The Ethics of ChatGPT-Exploring the Ethical Issues of an Emerging Technology
Open accessAbstract
This article explores ethical issues raised by generative conversational AI systems like ChatGPT. It applies established approaches for analysing ethics of emerging technologies to undertake a systematic review of possible benefits and concerns. The methodology combines ethical issues identified by Anticipatory Technology Ethics, Ethical Impact Assessment, and Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT Applications with AI-specific issues from the literature. These are applied to analyse ChatGPT's capabilities to produce humanlike text and interact seamlessly. The analysis finds ChatGPT could provide high-level societal and ethical benefits. However, it also raises significant ethical concerns across social justice, individual autonomy, cultural identity, and environmental issues. Key high-impact concerns include responsibility, inclusion, social cohesion, autonomy, safety, bias, accountability, and environmental impacts. While the current discourse focuses narrowly on specific issues such as authorship, this analysis systematically uncovers a broader, more balanced range of ethical issues worthy of attention. Findings are consistent with emerging research and industry priorities on ethics of generative AI. Implications include the need for diverse stakeholder engagement, considering benefits and risks holistically when developing applications, and multi-level policy interventions to promote positive outcomes. Overall, the analysis demonstrates that applying established ethics of technol…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The findings suggest a need for structured implementation frameworks that address challenges in data privacy, academic integrity, and assessment validity.
“The findings suggest a need for structured implementation frameworks that address challenges in data privacy, academic integrity, and assessment validity (Stahl and Eke, 2024).”
From Patterns, advances, and gaps in using ChatGPT and similar technologies in nursing education: A PAGER scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as Stahl and Eke, 2024
It can be difficult to distinguish between human interventions and interventions by ChatGPT.
“This becomes more urgent as Stahl and Eke (2024) point out a consequence where it can be difficult to distinguish between human interventions and interventions by ChatGPT.”
From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Stahl and Eke (2024)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 74 · Cited by 476
- Authors
- Stahl, B. C., & Eke, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- De Montfort University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Stahl, Bernd Carsten
- Venue
- International Journal of Information Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-02
- Volume
- 74
- Pages
- 102700
- ISSN
- 0268-4012 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4386580390
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 108 · 2025: 187 · 2024: 167 · 2023: 14
- FWCI
- 119.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Information Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European Commission (HORIZON2020, 945539)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (945539, EP/T022493/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology's Impact on Media
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI, ethics of emerging technologies, AI ethics, social justice, individual autonomy, cultural identity, environmental impact of AI, algorithmic bias, accountability, authorship, social cohesion, AI safety, stakeholder engagement, AI policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review