual red teaming can provide a rigorous, critical and constructive approach to textual analysis with broad applications across disciplines. We exemplify the method by developing a fifteen-phase diagnostic prompt for red reading. In the Appendix, we apply this protocol to a case study analysing Turing's seminal article, Computing Machinery and Intelligence. We finally discuss the challenges of using red reading and provide some suggestions for future research. In particular, we emphasise the importance of calibration methods for LLMs' critical analysis, along with evidence-based strategies for seamlessly integrating red reading into real-world workflows.

The proliferation of generative AI systems has created new challenges for the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community, particularly regarding how traditional copyleft principles should apply when open source code is used to train AI models. This article introduces the Contextual Copyleft AI (CCAI) license, a novel licensing mechanism that extends copyleft requirements from training data to the resulting generative AI models. The CCAI license offers significant advantages, including enhanced developer control, incentivization of open source AI development, and mitigation of openwashing practices. This is demonstrated through a structured three-part evaluation framework that examines (1) legal feasibility under current copyright law, (2) policy justification comparing traditional software and AI contexts, and (3) synthesis of cross-contextual benefits and risks. However, the increased risk profile of open source AI, particularly the potential for direct misuse, necessitates complementary regulatory approaches to achieve an appropriate risk-benefit balance. The paper concludes that when implemented within a robust regulatory environment focused on responsible AI usage, the CCAI license provides a viable mechanism for preserving and adapting core FOSS principles to the evolving landscape of generative AI development.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents unprecedented opportunities to transform healthcare worldwide, from improving diagnostic accuracy to expanding access in underserved regions. Despite this potential and growing investment, a significant gap persists between AI’s theoretical promise and its realised benefits in healthcare settings. This article examines the complex barriers impeding AI benefits realization in global health contexts, including ethical uncertainties, data infrastructure limitations, evidence quality concerns, and regulatory ambiguities. We analyze current initiatives addressing these challenges and highlight how technological solutions alone cannot resolve fundamental healthcare inequities. Drawing on the interdisciplinary perspectives and insights presented at the Global Health in the Age of AI Symposium hosted by the Cini Foundation and Yale Digital Ethics Center, we propose five core infrastructure requirements necessary for ethical AI implementation: robust data exchange; epistemic certainty with staff autonomy; actively protected healthcare values; validated outcomes with meaningful accountability; and environmental sustainability. These requirements form the foundation for a systems approach that balances technological advancement with ethical imperatives, contextual adaptability, and global equity considerations. We conclude that the successful integration of AI into healthcare demands coordinated action across sectors and borders, with careful attention to avoiding technological colonialism and ensuring AI serves as a force for health equity rather than widening existing disparities.

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) show enormous potential for advancing personalized medicine. However, BCIs also introduce new avenues for cyber-attacks or security compromises. In this article, we analyze the problem and make recommendations for device manufacturers to better secure devices and to help regulators understand where more guidance is needed to protect patient safety and data confidentiality. Device manufacturers should implement the prior suggestions in their BCI products. These recommendations help protect BCI users from undue risks, including compromised personal health and genetic information, unintended BCI-mediated movement, and many other cybersecurity breaches. Regulators should mandate non-surgical device update methods, strong authentication and authorization schemes for BCI software modifications, encryption of data moving to and from the brain, and minimize network connectivity where possible. We also design a hypothetical, average-case threat model that identifies possible cybersecurity threats to BCI patients and predicts the likeliness of risk for each category of threat. BCIs are at less risk of physical compromise or attack, but are vulnerable to remote attack; we focus on possible threats via network paths to BCIs and suggest technical controls to limit network connections.

Regulating emerging technologies involves balancing the mitigation of risks with the promotion of innovation; a balance frequently seen as a zero-sum "dilemma of control". Regulatory sandboxes offer a practical way to address this dilemma by enabling controlled, evidence-based testing of new technologies. In this article, we examine the regulatory sandbox framework introduced by the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). We argue that the AIA's multi-level governance structure represents a shift from traditional sandbox models by prioritizing regulatory learning over technological disruption and expanding public interest considerations to include strategically aligned commercial innovations. Afterwards, we identify governance challenges across three sandbox phases-pre-testing, testing, and post-testing-and propose structured solutions. Our analysis suggests that effective sandbox governance requires specific mechanisms: tailored entry criteria, precise pipeline placement guidance, and multi-agency coordination in pre-testing; experimental realism and continuous risk classification updates during testing; and clear graduation criteria with robust transition support in post-testing.

This article introduces the concept of “distant writing”, a novel literary practice in which authors act as designers, employing Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate narratives, while retaining creative control through precise prompting and iterative refinement. Unlike Moretti’s _distant reading_, which uses computational analysis to interpret large corpora of existing texts, distant writing harnesses computational tools (LLMs) to author new narratives, reshaping the literary production process. By examining theoretical frameworks and practical consequences, and running an experiment in distant writing called _Encounters_, this article argues that distant writing represents a significant evolution in authorship, not replacing but expanding human creativity within a design paradigm. The distinction between writing (close) and “wrAIting” (distant) reveals how LLM-assisted creativity can generate narrative possibilities previously inaccessible, transforming literature’s modal space while challenging traditional notions of authorship, creativity, and literary production. This emerging practice merits critical attention as it shapes future literary landscapes and reconfigures relationships between human creativity and artificial intelligence.

The article has the goal of indicating how to harness the potential for good of artificial intelligence (AI) – defined as a distinct form of autonomous and self- learning agency and thus raises unique ethical challenges – while mitigating its ethical challenges. The analyses focuses first on uses of AI that may lead to undue discrimination, lack of explainability, the responsibility gap, and the nudging potential of AI and its negative impact on human self-determination. It then turns on the role that ethical analyses in harnessing the potential for good of AI and argues that existing guidelines for the ethics design, development and use of AI will be effective insofar as they are translated into viable guidelines to shape AI-based innovation and that this is the task of digital ethics as a translational ethics.

The debate about the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence dates from the 1960s (Samuel in Science, 132(3429):741–742, 1960. Wiener in Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine, MIT Press, New York, 1961). However, in recent years symbolic AI has been complemented and sometimes replaced by (Deep) Neural Networks and Machine Learning (ML) techniques. This has vastly increased its potential utility and impact on society, with the consequence that the ethical debate has gone mainstream. Such a debate has primarily focused on principles—the ‘what’ of AI ethics (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice and explicability)—rather than on practices, the ‘how.’ Awareness of the potential issues is increasing at a fast rate, but the AI community’s ability to take action to mitigate the associated risks is still at its infancy. Our intention in presenting this research is to contribute to closing the gap between principles and practices by constructing a typology that may help practically-minded developers apply ethics at each stage of the Machine Learning development pipeline, and to signal to researchers where further work is needed. The focus is exclusively on Machine Learning, but it is hoped that the results of this research may be easily applicable to other branches of AI. The article outlines the research method for creating this typology, the initial findings, and provides a summary of future research needs.

In this chapter, I introduce the concept of “digital ectype”. An ectype is a copy that has a special relation with its source (the origin of its creation), the archetype, like the impression left by a seal. It is not the real thing, but it is clearly linked in a significant, authentic way with the real thing itself. I argue that digital technologies are able to separate the archetypal source – what was in the mind of the artist, for example – from the process (style, method, procedure) that leads from the source to the artefact. Once this link is severed, one can have digital ectypes that are “authentic” in style and content, but not “original”, in terms of archetypal source, and digital ectypes that are “original” in terms of archetypal source (they do come from where they purport to come) yet not “authentic” in terms of production, performance, or method (they are not the ones used by the source to deliver the artefact). In other words, digital ectypes can be authentic but unoriginal artefacts, or inauthentic but original artefacts.

This article presents a mapping review of the literature concerning the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. The goal of this review is to summarise current debates and identify open questions for future research. Five literature databases were searched (Scopus, Google Scholar, Philpapers, Web of Science, Pub Med), in April 2019, to support the following research question: “how can the primary ethical risks presented by AI-health be categorised, and what issues must policymakers, regulators and developers consider in order to be ‘ethically mindful?’”. A series of screening stages were carried out—for example, removing articles that focused on digital health in general (e.g. data sharing, data access, data privacy, surveillance/nudging, consent, ownership of health data, evidence of efficacy)—yielding a total of 156 papers that were included in the review.We find that ethical issues can be (a) epistemic, related to misguided, inconclusive or inscrutable evidence; (b) normative, related to unfair outcomes and transformative effectives; or (c) related to traceability. We further find that these ethical issues arise at six levels of abstraction: individual, interpersonal, group, institutional, and societal or sectoral. Finally, we outline a number of considerations for policymakers and regulators, mapping these to existing literature, and categorising each as epistemic, normative or traceability-related and at the relevant level of abstraction. This article contributes to the debate on AI in health care by offering a comprehensive analysis of the relevant literature, focusing on the ethical implications for individuals, interpersonal relationships, groups, institutions, societies and the health sector as a whole. Our goal is to inform policymakers, regulators and developers of what they must consider if they are to enable health and care systems to capitalise on the dual advantage of ethical AI; maximising the opportunities to cut costs, improve care, and improve the efficiency of health and care systems, whilst proactively avoiding the potential harms. We argue that if action is not swiftly taken in this regard, a new ‘AI winter’ could occur due to chilling effects related to a loss of public trust in the benefits of AI for health care.

The idea of Artificial Intelligence for Social Good (henceforth AI4SG) is gaining traction within information societies in general and the AI community in particular. It has the potential to tackle social problems through the development of AI-based solutions. Yet, to date, there is only limited understanding of what makes AI socially good in theory, what counts as AI4SG in practice, and how to reproduce its initial successes in terms of policies. This article addresses this gap by identifying seven ethical factors that are essential for future AI4SG initiatives. The analysis is supported by 27 case examples of AI4SG projects. Some of these factors are almost entirely novel to AI, while the significance of other factors is heightened by the use of AI. From each of these factors, corresponding best practices are formulated which, subject to context and balance, may serve as preliminary guidelines to ensure that well-designed AI is more likely to serve the social good.

In July 2017, China’s State Council released the country’s strategy for developing artificial intelligence (AI), entitled ‘New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan’ (新一代人工智能发展规划). This strategy outlined China’s aims to become a world leader in AI by 2030, to monetise AI into a trillion-yuan ($150 billion) industry, and to emerge as the driving force in defining ethical norms and standards for AI. Several reports have analysed specific aspects of China’s AI policies or have assessed the country’s technical capabilities. Instead, in this article, we focus on the socio-political background and policy debates that are shaping China’s AI strategy. In particular, we analyse the main strategic areas in which China is investing in AI and the concurrent ethical debates that are delimiting its use. By focusing on the policy backdrop, we seek to provide a more comprehensive and critical understanding of China’s AI policy by bringing together debates and analyses of a wide array of policy documents.

Artificial agents, particularly but not only those in the infosphere Floridi (Information—a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010a), extend the class of entities that can be involved in moral situations, for they can be correctly interpreted as entities that can perform actions with good or evil impact (moral agents). In this chapter, I clarify the concepts of agent and of artificial agent and then distinguish between issues concerning their moral behaviour vs. issues concerning their responsibility. The conclusion is that there is substantial and important scope, particularly in information ethics, for the concept of moral artificial agents not necessarily exhibiting free will, mental states or responsibility. This complements the more traditional approach, which considers whether artificial agents may have mental states, feelings, emotions and so forth. By focussing directly on “mind-less morality”, one is able to by-pass such question as well as other difficulties arising in Artificial Intelligence, in order to tackle some vital issues in contexts where artificial agents are increasingly part of the everyday environment (Floridi L, Metaphilos 39(4/5): 651–655, 2008a).

This article reports the findings of AI4People, a year-long initiative designed to lay the foundations for a “Good AI Society”. We introduce the core opportunities and risks of AI for society; present a synthesis of five ethical principles that should undergird its development and adoption; and offer 20 concrete recommendations – to assess, to develop, to incentivise, and to support good AI – which in some cases may be undertaken directly by national or supranational policy makers, while in others may be led by other stakeholders. If adopted, these recommendations would serve as a firm foundation for the establishment of a Good AI Society.