Leo S. Lo, University of New Mexico

Artificial intelligence can be used in countless ways – and the ethical headaches it raises are countless, too.

Consider “adult content creators” – not necessarily the first field that comes to mind. In 2024, there was a surge in AI-generated influencers on Instagram: fake models with faces made by AI, attached to stolen photos and videos of real models’ bodies. Not only did the original content creators not consent to having their images used, but they were not compensated.

Across industries, workers encounter more immediate ethical questions about whether to use AI every day. In a trial by the U.K.-based law firm Ashurst, three AI systems dramatically sped up document review but missed subtle legal nuances that experienced lawyers would catch. Similarly, journalists must balance AI’s efficiency for summarizing background research with the rigor required by fact-checking standards.

These examples highlight the growing tension between innovation and ethics. What do AI users owe the creators whose work forms the backbone of those technologies? How do we navigate a world where AI challenges the meaning of creativity – and humans’ role in it?

As a dean overseeing university libraries, academic programs and the university press, I witness daily how students, staff and faculty grapple with generative AI. Looking at three different schools of ethics can help us go beyond gut reactions to address core questions about how to use AI tools with honesty and integrity.

Rights and duties

At its core, deontological ethics asks what fundamental duties people have toward one another – what’s right or wrong, regardless of consequences.

Applied to AI, this approach focuses on basic rights and obligations. Through this lens, we must examine not only what AI enables us to do, but what responsibilities we have toward other people in our professional communities.

Advertisement

For instance, AI systems often learn by analyzing vast collections of human-created work, which challenges traditional notions of creative rights. A photographer whose work was used to train an AI model might question whether their labor has been appropriated without fair compensation – whether their basic ownership of their own work has been violated.

On the other hand, deontological ethics also emphasizes people’s positive duties toward others – responsibilities that certain AI programs can assist in fulfilling. The nonprofit Tarjimly aims to use an AI-powered platform to connect refugees with volunteer translators. The organization’s AI tool also gives real-time translation, which the human volunteers can revise for accuracy.

This dual focus on respecting creators’ rights while fulfilling duties to other people illustrates how deontological ethics can guide ethical AI use.

AI’s implications

Another approach comes from consequentialism, a philosophy that evaluates actions by their outcomes. This perspective shifts focus from individuals’ rights and responsibilities to AI’s broader effects. Do the potential boons of generative AI justify the economic and cultural impact? Is AI advancing innovation at the expense of creative livelihoods?

This ethical tension of weighing benefits and harms drives current debates – and lawsuits. Organizations such as Getty Images have taken legal action to protect human contributors’ work from unauthorized AI training. Some platforms that use AI to create images, such as DeviantArt and Shutterstock, are offering artists options to opt out or receive compensation, a shift toward recognizing creative rights in the AI era.

The implications of adopting AI extend far beyond individual creators’ rights and could fundamentally reshape creative industries. Publishing, entertainment and design sectors face unprecedented automation, which could affect workers along the entire production pipeline, from conceptualization to distribution.

These disruptions have sparked significant resistance. In 2023, for example, labor unions for screenwriters and actors initiated strikes that brought Hollywood productions to a halt.

A consequentialist approach, however, compels us to look beyond immediate economic threats, or individuals’ rights and responsibilities, to examine AI’s broader societal impact. From this wider perspective, consequentialism suggests that concerns about social harms must be balanced with potential societal benefits.

Advertisement

Sophisticated AI tools are already transforming fields such as scientific research, accelerating drug discovery and climate change solutions. In education, AI supports personalized learning for struggling students. Small businesses and entrepreneurs in developing regions can now compete globally by accessing professional-level capabilities once reserved for larger enterprises.

Even artists need to weigh the pros and cons of AI’s impact: It’s not just negative. AI has given rise to new ways to express creativity, such as AI-generated music and visual art. These technologies enable complex compositions and visuals that might be challenging to produce by hand – making it an especially valuable collaborator for artists with disabilities.

Character for the AI era

Virtue ethics, the third approach, asks how using AI shapes who users become as professionals and people. Unlike approaches that focus on rules or consequences, this framework centers on character and judgment.

Recent cases illustrate what’s at stake. A lawyer’s reliance on AI-generated legal citations led to court sanctions, highlighting how automation can erode professional diligence. In health care, discovering racial bias in medical AI chatbots forced providers to confront how automation might compromise their commitment to equitable care.

These failures reveal a deeper truth: Mastering AI requires cultivating sound judgment. Lawyers’ professional integrity demands that they verify AI-generated claims. Doctors’ commitment to patient welfare requires questioning AI recommendations that might perpetuate bias. Each decision to use or reject AI tools shapes not just immediate outcomes but professional character.

Individual workers often have limited control over how their workplaces implement AI, so it is all the more important that professional organizations develop clear guidelines. What’s more, individuals need space to maintain professional integrity within their employers’ rules to exercise their own sound judgment.

Beyond asking “Can AI do this task?” organizations should consider how its implementation could affect workers’ professional judgment and practice. Right now, technology is evolving faster than collective wisdom in using it, making deliberate reflection and virtue-driven practice more essential than ever.

Charting a path forward

Each of these three ethical frameworks illuminates different aspects of our society’s AI dilemma.

Advertisement

Rights-based thinking highlights our obligations to creators whose work trains AI systems. Consequentialism reveals both the broader benefits of AI democratization and its potential threats, including to creative livelihoods. Virtue ethics shows how individual choices about AI shape not just outcomes but professional character.

Together, these perspectives suggest that ethical AI use requires more than new guidelines. It requires rethinking how creative work is valued.

The debate about AI often feels like a battle between innovation and tradition. But this framing misses the real challenge: developing approaches that honor both human creativity and technological progress and allow them to enhance each other. At its core, that balance depends on values.

Leo S. Lo, Dean and Professor, College of University Libraries and Learning Sciences, University of New Mexico

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

Advertisement

https://stmdailynews.com/

Richard White, Stanford University

I’m a Gilded Age historian who has drawn parallels between our current moment and the late 19th century, two periods known for staggering economic inequality and sweeping technological change.

But much of the coverage of the murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, and Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing him, has given me pause.

As many journalists and pundits would have it, both Thompson and Mangione appear to have wandered into the New York borough of Manhattan from the late 19th century.

In their interpretation, the two Gilded Ages are no longer running on parallel tracks. They have collided, mixing their occupants and baggage into a chaotic mess.

When I and most other historians talk about parallels between the Gilded Age and today, the comparisons are structural. They reflect broad conditions affecting millions of people. It’s when pundits pull particular examples from the past to explain the actions of individuals today that trouble arises.

We haven’t been here before

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens casts Thompson as a character out of a Horatio Alger novel: a working-class hero who pulled himself up by the bootstraps. Also writing in The New York Times, sociologist Zeynip Tufekci comes close to making Luigi Mangione a reincarnation of Alexander Berkman, the anarchist who tried to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick. Over in The New Yorker, Dhruv Khullar suggests that in its arbitrariness and callousness, the prototype for the U.S. medical system, which Mangione excoriated in his manifesto, originated somewhere in the Gilded Age.

Today’s historians and journalists obviously think the past has much to teach their fellow citizens. And their motives are sensible: They want to push back against the idea that the past is irrelevant, that everything important has occurred in the past 15 minutes – a view reflected in a favorite phrase of President-elect Donald Trump to describe whatever crisis du jour is afflicting the United States: “We’ve never seen anything like it.”

Advertisement

So comparisons between two periods can serve as a brake on hasty claims that everything has changed and that the current moment is unprecedented. But in my view, specific comparisons often make a categorical mistake. They substitute modern beliefs and judgments for those of people in the past.

In the immediate aftermath of the murder, Tufekci wrote that “The currents we are seeing are expressions of something more fundamental. We’ve been here before. And it wasn’t pretty.”

Wait, slow down: “We” have not been here before. The major, most obvious – and virtually always ignored – difference between the Gilded Age and our own time is that we did not live in it. None of us were alive in the late 19th century. The people who were alive back then didn’t think like us or act like us. Finding structural similarities does not turn writers into Nostradamus, able to discern the signs and predict the future.

It is all too easy to use the past as a tool for driving home lessons derived from modern beliefs or ideologies. Without knowing much about either Thompson or Mangione – let alone anarchists or Horatio Alger heroes – Mangione becomes the equivalent of a 19th-century avenger of the working class, while Thompson is a modern “Ragged Dick,” rising to his post through pluck and hard work.

Most popular and political appeals to history are not just superficial, they are also quite ahistorical. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the courts.

Jonathan Gienapp’s new and brilliant book, “Against Constitutional Originalism,” eviscerates what he describes as the sloppiness, ahistoricism and anachronisms of the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative members, who often justify their decisions by invoking what the nation’s founders intended. According to Gienapp, their core sin is simple: They are ventriloquists putting their modern ideas in the founders’ mouths and claiming they have recovered original meanings.

Emerging from the morass

This ahistorical thinking runs across the political spectrum. It comes from asking the wrong questions, and thinking that structural similarities produce roughly identical outcomes.

Advertisement

The two periods share more than soaring inequality and vast technological change. There were attacks on racism and resurgent racism; mass immigration and backlash against it; frequent swings in party control; economic booms and busts; a dearth of bold leadership; failures in governance; and outbursts of violence.

Both eras also experienced declines in lifespans, environmental deterioration that has affected health, and the efforts of the well-to-do to seal themselves off from the diseases of the less fortunate.

But often left out is the fact that the Gilded Age confronted these issues; it was also, paradoxically, a period of reform. Beginning at the end of the 19th century, lifespans increased, childhood mortality fell, epidemic diseases declined, and public health produced remarkable results.

Now, that trajectory has reversed. Death and disease are at the heart of the murder of Brian Thompson, who was on his way to meet with investors hoping to profit from a company whose calculated decisions sentenced some people to suffer for the gain of others.

Useful questions might be: How did the Gilded Age escape its crises? And why did solutions that seemed to gradually improve health and well-being for most people over generations cease to work? How did UnitedHealthcare, the people who profit from it and those eager to invest in it come to be?

There is a history there.

Richard White, Professor of American History, Stanford University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

https://stmdailynews.com/

D. Alex Quistberg, Drexel University

Over 60 pedestrians and cyclists have been killed each year in Philadelphia in recent years.

Compared with other big cities, Philadelphia’s death rate for both pedestrians and cyclists is higher than New York and Chicago but lower than Los Angeles and Houston.

Across the U.S., more pedestrians and bicyclists are killed or seriously injured today than any time over the past 40 years. Over 7,500 pedestrians and over 1,100 bicyclists died in traffic collisions in 2022, the most recent year with available data, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

As an injury epidemiologist in Philadelphia who studies pedestrian and bicyclist injuries in the U.S. and Latin America, I want to share several evidence-based ways that Philadelphia can make walking, biking and getting around the city safer for everyone.

Protect bike lanes

Protected bike lanes have physical barriers that prevent drivers from entering the bike lane to park or pass other drivers.

They are particularly useful on high-volume cycling corridors and offer cyclists much more protection than lanes that are merely painted but have no physical barriers or lanes with flexible posts that can be driven over.

Flexible posts, for example, were unable to block the collision that killed Barbara Friedes, chief pediatric resident at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in Center City in July 2024 when a drunk driver sped through the bike lane where Friedes was bicycling.

Advertisement

Research suggests protected bike lanes can improve safety for pedestrians and drivers too. This is likely because they tend to cause drivers to slow down.

The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia and other local bike safety advocacy groups have called for the city to replace unprotected lanes with protected lanes and also add protected bike lanes to more roadways that currently don’t have any.

In October 2024, the city announced it will install concrete barriers to protect the bike lanes on Spruce and Pine streets in Center City, including where Friedes was killed. That same month, the City Council unanimously passed a “Get Out the Bike Lane” bill that increases the fines for drivers who stop or park in a bike lane.

Slow drivers down

Traffic-calming measures are engineering and road design strategies that slow vehicles down, make pedestrians more visible to motorists and provide safer crossing areas.

They include speed humps, curb extensions and protected intersections, as well as 20 mph speed zones.

Automated speed enforcement, which involves cameras that capture the license plates of drivers who are speeding, has led to major reductions in speeding and serious collisions on Roosevelt Boulevard. The street, which runs through North and northeast Philadelphia, has been named one of most dangerous roads in the country in various analyses by news and transportation organizations. Due to this success, the city plans to expand automated speed enforcement to Broad Street in 2025 and potentially other locations in the future.

Traffic-calming measures can benefit all road users by reducing traffic congestion so drivers and public transit riders face fewer delays. They can also boost nearby businesses by increasing foot traffic and making business corridors more pleasant for shoppers.

Encourage fewer cars on the road

Philadelphia can adopt more policies that promote walking or biking over driving. These include open streets or ciclovías, where streets are closed down to motor vehicle traffic and opened to cyclists and pedestrians. Philadelphia occasionally does this on stretches of 18th Street and Walnut Street in Center City.

Advertisement

Increasing parking fees can also reduce traffic congestion. Parking fees generally do not reflect the true cost of driving in cities, which includes maintaining parking spaces and infrastructure. The low cost of parking is essentially a subsidy to drivers. While there are fears that reduced parking hurts business owners, substantial evidence indicates businesses benefit from increased foot and bicycle traffic.

The city could also reduce the number of parking spaces and implement congestion pricing, which involves charging fees to drive in certain areas of a city to reduce traffic congestion.

This may be a challenge, considering the recent experience of New York City, which spent decades preparing for congestion pricing only to have it blocked by the governor, though it seems it now has a chance of being implemented. How much success New York has with congestion pricing will likely determine the feasibility in Philadelphia and other U.S. cities.

Improve public transportation

Expanding public transportation and lowering or eliminating fares can also help protect pedestrians and cyclists by reducing car use. I believe these measures could help ensure the other policies mentioned above are effective.

However, Philadelphia’s public transportation is currently in a critical state. Facing funding shortfalls due to years of declining ridership, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority has proposed service cuts and significant fare increases beginning Jan. 1, 2025. Gov. Josh Shapiro has spared the system from these cuts for now by flexing federal highway funds, but long-term solutions are needed to ensure the survival and revival of public transportation in Philadelphia.

Addressing gun violence, drug use and other crimes may also make public transportation in Philadelphia safer and more attractive. While violent crimes on Philadelphia’s public transportation have dropped dramatically in 2024, four people have lost their lives on SEPTA vehicles so far this year.

Collect better data

Considering the increase in road traffic deaths in Philly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, substantial efforts are needed to reach the city’s Vision Zero goal of reducing road traffic deaths to zero by 2030.

In my view, this includes better data on transportation use and which interventions and policies are working and which are not.

Advertisement

Road safety surveillance could be improved in Philadelphia and across Pennsylvania by linking crash records to other data, such as hospital and clinical data of crash victims, as well as insurance costs to better understand the burden of road traffic injuries on the city and the state.

Data is also key to ensuring public policies are implemented equitably. The Vision Zero plan includes a focus on lower-income neighborhoods and those with higher proportions of racial and ethnic minorities. Those areas have three times as many serious injuries and deaths as other neighborhoods, and road traffic injury and deaths rates are 30% higher among people of color compared with white residents.

D. Alex Quistberg, Associate Research Professor, Urban Health Collaborative, Drexel University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.

https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge

Advertisement