From principles to practices: the intertextual interaction between AI ethical and legal discourses
Abstract
The ascendancy and ubiquity of generative AI technology, exemplified by ChatGPT, has resulted in a transformative shift in the conventional human–AI interaction paradigm, leading to substantial alterations in societal modes of production. Drawing on CDA approach, this study conducts a thematic intertextuality analysis of 29 AI ethical documents, and delves into the restructuring of the human–AI relations catalysed by ChatGPT, as well as the complex ethical and legal challenges it presents. The findings indicate that the thematic intertextuality between AI ethical discourse and legal discourse promotes the connection and convergence of narrative-ideological structures, which in turn primarily creates new meaningful texts and ethical frameworks that promote a holistic approach to a good AI society. This research also identifies the importance of integrating law-making efforts with substantive ethical analysis and appropriate discursive strategies to promote the responsible and ethical development of generative AI that benefits society as a whole.
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?
Audit trails ensure that compliance determinations are traceable and defensible, especially in dispute contexts or cross-jurisdictional licensing negotiations.
“These trails ensure that compliance determinations are traceable and defensible, especially in dispute contexts or cross-jurisdictional licensing negotiations [42].”
From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
Many environments will require configurable audit modes, including real-time checks for consumer-facing platforms and batch verification for archival or licensing submissions.
“Many environments will require configurable audit modes, including real-time checks for consumer-facing platforms and batch verification for archival or licensing submissions [42].”
From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
Cites
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · see citing works
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., et al. (2018) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 · Cited by 4,774 · see citing works
ChatGPT: five priorities for research
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 · Cited by 1,842 · see citing works
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020) · Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society · doi:10.1093/cjres/rsz022 · Cited by 634 · see citing works
Tikkinen-Piri, C., Rohunen, A., & Markkula, J. (2018) · Computer Law & Security Review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2017.05.015 · Cited by 460 · see citing works
Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars
Stilgoe, J. (2018) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312717741687 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
Korngiebel, D. M., & Mooney, S. D. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00464-x · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: a quest for legitimacy
Solaiman, S. M. (2017) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-016-9192-3 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Operationalising AI Ethics: Barriers, Enablers and next Steps
Morley, J., Kinsey, L., Elhalal, A., Garcia, F., Ziosi, M., & Floridi, L. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01308-8 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI and ChatGPT: applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration
Fui-Hoon Nah, F., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., & Chen, L. (2023) · Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research · doi:10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814 · Cited by 1,363 · see citing works
Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J. M., Kim, J., Howard, N.-J., & Ertz, M. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Omogiate, P. M. (2023) · International Journal of Science and Research Archive · doi:10.30574/ijsra.2023.10.2.1099 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cheng, L., & Liu, X.
- Affiliations
- Zhejiang University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Cheng, Le
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Legal Discourse
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2023-04-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-52
- ISSN
- 2364-8821 (ISSN-L)
- 2364-883X
- OpenAlex
- W4376603821
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 12.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Legal Discourse (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, AI ethics, legal discourse, intertextuality, human-AI relationship, critical discourse analysis, AI regulation, ethical frameworks, responsible AI development, ideological discourse
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
