Artificial Intelligence and Humanoid Robotics: Bioethical Implications of Replacing Human Agency in Healthcare and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The integration of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and humanoid robotics into healthcare represents a critical evolution in biotechnology with profound societal implications. This review explores the bioethical implications of these technologies, and their potential to displace human agency in life-critical decisions. It adopts an interdisciplinary approach encompassing ethics, law, and technology. The review examines how innovations in AI and robotics might shift autonomy from humans to machines, and addresses the accountability challenges inherent in such transitions. We synthesize discussions on the ethical management of AI and robotics, underscoring the importance of maintaining human oversight and integrating ethical standards in technology development to prevent worsening of social inequalities. While AI and robotics present challenges to traditional concepts of autonomy, ethical responsibility, and justice, careful and inclusive policymaking and ethical oversight can harness these technologies to enhance human well-being. This analysis highlights the necessity for continued cross-disciplinary research to navigate the complex ethical landscapes these technologies create, emphasizing that the proactive engagement of diverse stakeholders is essential to guide AI and robotics towards improving human health.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".