Legal and Ethical Conundrums in the AI Era: A Multidisciplinary Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article embarks on an investigative journey into the complex legal and ethical landscape shaped by the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The research problem centres on the urgent need to understand and address the gap between evolving AI technologies and the existing legal and ethical frameworks. This gap poses significant challenges to societal norms, legal systems, and ethical principles, warranting a comprehensive multidisciplinary analysis. The research objectives are twofold: firstly, to dissect the legal implications AI poses to existing regulatory structures, and secondly, to explore the ethical dilemmas emanating from AI's pervasive influence across various societal sectors. The study employs an eclectic research method, integrating doctrinal analysis with a qualitative examination of case studies and existing literature across disciplines like law, ethics, technology, and sociology. This approach facilitates a holistic understanding of the AI era's legal and ethical intricacies. The key findings of this research underscore a dissonance between rapid technological advancements in AI and the slower evolution of legal and ethical norms. This disjunction leads to legal loopholes and ethical ambiguities in AI governance, privacy, accountability, and human rights. Furthermore, the study identifies a pressing need for adaptive legal frameworks and ethical guidelines that can keep pace with AI's transformative impact. Implications of these findings are profound for both theory and practice. Theoretically, the article contributes to an enriched understanding of the intersection between law, ethics, and technology. Practically, it offers actionable insights for policymakers, technologists, and ethicists to collaboratively formulate responsive legal and ethical strategies. These strategies are essential for safeguarding societal values while embracing technological progress, ensuring AI's development is both legally sound and ethically responsible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".