Aug 2026· AI & SOCIETY· 0 citations· 59 references
TL;DR
It is argued that attending to effects complements current approaches by directing ethical inquiry towards the cumulative transformations that emerge through everyday human–LLM interaction.
Abstract
Large language model (LLM)-based applications are becoming increasingly integrated into everyday practices of communication, learning, and creativity. Their widespread adoption has intensified debates in AI ethics concerning how their societal significance should be understood and evaluated. Existing approaches to AI ethics have developed important concepts and governance frameworks for evaluating the consequences of AI systems, particularly in relation to their design, deployment, and identifiable impacts. These approaches have proven indispensable for analyzing harms, assigning responsibility, and guiding governance. However, the widespread incorporation of LLMs into everyday practices also raises questions about more gradual and cumulative transformations that emerge through repeated human–LLM interaction. Drawing on John Dewey’s pragmatist account of inquiry, habit formation, and moral reconstruction, we distinguish between consequences, identifiable outcomes that can be evaluated within existing normative and regulatory frameworks, and effects, the cumulative transformations of the habits and conditions through which inquiry, judgment, and action are organized over time. We argue that interactions with LLM-based applications give rise to both consequences and effects, and that these should be understood as complementary rather than competing analytical perspectives. Building on this distinction, we use Dewey’s conception of habits to examine how repeated engagement with LLMs may contribute to transformations in three domains: epistemic inquiry, affective-relational self-understanding, and cultural meaning-making. Rather than proposing an alternative to existing AI ethics, we argue that attending to effects complements current approaches by directing ethical inquiry towards the cumulative transformations that emerge through everyday human–LLM interaction.
A research-based approach to make the abstract concrete, metaphorically speaking, by putting the concepts into a wheelbarrow so the authors can push them around more successfully in the context of the higher education institutional and classroom settings.
Janet L Hanson· International Journal of Lea...· 0 citations
Recent years have seen a growing discrepancy in the field of AI alignment: research and policy recommendations on AI ethics tend to assume a general set of ethical values, yet proliferating practice-specific uses of AI systems on the ground - in the legal, medical and translation domains, among others - have been effectively manifesting ethics of professional practice. This article begins by outlining the reasons why general and professional ethics are increasingly conflicted in contemporary AI systems, and by surveying how the research literature attests to, but has not yet resolved, this conceptual and practical challenge. We then conceptualize the main dimensions of AI models'decision-making in areas of professional practice, emphasizing professional ethics'hierarchically structured relationship with general ethics, and elaborating on the mechanisms through which they reach an equilibrium in situational contexts that involve conflict. It is through this equilibrium, we suggest, that certain professional ethics are prioritized over others and implemented in practice. We then show how our framework can be the basis for a systematic empirical assessment of AI models'professional ethics in various domains, identifying the nuances of the models'favored ethic by examining their production in a series of similar but not identical scenarios. Finally, we propose a formulation for how to intervene in and change AI models'favored ethics in professional practices - while noting the inherent dimension of subjectivity involved in both the evaluation and implementation of professional ethics in AI models.
This research examined how public relations professionals conceptualize, enact, and advocate for responsible AI (RAI) during a period of rapid technological change. Drawing on 22 semi-structured interviews with experienced U.S.-based communications professionals and using constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006), the study examined how professionals navigate such core ethical values of truth, trust, and transparency while adopting AI and counseling their organizations. Findings reveal that responsible AI in public relations is not given or simply adopted but actively constructed through everyday professional judgment, human oversight, and organizational influence. The study finds that responsible AI practice depends on the interdependence of AI literacy and ethics literacy, with public relations professionals translating both into advocacy, governance, disclosure judgments, and counsel. The study introduces the AI-Ethics Literacy Model for Human Advocacy[trademark] (AELHA[trademark], pronounced “ah-LEE-ha”) as its original conceptual contribution. AELHA encodes a foundational relationship: AI Literacy + Ethics Literacy = Human Advocacy. The model proposes that neither competency alone is sufficient for responsible AI practice and that their combination enables public relations professionals to advocate not only for organizational publics, but for humanity as the emergent public of the AI age.
Background: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have become central interactive artifacts in activities such as information seeking, creative work, education, and decision support. As these systems increasingly mediate human-computer interaction, concerns regarding transparency, accountability, autonomy, fairness, and social impact have intensified. Although ethical principles for AI are well established in regulatory documents and conceptual frameworks, prior research has shown that their communication through interface elements is often inconsistent and opaque. Furthermore, the rapid evolution of generative AI systems raises challenges for understanding ethical communicability as an evolving, rather than static, property of interactive systems. Purpose: This paper investigates how ethical communicability in generative AI systems evolves over time by conducting a longitudinal comparative analysis of successive system versions. Extending prior work presented at IHC 2025, the study compares recent and earlier versions of three widely used generative AI systems, examining changes in how ethical principles are communicated at the interface level. The goal is to identify patterns of continuity, improvement, and regression, contributing empirical and conceptual insights to the design and evaluation of generative AI based interactive systems. Methods: The study adopts the Semiotic Inspection Method (SIM) in a scientific context, supported by a semiotics-based epistemic tool for ethical reflection, to analyze how ethical principles are communicated through interface signs. The analysis is guided by the AI4People ethical principles of Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Autonomy, Justice, and Explicability. Using the same inspection protocol, ethical scenarios, and analytical categories employed in the original study, we re-inspected the current versions of the three systems. The results from both inspection phases were systematically compared using a structured analytical framework, enabling the identification of additions, refinements, and inconsistencies in ethical communication across versions. Researcher triangulation was applied to ensure analytical rigor and consistency. Results: The longitudinal comparison reveals that ethical communicability in generative AI systems is dynamic and uneven. Some systems show incremental improvements, particularly in interface elements related to explicability and risk mitigation, such as clearer disclaimers, refined feedback mechanisms, and expanded data control options. However, other ethical principles - especially beneficence and justice - remain weakly communicated or largely implicit across versions. The analysis also exposes persistent inconsistencies between metalinguistic commitments expressed in policies and the ethical cues available during interaction. These findings suggest that system updates do not necessarily lead to systematic or holistic improvements in ethical communication, but rather to fragmented and principle-specific changes. Conclusion: By shifting from a static to a longitudinal perspective, this study demonstrates the value of analyzing ethical communicability as an evolving property of generative AI interfaces. The findings highlight that updates to generative AI systems can both strengthen and undermine the communication of ethical principles, underscoring the need for continuous and systematic ethical evaluation in the design of interactive systems. The paper contributes empirical evidence on how ethical communication changes over time, methodological insights into the use of SIM for longitudinal analysis, and design implications for fostering more transparent, accountable, and human-centered generative AI systems. This extended investigation reinforces the relevance of ethical communicability as a core concern for HCI research and practice.
Libiane Gomes, J. C. B. Silveira, H. Martins et al.· Journal of Interactive Syste...· 0 citations
A coalescent ethics of AI design is developed by bringing three converging bodies of scholarship into productive dialogue: the coalescent agency framework’s functional criteria for preserving human agency in human-AI systems; the enactive artificial intelligence model’s intersectional and gender-inclusive design prescriptions; and recent empirical findings on how Gen Z users in China construct gendered meanings in their interactions with generative AI.
The recent integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into academia could usher in transformative efficiencies across scholarly workflows—from manuscript drafting to data analysis—yet it also presents problematic ethical challenges that urgently require intense attention. While some surveys suggest that over 50% of researchers employ AI chatbots like ChatGPT and DeepSeek for tasks such as language refinement and administrative coordination, their adoption raises potential concerns about cognitive dependency, systemic bias, and accountability gaps. AI tools can enhance productivity by automating repetitive tasks, democratizing access for non-native English speakers, and streamlining literature synthesis. However, reliance on these systems could gradually erode critical thinking skills, particularly among early-career researchers pressured to prioritize publication quantity over rigor. Ethical ambiguities seem to persist: AI-generated content may complicate authorship norms, potentially entrench biases against Global South scholarship, and introduce risks of misinformation. Transparency deficits could further undermine trust, as undisclosed AI use might compromise peer review integrity and patient privacy in medical research. To balance innovation with ethical imperatives, this study advocates a tripartite framework: [1] ethical governance, including mandated disclosure of AI contributions and inclusive dataset curation to mitigate bias; [2] symbiotic human-AI collaboration, preserving human oversight in critical analysis and interpretation; and [3] equitable innovation, leveraging AI to bridge global research disparities. Unresolved challenges-such as accountability for AI errors and the potential cognitive consequences of prolonged dependency-appear to underscore the urgent need for global standards to clarify liability and preserve academic rigor while fostering equitable innovation. Proactive engagement from journals, institutions, and developers may be essential to ensure AI augments, rather than undermines, the integrity and equity of scholarly ecosystems.
A. Talebi Bezmin abadi· BMC Research Notes· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.