Conceptualizing ethical AI-enabled marketing: Current state and agenda for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the conceptual exploration of various issues that form an integral part of the ethical dimensions surrounding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of marketing. We critically review some of the main ethical challenges AI poses to humanity: privacy, data security, bias, transparency, and accountability. Therefore, we will discuss the delicate balance between exploiting the transformation potential of AI for personally designed marketing strategies and ethical imperatives to safeguard the rights of consumers to retain trust. Then, the present regulatory landscape responding to these ethical challenges will be assessed by building on effective regulation, like the GDPR, existing proposed legislative frameworks, and industry guidelines. To underscore the role of an ongoing dialogue between marketers, technologists, ethicists, and regulators for developing a responsible AI ecosystem in marketing. Further, strategic recommendations for implementing company-based ethical AI marketing practices. The further strong guidelines provide enhancement transparency to consumers and investment in research to remove biases from algorithms. It also underscores principal scopes of further research and development, focusing on the need for new-age solutions to guide the ethical quagmires that AI-led marketing throws up. We suggest that integration should be done proactively and collaboratively. Thus, if attention is paid more to ethics and multidisciplinary dialogue, only such hyperbolic promises can be realized by AI-driven marketing. There are promises through which AI-driven marketing will meet business goals and be huge at societies' values.
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 | 0.028 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".