Is using AI tools innovation or exploitation? 3 ways to think about the ethics
AI’s rapid evolution prompts ethical dilemmas across industries, raising questions about creators’ rights, societal impacts, and professional integrity, necessitating thoughtful reflection and balanced approaches.
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.
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.Tarjimly co-founder Atif Javed presents his app at the Google Impact Summit on Sept. 4, 2024, in Sunnyvale, Calif. AP Photo/Juliana Yamada
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?
Advertisement
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.Medical care and drug development stand to benefit from AI – but not without problems. cofotoisme/E+ via Getty Images
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.
Advertisement
Charting a path forward
Each of these three ethical frameworks illuminates different aspects of our society’s AI dilemma.
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.
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.
Harkins Theatres Announces Rob Reiner Tribute Screening of The American President
Harkins Theatres has announced a special one-day tribute screening honoring acclaimed filmmaker Rob Reiner, celebrating his life’s work and cinematic legacy.
On December 17, select Harkins locations will screen Reiner’s 1995 political romance The American President, with all proceeds benefiting the Human Rights Campaign. Tickets are priced at $5, making the event both an accessible film experience and a charitable fundraiser.
The tribute was announced via Harkins’ official, verified social media accounts and is positioned as a legacy celebration, not a memorial.
🎥 Why The American President?
Released in 1995 and written by Aaron Sorkin, The American President stars Michael Douglas and Annette Bening and remains one of Rob Reiner’s most politically resonant films. The movie blends romance, idealism, and civic responsibility — themes that have consistently appeared throughout Reiner’s career.
The film later served as a creative blueprint for The West Wing, cementing its place in modern political storytelling.
Rob Reiner’s career spans more than five decades, including landmark films such as:
This Is Spinal Tap
Stand By Me
The Princess Bride
When Harry Met Sally…
Misery
A Few Good Men
His work is often praised for balancing entertainment, empathy, and social conscience, making tribute events like this especially meaningful to longtime audiences.
Hollywood Legend Rob Reiner and Wife Found Dead; Son in Custody
Renowned filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, were found dead in their Los Angeles home in a reported homicide. Police have arrested their son in connection with the case, and tributes are pouring in.
Director Rob Reiner participates in a discussion following a screening of the film LBJ at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas on Saturday October 22, 2016 On Saturday evening October 22, 2016, the LBJ Presidential Library held a sneak peek of Rob Reiner’s new filmÊLBJ, starring Woody Harrelson as the 36th president. The film, which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, chronicles the life and times of Lyndon Johnson who would inherit the presidency at one of the most fraught moments in American history. Following the screening, director Rob Reiner, actor Woody Harrelson, and writer Joey Hartstone joined LBJ Library Director Mark Updegrove on stage for a conversation about the film. LBJ Library photo by Jay Godwin 10/22/2016
Hollywood Legend Rob Reiner and Wife Found Dead; Son in Custody
December 15, 2025
Renowned filmmaker and actor Rob Reiner, 78, and his wife Michele Singer Reiner, 68, were found dead in their Brentwood, Los Angeles home on Sunday, authorities say. Emergency responders were called to the residence Sunday afternoon, where both were discovered with fatal wounds consistent with a stabbing. Police are treating the case as a double homicide.
Los Angeles police arrested the couple’s 32-year-old son, Nick Reiner, in connection with the deaths. He is being held in custody as investigators continue to piece together the circumstances surrounding the incident.
2016 SAMHSA Voice Awards
Reiner was one of Hollywood’s most influential figures, known for his work as a director, producer and actor. His career spanned decades, from early television fame to directing beloved films that shaped American cinema.
Friends, colleagues and public figures have begun sharing tributes and reactions to the news as the investigation is ongoing.
More details will be updated as they become available.
FDA’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Claims Lack Solid Evidence—Why Overreaction Could Harm Public Health
COVID-19 vaccine safety: The FDA’s claims about COVID-19 vaccine deaths in children lack strong evidence and could restrict vaccine access. Learn why experts say VAERS reports aren’t proof, and how overreacting may harm public health and trust in vaccines.
The death of children due to an unsafe vaccine is a serious allegation. I am a pediatric cardiologist who has studied the link between COVID-19 vaccines and heart-related side effects such as myocarditis in children. To my knowledge, studies to date have shown such side effects are rare, and severe outcomes even more so. However, I am open to new evidence that could change my mind. But without sufficient justification and solid evidence, restricting access to an approved vaccine and changing well-established procedures for testing vaccines would carry serious consequences. These moves would limit access for patients, create roadblocks for companies and worsen distrust in vaccines and public health. In my view, it’s important for people reading about these FDA actions to understand how the evidence on a vaccine’s safety is generally assessed.
Determining cause of death
The FDA memo claims that the deaths of these children were directly related to receiving a COVID-19 immunization. From my perspective as a clinician, it is awful that any child should die from a routine vaccination. However, health professionals like me owe it to the public to uphold the highest possible standards in investigating why these deaths occurred. If the FDA has evidence demonstrating something that national health agencies worldwide have missed – widespread child deaths due to myocarditis caused by the COVID-19 vaccine – I don’t doubt that even the most pro-vaccine physician will listen. So far, however, no such evidence has been presented. While a death logged in VAERS is a starting point, on its own it is insufficient to conclude whether a vaccine caused the death or other medical causes were to blame. To demonstrate a causal link, FDA staff and physicians must align the VAERS report with physicians’ assessments of the patient, as well as data from other sources for monitoring vaccine safety. These include PRISM, which logs insurance claims data, and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which tracks safety signals in electronic medical records. It’s known that most deaths logged only in VAERS of children who recently received vaccines have been incorrectly attributed to the vaccines – either by accident or in some cases on purpose by anti-vaccine activists.
Heart-related side effects of COVID-19 vaccines
In his Substack and Twitter accounts, Prasad has said that he believes the rate of severe cardiac side effects after COVID-19 vaccination is severely underestimated and that the vaccines should be restricted far more than they currently are. In a July 2025 presentation, Prasad quoted a risk of 27 cases per million of myocarditis in young men who received the COVID-19 vaccine. A 2024 review suggested that number was a bit lower – about 20 cases out of 1 million people. But that same study found that unvaccinated people had greater risk of heart problems after a COVID-19 infection than vaccinated people. In a different study, people who got myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccination developed fewer complications than people who got myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection. Existing vaccine safety infrastructure in the U.S. successfully identifies dangers posed by vaccines – and did so during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, most COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. rely on mRNA technology. But as vaccines were first emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic, two pharmaceutical companies, Janssen and AstraZeneca, rolled out a vaccine that used a different technology, called a viral vector. This type of vaccine had a very rare but genuine safety problem that was detected.A report in VAERS is at most a first step to determining whether a vaccine caused harm. VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, clinical investigators in the U.S. and their European counterparts detected that these vaccines did turn out to cause blood clotting. In April 2021, the FDA formally recommended pausing their use, and they were later pulled from the market. Death due to myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination is exceedingly rare. Demonstrating that it occurred requires proof that the person had myocarditis, evidence that no other reasonable cause of death was present, and the absence of any additional cause of myocarditis. These factors cannot be determined from VAERS data, however – and to date, the FDA has presented no other relevant data.
A problematic vision for future vaccine approvals
Currently, vaccines are tested both by seeing how well they prevent disease and by how well they generate antibodies, which are the molecules that help your body fight viruses and bacteria. Some vaccines, such as the COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, need to be updated based on new strains. The FDA generally approves these updates based on how well the new versions generate antibodies. Since the previous generation of vaccines was already shown to prevent infection, if the new version can generate antibodies like the previous one, researchers assume its ability to prevent infection is comparable too. Later studies can then test how well the vaccines prevent severe disease and hospitalization. The FDA memo says this approach is insufficient and instead argues for replacing such studies with many more placebo-controlled trials – not just for COVID-19 vaccines but also for widely used influenza and pneumonia vaccines. That may seem reasonable theoretically. In practice, however, it is not realistic. Today’s influenza vaccines must be changed every season to reflect mutations to the virus. If the FDA were to require new placebo-controlled trials every year, the vaccine being tested would become obsolete by the time it is approved. This would be a massive waste of time and resources.Influenza vaccines must be updated for every flu season.Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images Plus Also, detecting vaccine-related myocarditis at the low rate at which it occurs would have required clinical trials many times larger than the ones that were done to approve COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. This would have cost at least millions of dollars more, and the delay in rolling out vaccines would have also cost lives. Placebo-controlled trials would require comparing people who receive the updated vaccine with people who remain unvaccinated. When an older version of the vaccine is already available, this means purposefully asking people to forgo that vaccine and risk infection for the sake of the trial, a practice that is widely considered unethical. Current scientific practice is that only a brand-new vaccine may be compared against placebo. While suspected vaccine deaths should absolutely be investigated, stopping a vaccine for insufficient reasons can lead to a significant drop in public confidence. That’s why it’s essential to thoroughly and transparently investigate any claims that a vaccine causes harm.
