Blind Spots in AI Ethics and Biases in AI governance

There is an interesting link between critical theory and certain genres of literature that may be of interest to the current debate on AI ethics. While critical theory generally points out certain deficiencies in the present to criticize it, futurology and literary genres such as Cyberpunk, extrapolate our present deficits in possible dystopian futures to criticize the status quo. Given the great advance of the AI industry in recent years, an increasing number of ethical matters have been raised and debated, usually in the form of ethical guidelines and unpublished manuscripts by governments, the private sector, and academic sources. However, recent meta-analyses in the field of AI ethics have raised important questions such as: what is being omitted from published ethical guidelines? Does AI governance occur inclusively and diversely? Is this form of "ethics", based on soft rules and principles, efficient? In this study, I would like to present aspects omitted or barely mentioned in the current debate on AI ethics and defend the point that applied ethics should not be based on creating only soft versions of real legislation, but rather on criticizing the status quo for everything of value that is disregarded.