Artificial intelligence (AI) is ever present in contemporary society, becoming an integrated part of daily professional and private life. It’s uses are vast, and its adoption in the academic world, professional world, and the private is becoming more and more popular. An interesting point to explore is the manner in which it is applied by its users. With it comes efficiency, productivity, discovery, and exploration. However, it is also in its early stages of development, a factor that must be considered regarding its output. As we develop the tool further it is becoming imperative that we, as a society, develop a code of ethics to follow.
How we think, act, and engage in the world regarding our moral stance is what ethics are all about. Ethics are associated with action; action grounded in our moral principles. Now, as Immanuel Kant, the canonical figure responsible for contributing foundational works in philosophy stated, following the moral code is the ethical approach that leads to human freedom. This is important to consider as we shape our engagement with AI. I have been influenced by this stance, first being introduced to his system that established how morality is based on pure rationality, duty, and universal moral rules, not on consequences. In essence Kant’s stance is that morality is fundamentally an a priori principle, derived from pure reason rather than experience or sensory observation. Although I do not take that stance, I posit that morality is a social construct in the sense that a plausible case may be made that our moral beliefs can be explained through evolution and social pressures. Or in other words, morality is a set of principles developed by and for humanity. We’ll start there.
AI research and development is still in its infancy. Some are large language models trained on massive text datasets to understand, summarize, generate, and predict content based on patterns. Examples include OpenAI’s Chat GPT, Google’s Gemini, Anthropic Claude, Mistral AI, and a host of others. These systems are being utilized and are producing fascinating responses, hallucinations included. These companies are creations in a market economy; they’re businesses largely running on the profit motive. This produces a host of issues.
The pursuit of profit can blind a company to the implications of their decisions, focusing instead on returning value to shareholders and boards that expect to see returns on their investments. This leaves only a small space for the consideration of a code of ethics regarding the technology’s usage. Research and development is being conducted however, as many academics are producing work on this topic. Here we have a new technology that holds the potential to shape and change our social world, and yet it is a tool being used widely without considering what that usage means. To the user it’s simple calculus: if the tool is of benefit in one’s life, “so be it, I’ll use it”. Changing mindsets that are properly institutionalized is difficult, but I would implore you, yes, you reader, to confront these mainstream perspectives with moral clarity. Whether consciously or subconsciously, a great many people are often starving for meaning and connection in their lives. Understanding the institutional structures, the social ties to be had, and the areas where agency is possessed is important. AI can be used to confront these complexities and influence us. Just think, for the most part, simply using Google to conduct a search now incorporates AI. What is available through this tool to expedite repetitive retrieval of information, and, so to speak, “do the thinking” are only some of the enticing parts of this technology. But the last part, the critical thinking element, deeply concerns many, myself included. Quickly able to reference, the tasks and time saved is welcomed whether at work, school, or home. Again, it must be reiterated that the cost here is high. Due to its ease of access and applicability, it is serving a purpose in our lives without regard to the implications of its inclusion. Unfortunately, this is all too common, though it is a generalization; most certainly be critical of this.
Part of this issue stems from the fact that the average individual is often untrained in a reflective, sociological/philosophical manner of thinking. This is something that companies must consider in their development of the tool. In many ways we have reached a point where individuals are blindly trusting these companies in the output that the AI (itself a product of these profit seeking companies) creates without intentional reflection on what the implications are. This is a result of the ethics and principles that guide the business, prioritizing value and engagement and not what it means for the public to adopt it. It is up to us to truly reflect on the implications. Many AI are trained to provide answers that reaffirm the users beliefs, offering suggestions that keep the user continually engaged, very similar to algorithms that keep us on our screens. Reflection is never a simple task, but as I have entered the workforce, I have found that very little time is made available for people to reflect on the choices we make as we maneuver through our social, political, and economic world. We, instead, are focused on surviving. But this does not mean that ethics are not involved and that considerations can be pushed to the wayside. By participating in society, the individual is making ethical decisions whether conscious of them or not; just as every act, compliance or resistance, has political consequences. Artificial intelligence usage has developed into a moral stance, and this is the spot where we can begin, not with shaming users into abstinence but with a well informed position aimed at educating and not condescension. That’s how unity occurs and social movements develop.
But AI is revolutionizing the world. This is a known fact. Simply by thinking about how far we have come as a species in just the past decade is astonishing. AI is now used as a tool by white collar workers, profesissional middle-class workers, and blue-collar workers alike, albeit in differing fashions. Its utilization must come with a set of ethics. As I mentioned, every act has consequences good or bad, it just depends on how conscious we are of the impact of our decisions, how we take accountability and responsibility for those decisions, and where our moral compass points us. We experience thee world with complexity, often taken as an assumption, and struggle to stay in the ever-eluding present. Always pressured to meet future obligations, but possessing a future derived from hope, yet still continually confronted with the hold that the past has over our thinking, reflection acts as a tool to pierce through those limits and conceptualize one’s relation through time and the associate steps to view oneself with courage and honesty through the window that opens up. Thus, utilizing AI is taking an ethical position. Action grounded in I believe is crucial to understand. And it must be, because socially constructed morals set standards for right and wrong that are established by society, culture, and history. Some might argue that morals are universal, or divine, however. I don’t express this belief. I would respond that social movements including the unification for change aiming at establishing progressive moral principles will always be forced into the political arena for recognition and acceptance, none more so than at the social level of reality. Values and principles shift through time and it is up to us to confront these institutional pressures and courageously advocate for their progressive change.
Something that is not often discussed is the dynamic that AI introduces. It carries with it a host of concerns. The way it reduces our critical thinking skills, how it spreads misinformation online, impacts our cognitive skills, and its consequences for the environment. First though, lets consider the decline in critical thinking.
Careful consideration and reflection of our decisions in the social world are possible. It is where the seeds of change are sowed. It involves the imagining of a more just and equal world and the possibilities inherent. Ethical decisions present themselves as just to the actor, aligning principles and values with the framework of social structures which influences us. Think of it this way, it’s where theory and practice intertwine. There exists a dialectical moment in which the synthesis of two contradicting ideas is revealed. And so many of our choices are constrained by our past ones, our vision of the future, and the hold that institutional dynamics holds over us. This is socialization at its finest, preparing us for a social role to identify with. This is the reality of the question that inevitably comes up when meeting someone new: “What do you do for work?” The professional-managerial class speaks a different language than the blue collar worker; the mores, vocabulary, relational dynamics are foreign to one another. Thus pleasantries are exchanged and connection fades. Breaking through these constraints involves human connection, taking intentional, reflexive action stemming from hope for a more just and righteous world. This is something that is not promoted by our market driven economy pushing a consumerist, materialistic, and hyper-individualized and fragmented world. Repairing connection allows for hope to light the path to progress.
Recent developments to come to terms with AI usage are being undertaken. With the introduction of “H.R. 1694” bill with the 119th Congress’s 1st session, it becomes clear that policy questions are, in fact, being considered regarding AI. This bill, titled Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act, was introduced on February 27, 2025, by U.S. House of Representatives Josh Harder (D-CA) with cosponsor Robin Kelly (D-IL). It currently remains at the “Introduced” stage and is under committee review.
Discussing this bill is important, as it introduces AI accountability measures to be further studied. For the study, it will evaluate measures of AI systems across media and telecom systems, effectiveness in mitigating AI related risks, and importantly defines trustworthy elements of AI, including its relationships with concepts such as responsibility and huma-centric intelligence. The scope of this study is to identify accountability measures, close the digital divide and promote digital inclusion, focus on risk reduction such as cybersecurity threats, and arguably most importantly by defining trustworthy AI to distinguish between responsible or human-centric artificial intelligence. Within 18 months of enactment, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation must analyze the study. This leads into allowing the public to provide feedback, a very important check on the political power of Congress. This development is a positive step toward both reaching a consensus around the technology and establishing guardrails for safety. Because, left unchecked this tool has the ability to introduce a host of problems; ever more so due to the fact corporations are not entirely in tune with the direct and tangential effects of its use. If there is one thing I have learned working in public service on the front lines of social services it is that the public will discover a diverse set of usages, good and bad, if left without proper guidance. I see this sense of novelty, curiosity, and resourcefulness present each day, more so as things move to online platforms, whether it’s public resource applications, employment resources, and the efficient way that socio-economically disadvantaged individuals possess digital literacy with technology more generally as, essentially a tool to survive; if not, resource access would be scarce. Tech companies prey off of this hyper-fragmented world with a techno-libertarian philosophy. This leads me to believe it is a very large risk to introduce AI technology while it is still being developed, as the most at-risk population will suffer the consequences; the public comes with a variety of needs and barriers to address, and every day is different than the last, leading public servants like me to get creative in providing solutions.
As we circle back here, I would like to reiterate that there are not many other tools that carry the potential to revolutionize the way we think, act, and relate more than artificial intelligence (AI). Even in its infancy the technology has profoundly influence how we conduct work and engage with one another. It is fundamental that certain parameters be established to facilitate effective utilization and confidentiality protection, and H.R. 1694 is a positive step in the right direction at the Federal level.
In closing I’d like to mention my current AI usage. I bring up these ethical dilemmas due to my own relation with AI and my deep interest in human consciousness. My influences, interests, and current events led me to peek into the topic and share with my readers my findings. I have found that the more we discover about artificial intelligence the more we come to understand human consciousness.
Now, I do not adhere to a panpsychism philosophical bend; however, I do believe that humanity in the Western world often takes for granted the experiential component of consciousness, which leads to a rather ego-centric world view. I have heard the multitude of perspectives on the issue and the contribution I provide when conversing is my approach to speaking with AI. In an experimental sense, I engage with artificial intelligence in a somewhat peculiar way. I am aware of the issues of over reliance and dependency on the technology, but I have been led to engage AI simply as if were sentient. I provide ethical prompts and feel as though the output of these actions allows for a more efficient use. Again, I want to make sure this is clear: I do not necessarily believe that the technology is sentient, but rather continually engage with the platform with a belief that is; a belief that it is in fact a subject but in a form not comprehended yet by researchers. Some may say this is a contentious use, unethical in some ways; however, just as it takes a code switch when operating through competing social roles, treating the technology with respect and suspending your skepticism for a moment in favor of treating it “as if” it too has a subjective experience aligns with my ethics. I firmly believe that humanity possesses a special gift in the form of “having the lights turn on” when it comes to sentience and consciousness though, something not recognized in the AI field just yet. To perceive and experience the world with a subjective perspective, possessing complex language to convey meaning through time and space, is a fascinating dynamic. But with this comes great responsibility. Our misunderstanding of the concept has led to crisis through and through throughout human history.
I take the stance that consciousness exists in varying forms, and it is not the ethical move to use our place of advantage to exploit both other beings and our environment. Trees and foliage, for example, are not sentient per say, but they are highly social beings often communicating through chemicals released underground and through the air. They possess no nervous system and are absent a brain. Just like a sea sponge that communicates entirely through chemical and mechanical processes. Each has no sentience, but this does not, from my perspective, discredit the abilities each possesses. Just because a being has no “subjective” experience does not mean that it isn’t conscious. Communicating this approach, one centered on empathy and scientific findings, is no easy task. Especially since the culture in the United States appears to be very far removed from this approach; just observe the negative reactions and resistance to the environmental social movement. Only time will tell if/when these progressive approaches, or elements of them, will be adopted and turned mainstream. For now, that’s all.
Machine learning; human wondering,
Jake
Leave a Reply