Perspectives on Managing AI Ethics in the Digital Age
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced unprecedented opportunities and challenges, necessitating a robust ethical and regulatory framework to guide its development. This study reviews key ethical concerns such as algorithmic bias, transparency, accountability, and the tension between automation and human oversight. It discusses the concept of algor-ethics—a framework for embedding ethical considerations throughout the AI lifecycle—as an antidote to algocracy, where power is concentrated in those who control data and algorithms. The study also examines AI’s transformative potential in diverse sectors, including healthcare, Insurtech, environmental sustainability, and space exploration, underscoring the need for ethical alignment. Ultimately, it advocates for a global, transdisciplinary approach to AI governance that integrates legal, ethical, and technical perspectives, ensuring AI serves humanity while upholding democratic values and social justice. In the second part of the paper, the author offers a synoptic view of AI governance across six major jurisdictions—the United States, China, the European Union, Japan, Canada, and Brazil—highlighting their distinct regulatory approaches. While the EU’s AI Act as well as Japan’s and Canada’s frameworks prioritize fundamental rights and risk-based regulation, the US’s strategy leans towards fostering innovation with executive directives and sector-specific oversight. In contrast, China’s framework integrates AI governance with state-driven ideological imperatives, enforcing compliance with socialist core values, whereas Brazil’s framework is still lacking the institutional depth of the more mature ones mentioned above, despite its commitment to fairness and democratic oversight. Eventually, strategic and governance considerations that should help chief data/AI officers and AI managers are provided in order to successfully leverage the transformative potential of AI for value creation purposes, also in view of the emerging international standards in terms of AI.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it