Should there be a similar line for legal misconduct?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2026.2645390#abstract
Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers
In this article, we discuss the growing problem of hallucinated citations produced by Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in scholarly research and writing. We argue that GenAI hallucinated citations might qualify as a provable instance of research misconduct under the U.S. federal regulations when a) the researcher uses a GenAI tool to produce hallucinated (i.e., nonexistent) citations for a research document; b) the citations function as data because they directly support research findings, as in, for example, review articles or bibliometric studies; and c) the researcher demonstrates indifference to the risk of fabrication of the data (i.e. citations) because they did not check the GenAI’s output for veracity and accuracy. Other types of problematic citations such as bibliometrically incorrect citations, or contextually inaccurate citations, are indicative of poor scholarship and irresponsible behavior, but do not qualify as research misconduct. Recognizing that GenAI hallucinated citations could be regarded as research misconduct in certain cases will hopefully encourage researchers to take this problem more seriously than they do now. In partnership with scientific institutions, funders and professional societies, the scholarly community should work on establishing, promoting, and enforcing standards for responsible use of AI in research, including standards pertaining to citation practices.
Who should be looking out for you? Your doctor, a nurse, or the guy from IT?
https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/tfol-25/126022211
Surveillance Medicine and the Law
Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming embedded in healthcare systems around the world. As this happens, the promise of efficiency, predictability, and personalisation of care is frequently presented as a moral imperative. However, there remains a growing body of evidence that AI-driven healthcare technologies can systematically undermine core principles of medical and legal ethics and, potentially, breach fundamental human rights. This study is an exploration of the deployment of AI in healthcare - specifically predictive algorithms, triage bots, and data-driven diagnostics - and how these risks infringe upon the right to health and the right to non-discrimination.
This study aims, through the lens of critical legal studies, to interrogate how these systems and technologies replicate and automate existing forms of inequality, while hidden by the veil of neutral language and innovation. Drawing upon case studies including UnitedHealth, Babylon Health, and DeepMind, the study demonstrates how algorithmic health tools can exacerbate systemic issues such as racism, gender biases and digital exclusion. It also aims to explore how existing legal systems fail to challenge these harmful effects and perpetually reinforce power dynamics and data commodification under the veil of progress.
By critically re-examining the legal governance of AI in healthcare, this study calls for a reassertion of ethical and rights-based principles in emerging health technology regulation, focused not on market efficiency, but on ethical principles like equality, autonomy and human dignity.
AIs don’t think. (Yet)
https://journal.ijtrp.com/index.php/ijtrp/article/view/21
The Legal and Ethical Implications of AI in Judicial Decision-Making: Challenges to Fair Trial and Due Process
A paradigm shift in the discussion of law, justice, and governance has resulted from the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into judicial systems. Even though AI has been successful in increasing productivity, simplifying case management, and helping judges with research, using it to make decisions in court presents serious ethical and legal issues. The constitutional protections of due process and fair trial, which protect individual rights from caprice and guarantee openness, impartiality, and accountability in decision-making, are at the heart of this discussion. The ethical and legal ramifications of using AI in court decision-making are examined in this paper. It looks at how the idea of equality before the law may be threatened by algorithmic tools that, despite their promise of objectivity, may replicate or even worsen systemic biases present in training data. The constitutional requirement of reasoned judgments is challenged by the "black box problem," in which algorithms generate results without comprehensible reasoning, undermining public confidence in the legal system. Furthermore, there are serious concerns about who is responsible for incorrect or unfair results when accountability is distributed between algorithmic systems and human judges. The study examines developments in China, India, the United States, and the European Union using a comparative methodology. Both the advantages and disadvantages of AI-driven adjudication are highlighted in the study, ranging from the US controversy surrounding COMPAS risk-assessment tools to China's smart court experiment and India's cautious use of AI through SUPACE. It contends that although artificial intelligence (AI) can increase judicial efficiency, human conscience, empathy, and interpretive reasoning—all of which are essential components of justice—cannot be separated from adjudication. In order to ensure that technological innovation does not undermine constitutional values but rather strengthens the accessibility, fairness, and credibility of judicial systems, the paper ends by suggesting safeguards such as regulatory frameworks, transparency standards, and a "human-in-the-loop" principle.
Simple and effective?
TERROR-AI-SM THE FUTURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE HANDS OF TERRORISTS
Terrorism remains one of the major challenges to international security. The past decade has witnessed a rapid convergence of two forces with profound implications for global stability: the accelerating capabilities of artificial intelligence and the persistent, adaptive threat of terrorism. What was once the realm of science fiction — autonomous machines making battlefield decisions, synthetic media manipulating public opinion — is now technically feasible and increasingly accessible to non-state actors. This convergence is already reshaping the threat landscape, compelling governments and international institutions to reconsider and adapt their counterterrorism frameworks in order to address the realities of an era where terrorism and cutting-edge technology are inextricably linked.
