Whose Good, Whose Place? The Moral Geography of Agentic AI for Social Good
The article discusses the moral geography of agentic AI systems proposed for social good. It highlights a lack of accountability to the communities these systems aim to serve, with many papers failing to specify geographic context. The authors identify accountability gaps and suggest a reporting standard for more context-specific AI applications.
- ▪A survey of 112 papers on agentic AI for social good reveals a significant lack of geographic context in the research.
- ▪73% of the surveyed papers do not specify any geographic context, particularly in domains where local factors are crucial.
- ▪Only 25% of the papers report real-world deployment or testing of the proposed AI systems.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Computer Science > Computers and Society arXiv:2605.22995 (cs) [Submitted on 21 May 2026] Title:Whose Good, Whose Place? The Moral Geography of Agentic AI for Social Good Authors:Poli Nemkova, Haeshitha Indukuri, Jaedon Charles View a PDF of the paper titled Whose Good, Whose Place? The Moral Geography of Agentic AI for Social Good, by Poli Nemkova and 2 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Agentic AI systems are increasingly proposed for social-good domains, often invoking the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a vocabulary of global benefit. Yet claims of social good do not establish accountability to the communities a system claims to serve. We present a structured survey of 112 papers on agentic AI for social good published between 2015 and 2026.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at arXiv cs.AI.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from arXiv cs.AI
