Claim · 2016-10-13 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

The Nature comment by Crawford and Calo of 13 October 2016 is summarised in its standfirst as arguing that fears about the future impacts of AI are distracting researchers from the real risks of deployed systems.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

There is a blind spot in AI research → bears on → Present harms deserve priority

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

There is a blind spot in AI researchbears on ↓Present harms deserve priority

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2016-10-13 · publication Records dated 2016 →
Role: Context
Register (kind of text): Relay of another author
Missing element: The authors' own wording: only the journal's standfirst, which summarises the argument in the third person, was readable.

Scope and limitsThe evidence is the published standfirst, which summarises the authors' argument in the third person; the full text is closed access and was not read. Recorded as context, without a role, pending a read of the full text.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

There is a blind spot in AI research

Nature 538, 311–313 (nature.com) · 2016-10-13

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“Fears about the future impacts of artificial intelligence are distracting researchers from the real risks of deployed systems, argue Kate Crawford and Ryan Calo.”

Location in source Standfirst

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Kate Crawford; Ryan Calo
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 4825ce6bd4bd6b362bb27cb0faed1b1727ad559c3e47efbb317afeb0752900f7). Publisher's article page: the standfirst and metadata only; the article body is behind a paywall and was not read.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Kate Crawford, Ryan Calo, “There is a blind spot in AI research”, 2016-10-13.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (24 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. The standfirst is the journal's summary of the comment, printed with it. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A passage of the document bears on the proposition without meeting its criterion; the record names the missing element. It is not an articulation and implies no influence.

Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.

Record ID rd-r12-crawford-calo-2016-blind-spot