0% found this document useful (0 votes)

43 views

How To Avoid The Ethical Nightmares of Emerging Technology

The document discusses emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, augmented reality, and gene editing and the potential ethical risks they pose if not developed and applied carefully. It argues that business leaders need to (1) explicitly identify potential ethical risks or "nightmares" of these technologies, (2) recognize that the nature of these technologies increases the likelihood of realizing reputational and ethical risks, and (3) take responsibility for ensuring these risks do not materialize by articulating worst-case scenarios and how they will be prevented. The document advocates for business leaders to get comfortable discussing ethics openly when it comes to new technologies.

Uploaded by

pgdm23mayanka

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

43 views

How To Avoid The Ethical Nightmares of Emerging Technology

Uploaded by

pgdm23mayanka

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 20

The Big Idea

Article

AI and Machine Learning

How to Avoid the Ethical

Nightmares of Emerging
Technology
A framework for navigating the worst of what AI, quantum computing,
and other new technologies could create. by Reid Blackman

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Puneet Arora's Business Ethics/ PGDM at Management Development Institute - Gurgaon from Jan 2024 to Feb 2024.
HBR / The Big Idea / How to Avoid the Ethical Nightmares of Emerging Technology

How to Avoid the Ethical

Nightmares of Emerging
Technology
A framework for navigating the worst of what AI, quantum computing,
and other new technologies could create. by Reid Blackman
Published on HBR.org / May 09, 2023 / Reprint H07MDU

Carolina Niño

Facebook, which was created in 2004, amassed 100 million users

in just four and a half years. The speed and scale of its growth
was unprecedented. Before anyone had a chance to understand the
problems the social media network could cause, it had grown into an
entrenched behemoth.

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 1

In 2015, the platform’s role in violating citizens’ privacy and its potential
for political manipulation was exposed by the Cambridge Analytica
scandal. Around the same time, in Myanmar, the social network
amplified disinformation and calls for violence against the Rohingya,
an ethnic minority in the country, which culminated in a genocide that
began in 2016. In 2021, the Wall Street Journal reported that Instagram,
which had been acquired by Facebook in 2012, had conducted research
showing that the app was toxic to the mental health of teenage girls.

Defenders of Facebook say that these impacts were unintended and

unforeseeable. Critics claim that, instead of moving fast and breaking
things, social media companies should have proactively avoided ethical
catastrophe. But both sides agree that new technologies can give rise
to ethical nightmares, and that should make business leaders — and
society — very, very nervous.

We are at the beginning of another technological revolution, this time

with generative AI — models that can produce text, images, and more.
It took just two months for OpenAI’s ChatGPT to pass 100 million users.
Within six months of its launch, Microsoft released ChatGPT-powered
Bing; Google demoed its latest large language model (LLM), Bard; and
Meta released LLaMA. ChatGPT-5 will likely be here before we know
it. And unlike social media, which remains largely centralized, this
technology is already in the hands of thousands of people. Researchers
at Stanford recreated ChatGPT for about $600 and made their model,
called Alpaca, open-source. By early April, more than 2,400 people had
made their own versions of it.

While generative AI has our attention right now, other technologies

coming down the pike promise to be just as disruptive. Quantum
computing will make today’s data crunching look like kindergarteners
counting on their fingers. Blockchain technologies are being developed

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 2

well beyond the narrow application of cryptocurrency. Augmented and

virtual reality, robotics, gene editing, and too many others to discuss in
detail also have the potential to reshape the world for good or ill.

If precedent serves, the companies ushering these technologies into the

world will take a “let’s just see how this goes” approach. History also
suggests this will be bad for the unsuspecting test subjects: the general
public. It’s hard not to worry that, alongside the benefits they’ll offer,
the leaps in technology will come with a raft of societal-level harm that
we’ll spend the next 20-plus years trying to undo.

It’s time for a new approach. Companies that develop these technologies
need to ask: “How do we develop, apply, and monitor them in ways
that avoid worst-case scenarios?” And companies that procure these
technologies and, in some cases, customize them (as businesses are
doing now with ChatGPT) face an equally daunting challenge: “How do
we design and deploy them in a way that keeps people (and our brand)
safe?”

In this article, I will try to convince you of three things: First,

that businesses need to explicitly identify the risks posed by these
new technologies as ethical risks or, better still, as potential ethical
nightmares. Ethical nightmares aren’t subjective. Systemic violations
of privacy, the spread of democracy-undermining misinformation, and
serving inappropriate content to children are on everyone’s “that’s
terrible” list. I don’t care which end of the political spectrum your
company falls on — if you’re Patagonia or Hobby Lobby — these are
our ethical nightmares.

Second, that by virtue of how these technologies work — what makes

them tick — the likelihood of realizing ethical and reputational risks has
massively increased.

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 3

Third, that business leaders are ultimately responsible for this work,
not technologists, data scientists, engineers, coders, or mathematicians.
Senior executives are the ones who determine what gets created, how
it gets created, and how carefully or recklessly it is deployed and
monitored.

These technologies introduce daunting possibilities, but the challenge

of facing them isn’t that complicated: Leaders need to articulate their
worst-case scenarios — their ethical nightmares — and explain how
they will prevent them. The first step is to get comfortable talking about
ethics.

Business Leaders Can’t Be Afraid to Say “Ethics”

After 20 years in academia, 10 of them spent researching, teaching,

and publishing on ethics, I attended my first nonacademic conference
in 2018. It was sponsored by a Fortune 50 financial services
company, and the theme was “sustainability.” Having taught courses
on environmental ethics, I thought it would be interesting to see
how corporations think about their responsibilities vis-à-vis their
environmental impacts. When I got there, I found presentations on
educating women around the globe, lifting people out of poverty, and
contributing to the mental and physical health of all. Few were talking
about the environment.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out that in

the corporate and nonprofit worlds, “sustainability” doesn’t mean
“practices that don’t destroy the environment for future generations.”
Instead it means “practices in pursuit of ethical goals” and an assertion
that those practices promote the bottom line. As for why businesses
didn’t simply say “ethics,” I couldn’t understand.

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 4

This behavior — of replacing the word “ethics” with some other,

less precise term — is widespread. There’s Environmental, Social,
and Governance (ESG) investing, which boils down to investing in
companies that avoid ethical risks (emissions, diversity, political
actions, and the like) on the theory that those practices protect profits.
Some companies claim to be “values driven,” “mission driven,” or
“purpose driven,” but these monikers rarely have anything to do with
ethics. “Customer obsessed” and “innovation” aren’t ethical values;
a purpose or mission can be completely amoral (putting immoral to
the side). So-called “stakeholder capitalism” is capitalism tempered
by a vague commitment to the welfare of unidentified stakeholders
(as though stakeholder interests do not conflict). Finally, the world
of AI ethics has grown tremendously over the last five years or so.
Corporations heard the call, “We want AI ethics!” Their distorted
response is, “Yes, we, too, are for responsible AI!”

Ethical challenges don’t disappear via semantic legerdemain. We need

to name our problems accurately if we are to address them effectively.
Does sustainability advise against using personal data for the purposes
of targeted marketing? When does using a black box model violate
ESG criteria? What happens if your mission of connecting people also
happens to connect white nationalists?

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 5

Carolina Niño

Let’s focus on the move from “AI ethics” to “responsible AI” as a case
study on the problematic impacts of shifting language. First, when
business leaders talk about “responsible” and “trustworthy” AI, they
focus on a broad set of issues that include cybersecurity, regulation,
legal concerns, and technical or engineering risks. These are important,
but the end result is that technologists, general counsels, risk officers,
and cybersecurity engineers focus on areas they are already experts on,
which is to say, everything except ethics.

Second, when it comes to ethics, leaders get stuck at very high-level

and abstract principles or values — on concepts such as fairness and
respect for autonomy. Since this is only a small part of the overall
“responsible AI” picture, companies often fail to drill down into the
very real, concrete ways these questions play out in their products.
Ethical nightmares that outstrip outdated regulations and laws are left
unidentified, and just as probable as they were before a “responsible AI”
framework is deployed.

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 6

Third, the focus on identifying and pursuing “responsible AI” gives

companies a vague goal with vague milestones. AI statements from
organizations say things like, “We are for transparency, explainability,
and equity.” But no company is transparent about everything with
everyone (nor should it be); not every AI model needs to be explainable;
and what counts as equitable is highly contentious. No wonder, then,
that the companies that “commit” to these values quickly abandon
them. There are no goals here. No milestones. No requirements. And
there’s no articulation of what failure looks like.

But when AI ethics fail, the results are specific. Ethical nightmares
are vivid: “We discriminated against tens of thousands of people.”
“We tricked people into giving up all that money.” “We systematically
engaged in violating people’s privacy.” In short, if you know what your
ethical nightmares are then you know what ethical failure looks like.

Where Digital Nightmares Come From

Understanding how emerging technologies work — what makes them

tick — will help explain why the likelihood of realizing ethical and
reputational risks has massively increased. I’ll focus on three of the
most important ones.

Artificial intelligence. Let’s start with a technology that has taken over
the headlines: artificial intelligence, or AI. The vast majority of AI out
there is machine learning (ML).

“Machine learning” is, at its simplest, software that learns by example.

And just as people learn to discriminate on the basis of race, gender,
ethnicity, or other protected attributes by following examples around
them, software does, too.

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 7

Say you want to train your photo recognition software to recognize

pictures of your dog, Zeb. You give that software lots of examples
and tell it, “That’s Zeb.” The software “learns” from those examples,
and when you take a new picture of your dog, it recognizes it as a
picture of Zeb and labels the photo “Zeb.” If it’s not a photo of Zeb, it
will label the file “not Zeb.” The process is the same if you give your
software examples of what “interview-worthy” résumés look like. It will
learn from those examples and label new résumés as being “interview-
worthy” or “not interview-worthy.” The same goes for applications to
university, or for a mortgage, or for parole.

In each case, the software is recognizing and replicating patterns. The

problem is that sometimes those patterns are ethically objectionable.
For instance, if the examples of “interview-worthy” résumés reflect
historical or contemporary biases against certain races, ethnicities, or
genders, then the software will pick up on it. Amazon once built a
résumé-screening AI. And to determine parole, the U.S. criminal justice
system has used prediction algorithms that replicated historical biases
against Black defendants.

It’s crucial to note that the discriminatory pattern can be identified

and replicated independently of the intentions of the data scientists and
engineers programming the software. In fact, data scientists at Amazon
identified the problem with their AI mentioned above and tried to fix
it, but they couldn’t. Amazon decided, rightly, to scrap the project. But
had it been deployed, an unwitting hiring manager would have used a
tool with ethically discriminatory operations, regardless of that person’s
intentions or the organization’s stated values.

Discriminatory impacts are just one ethical nightmare to avoid with AI.
There are also privacy concerns, the danger of AI models (especially
large language models like ChatGPT) being used to manipulate people,

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 8

the environmental cost of the massive computing power required, and

countless other use-case-specific risks.

Quantum computing. The details of quantum computers are

exceedingly complicated, but for our purposes, we need to know only
that they are computers that can process a tremendous amount of
data. They can perform calculations in minutes or even seconds that
would take today’s best supercomputers thousands of years. Companies
like IBM and Google are pouring billions of dollars into this hardware
revolution, and we’re poised to see increased quantum computer
integration into classical computer operations every year.

Quantum computers throw gasoline on a problem we see in machine

learning: the problem of unexplainable, or black box, AI. Essentially,
in many cases, we don’t know why an AI tool makes the predictions
that it does. When the photo software looks at all those pictures of
Zeb, it’s analyzing those pictures at the pixel level. More specifically,
it’s identifying all those pixels and the thousands of mathematical
relations among those pixels that constitute “the Zeb pattern.” Those
mathematical Zeb patterns are phenomenally complex — too complex
for mere mortals to understand — which means that we don’t
understand why it (correctly or incorrectly) labeled this new photo
“Zeb.” And while we might not care about getting explanations in the
case of Zeb, if the software says to deny someone an interview (or a
mortgage, or insurance, or admittance) then we might care quite a bit.

Quantum computing makes black box models truly impenetrable.

Right now, data scientists can offer explanations of an AI’s outputs
that are simplified representations of what’s actually going on. But at
some point, simplification becomes distortion. And because quantum
computers can process trillions of data points, boiling that process down

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 9

to an explanation we can understand — while retaining confidence that

the explanation is more or less true — becomes vanishingly difficult.

That leads to a litany of ethical questions: Under what conditions can

we trust the outputs of a (quantum) black box model? What are the
appropriate benchmarks for performance? What do we do if the system
appears to be broken or is acting very strangely? Do we acquiesce to the
inscrutable outputs of the machine that has proven reliable previously?
Or do we eschew those outputs in favor of our comparatively limited but
intelligible human reasoning?

Blockchain. Suppose you and I and a few thousand of our friends each
have a magical notebook with the following features: When someone
writes on a page, that writing simultaneously appears in everyone
else’s notebook. Nothing written on a page can ever be erased. The
information on the pages and the order of the pages is immutable; no
one can remove or rearrange the pages. A private, passphrase-protected
page lists your assets — money, art, land titles — and when you transfer
an asset to someone, both your page and theirs are simultaneously and
automatically updated.

At a very high level, this is how blockchain works. Each blockchain

follows a specific set of rules that are written into its code, and changes
to those rules are decided by whomever runs the blockchain. But
just like any other kind of management, the quality of a blockchain’s
governance depends on answering a string of important questions. For
example: What data belongs on the blockchain, and what doesn’t? Who
decides what goes on? What are the criteria for what is included? Who
monitors? What’s the protocol if an error is found in the code of the
blockchain? Who makes decisions about whether a structural change
should be made to a blockchain? How are voting rights and power
distributed?

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 10

Bad governance in blockchain can lead to

nightmare scenarios, like people losing
their savings, having information about
themselves disclosed against their wills, or
false information loaded onto people’s
asset pages that enables deception and
fraud.

Carolina Niño
Blockchain is most often associated with
financial services, but every industry
stands to integrate some kind of blockchain solution, each of which
comes with particular pitfalls. For instance, we might use blockchain
to store, access, and distribute information related to patient data, the
inappropriate handling of which could lead to the ethical nightmare of
widescale privacy violations. Things seem even more perilous when we
recognize that there isn’t just one type of blockchain, and that there are
different ways of governing a blockchain. And because the basic rules of
a given blockchain are very hard to change, early decisions about what
blockchain to develop and how to maintain it are extremely important.

These Are Business, Not (Only) Technology, Problems

Companies’ ability to adopt and use these technologies as they evolve

will be essential to staying competitive. As such, leaders will have to ask
and answer questions such as:

• What constitutes an unfair or unjust or discriminatory distribution of

goods and services?
• Is using a black box model acceptable in this context?
• Is the chatbot engaging in ethically unacceptable manipulation of
users?
• Is the governance of this blockchain fair, reasonable, and robust?

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 11

• Is this augmented reality content appropriate for the intended

audience?
• Is this our organization’s responsibility or is it the user’s or the
government’s?
• Does this place an undue burden on users?
• Is this inhumane?
• Might this erode confidence in democracy when used or abused at
scale?

Why does this responsibility fall to business leaders as opposed to, say,
the technologists who are tasked with deploying the new tools and
systems? After all, most leaders aren’t fluent in the coding and the math
behind software that learns by example, the quantum physics behind
quantum computers, and the cryptography that underlies blockchain.
Shouldn’t the experts be in charge of weighty decisions like these?

The thing is, these aren’t technical questions — they’re ethical,

qualitative ones. They are exactly the kinds of problems that business
leaders — guided by relevant subject matter experts — are charged
with answering. Off-loading that responsibility to coders, engineers, and
IT departments is unfair to the people in those roles and unwise for
the organization. It’s understandable that leaders might find this task
daunting, but there’s no question that they’re the ones responsible.

The Ethical Nightmare Challenge

I’ve tried to convince you of three claims. First, that leaders and
organizations need to explicitly identify their ethical nightmares
springing from new technologies. Second, a significant source of risk
lies in how these technologies work. And third, that it’s the job of senior
executives to guide their respective organizations on ethics.

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 12

These claims fund a conclusion: Organizations that leverage digital

technologies need to address ethical nightmares before they hurt people
and brands. I call this the “ethical nightmare challenge.” To overcome
it, companies need to create an enterprise-wide digital ethical risk
program. The first part of the program — what I call the content side
— asks: What are the ethical nightmares we’re trying to avoid, and
what are their potential sources? The second part of the program —
what I call the structure side — answers the question: How do we
systematically and comprehensively ensure those nightmares don’t
become a reality?

Content. Ethical nightmares can be articulated with varying levels of

detail and customization. Your ethical nightmares are partly informed
by the industry you’re in, the kind of organization you are, and the
kinds of relationships you need to have with your clients, customers,
and other stakeholders for things to go well. For instance, if you’re a
health care provider that has clinicians using ChatGPT or another LLM
to make diagnoses and treatment recommendations, then your ethical
nightmare might include widespread false recommendations that your
people lack the training to spot. Or if your chatbot is undertrained
on information related to particular races and ethnicities, and neither
the developers of the chatbot nor the clinicians know this, then your
ethical nightmare would be systematically giving false diagnoses and
bad treatments to those who have already been discriminated against.
If you’re a financial services company that uses blockchain to transact
on behalf of clients, then one ethical nightmare might be the absence
of an ability to correct mistakes in the code — a function of ill-defined
governance of the blockchain. That could mean, for instance, being
unable to call back fraudulent transfers.

Notice that articulating nightmares means naming details and

consequences. The more specific you can get — which is a function of

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 13

your knowledge of the technologies, your industry, your understanding

of the various contexts in which your technologies will be deployed,
your moral imagination, and your ability to think through the ethical
implications of business operations — the easier it will be to build the
appropriate structure to control for these things.

Structure. While the methods for identifying the nightmares hold

across organizations, the strategies for creating appropriate controls
vary depending on the size of the organization, existing governance
structures, risk appetites, management culture, and more. Companies’
overtures into this realm can be classified as either formal or informal.
In an ideal world, every organization would take the formal approach.
However, factors like limited time and resources, the rate at which
a company (truly or falsely) believes it will be impacted by digital
technologies, and business necessities in an unpredictable market
sometimes make it reasonable to choose the informal approach. In those
cases, the informal approach should be seen as a first step, and better
than nothing at all.

The formal approach is systematic and comprehensive, and it takes a

good deal of time and resources to build. In short, it centers around the
ability to create and execute on an enterprise-wide digital ethical risk
strategy. Broadly speaking, it involves four steps.

Education and alignment. First, all senior leaders need to understand

the technologies enough that they can agree on what constitutes the
ethical nightmares of the organization. Knowledge and the alignment of
leaders are prerequisites for building and implementing a robust digital
ethical risk strategy.

This education can be achieved by executive briefings, workshops,

and seminars. But it should not require — or try to teach — math

or coding. This process is for non-technologists and technologists

alike to wrap their heads around what risks their company may face.
Moreover, it must be about the ethical nightmares of the organization,
not sustainability or ESG criteria or “company values.”

Gap and feasibility analyses. Before building a strategy, leaders need to

know what their organization looks like and what the probability is of
their nightmares actually happening. As such, the second step consists
of performing gap and feasibility analyses of where your organization
is now; how far away it is from sufficiently safeguarding itself from an
ethical nightmare unfolding; and what it will take in terms of people,
processes, and technology to close those gaps.

To do this, leaders must identify where their digital technologies

are and where they will likely be designed or procured within their
organization. Because if you don’t know how the technologies work,
how they’re used, or where they’re headed, you’ll have no hope of
avoiding the nightmares.

Then a variety of questions present themselves:

• What policies are in place that address or fail to address your ethical
nightmares?
• What processes are in place to identify ethical nightmares? Do they
need to be augmented? Are new processes required?
• What level of awareness do employees have of these digital ethical
risks? Are they capable of detecting signs of problems early? Does the
culture make it safe for them to speak up about possible red flags?
• When an alarm is sounded, who responds, and on what grounds do
they decide how to move forward?

• How do you operationalize and harmonize digital ethical risk

assessment relative to existing enterprise-risk categories and
operations?

The answers to questions like these will vary wildly across

organizations. It’s one reason why digital ethical risk strategies are
difficult to create and implement: They must be customized to integrate
with existing governance structures, policies, processes, workflows,
tools, and personnel. It’s easy to say “everyone needs a digital ethical
risk board,” in the model of the institutional review boards that arose
in medicine to mitigate the ethical risks around research on human
subjects. But it’s not possible to continue with “and every one of them
should look like this, act like this, and act with other groups in the
business like this.” Here, good strategy does not come from a one-size-
fits-all solution.

Strategy creation. The third step in the formal approach is building

a corporate strategy in light of the gap and feasibility analyses. This
includes, among other things, refining goals and objectives, deciding
on an approach to metrics and KPIs (for measuring both compliance
with the digital ethical risk program and its impact), designing a
communications plan, and identifying key drivers of success for
implementation.

Cross-functional involvement is needed. Leaders from technology, risk,

compliance, general counsel, and cybersecurity should all be involved.
Just as important, direction should come from the board and the CEO.
Without their robust buy-in and encouragement, the program will get
watered down.

Implementation. The fourth and final step is implementation of the

strategy, which entails reconfiguring workflows, training, support,

and ongoing monitoring, including quality assurance and quality

improvement.

For example, new procedures should be customized by business domain

or by roles to harmonize them with existing procedures and workflows.
These procedures should clearly define the roles and responsibilities
of different departments and individuals and establish clear processes
for identifying, reporting, and addressing ethical issues. Additionally,
novel workflows need to seek an optimal balance of human-computer
interaction, which will depend on the kinds of tasks and the relative
risks involved, and establish human oversight of automated flows.

The informal approach, by contrast, usually involves the following

endeavors: providing education and alignment on ethical nightmares
by leaders; entrusting executives in distinct units of the business
(such as HR, marketing, product lines, or R&D) with identifying the
processes needed to complete an ethical nightmare check; and creating
or leveraging an existing (ethical) risk board to advise various personnel
— either on individual projects or at a more institutional scale — when
ethical risks are detected.

This approach does not require official changes of policies,

harmonization and integration among departments, official changes in
governance structure, or similar actions. While it can pack a powerful
punch, it’s neither systematic nor comprehensive. Ethical risks may fall
between the cracks and land on the front page.

•••

In my work, I’ve found that the vast majority of organizations are

operated and led by good people who do not intend to harm anyone.
But I’ve also noticed that “ethics” is a word most companies are

uncomfortable using. It is considered subjective or “squishy,” and

outside the purview of business.

Both these views are incorrect. Invading people’s privacy, automating

discrimination at scale, undermining democracy, putting children in
harm’s way, and breaching people’s trust are decidedly clear-cut.
They’re ethical nightmares that pretty much everyone can agree on.

Instead of understanding their roles in all of this, and trying to prevent

it, many leaders remain focused on business as usual: Roles and
responsibilities are fixed. Quarterly reports are due. Shareholders are
watching. People have day jobs; they can’t be guardians of the moral
galaxy as well. In many ways, it’s not evil but standard operating
procedure that is the enemy of the good, or at least of the not bad. The
tools of yesterday might have required malicious intent by those who
wielded them to wreak havoc, but today’s tools require no such thing.

If you give people the opportunity, the breathing room, to do the right
thing, they’ll do it happily. Creating that opportunity means not only
permitting but encouraging or requiring people to talk the language of
ethical nightmares. Make it a priority. Weave it into existing enterprise
strategy. Ensure that everyone in the organization can tell you its
nightmares and can rattle off five or six things the company does at
the everyday operational level to make sure they don’t happen.

Leaders need to understand that developing a digital ethical risk

strategy is well within their capabilities. Most employees and consumers
want organizations to have a digital ethical risk strategy. Management
should not shy away.

This article was originally published online on May 09, 2023.

Reid Blackman is the author of Ethical Machines (Harvard Business

Review Press, 2022), the host of a podcast by the same name, and
the founder and CEO of Virtue, a digital ethical risk consultancy.
He advises the government of Canada on federal AI regulations and
corporations on how to implement digital ethical risk programs.
He has been a senior adviser to the Deloitte AI Institute, served
on Ernst & Young’s AI Advisory Board, and volunteers as the chief
ethics officer to the nonprofit Government Blockchain Association.
Previously he was a professor of philosophy at Colgate University and
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Puneet Arora's Business Ethics/ PGDM at Management Development Institute - Gurgaon from Jan 2024 to Feb 2024.