Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The ethics of regulation: Social contract insights on the 2024 European Union Artificial Intelligence Act Cover

The ethics of regulation: Social contract insights on the 2024 European Union Artificial Intelligence Act

By:   
Open Access
|Jul 2026

References

  1. ALLOGHANI, M., AL-JUMEILY, D., MUSTAFINA, J. et al. (2020): A Systematic Review on Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning Algorithms for Data Science. In: M. W. Berry, A. Mohamed & Yap Bee Wah (ed.): Supervised and unsupervised learning for data science. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22475-2.
  2. AMERSHI, S., CAKMAK, M., KNOX, W. B. et al. (2014): Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning. In: AI Magazine, 35(4), pp. 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513.
  3. ARKOUDAS, K. & BRINGSJORD, S. (2014): Philosophical foundations. In: K. Frankish & W. M. Ramsey (ed.): The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  4. ASIMOV, I. (2014): I, Robot. Oxford: Macmillan.
  5. BEAUCHAMP, T. L. & CHILDRESS, J. F. (2013): Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. BECCARIA, C. (2018): Dei delitti e delle pene: con una raccolta di lettere e documenti relativi alla nascita dell’opera e alla sua fortuna nell’Europa del Settecento. Torino: Einaudi.
  7. BERRY, D. (2023): The Limits of Computation: Joseph Weizenbaum and the ELIZA Chatbot. In: Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.34669/WI.WJDS/3.3.2.
  8. BISEN, V. S. (2022): What is Human in the Loop Machine Learning: Why & How Used in AI? https://medium.com/vsinghbisen/what-is-human-in-the-loop-machine-learning-why-how-used-in-ai-60c7b44eb2c0.
  9. BUCHANAN, B. & SHORTLIFFE, E. (1985): Rule-based expert systems: The mycin experiments of the stanford heuristic programming project. reprinted with corrections. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  10. BUTLER, S. (1987): Erewhon. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  11. BUTLIN, P., LONG, R., ELMOZNINO, E. et al. (2023): Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.08708.
  12. CARON, M. S. & GUPTA, A. (2020): The Social Contract for AI. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.08140.
  13. CERAVOLO, P., DAMIANI, E., D’AMICO, M. E. et al. (2025): HH4AI: A methodological Framework for AI Human Rights impact assessment under the EUAI ACT. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503.18994.
  14. CHANDLER, C., FOLTZ, P. W. & ELVEVÅG, B. (2022): Improving the applicability of AI for psychiatric applications through Human-in-the-loop methodologies. In: Schizophrenia Bulletin, 48(5), pp. 949–957. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbac038.
  15. CHRISTIE, E. H., ERTAN, A., ADOMAITIS, L. et al. (2024): Regulating lethal autonomous weapon systems: exploring the challenges of explainability and traceability. In: AI and Ethics, 4(2), pp. 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00261-0.
  16. COHEN, A. P. (1993): Culture as identity: An anthropologist’s view. In: New Literary History, 24(1), pp. 195–209. https://doi.org/10.2307/469278.
  17. CORDESCHI, R. (2010): Discovery of the artificial. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  18. DE FAUW, J., LEDSAM, J. R., ROMERA-PAREDES, B. et al. (2018): Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. In: Nature Medicine, 24(9), pp. 1342–1350. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0107-6.
  19. DILLON, S. (2020): The Eliza effect and its dangers: from demystification to gender critique. In: Journal for Cultural Research, 24(1), pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2020.1754642.
  20. EUROPEAN UNION. (2017): European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017IP0051.
  21. EUROPEAN UNION. (2019): Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI | Shaping Europe’s digital future. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai.
  22. EUROPEAN UNION. (2020): Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (ALTAI) for self-assessment | Shaping Europe’s digital future. [online], [Retrieved January 2, 2026]. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/assessment-list-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence-altai-self-assessment.
  23. EUROPEAN UNION. (2024): Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj.
  24. FILIP, B. (2020): The rise of neo-liberalism and the decline of freedom. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  25. FLORIDI, L. (2019a):. What the near future of artificial intelligence could be. In: Philosophy & Technology, 32(1), pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00345-y.
  26. FLORIDI, L. (2019b):. Translating principles into practices of digital ethics: Five risks of being unethical. In: Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), pp. 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00354-x.
  27. FLORIDI, L. & COWLS, J. (2019): A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. In: Harvard Data Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1.
  28. FLORIDI, L., TADDEO, M. & TURILLI, M. (2009): Turing’s Imitation game: Still an impossible challenge for all machines and some judges––An evaluation of the 2008 Loebner Contest. In: Minds and Machines, 19(1), pp. 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-008-9130-6.
  29. FRANCÉS-GÓMEZ, P. (2023): Ethical principles and governance for AI. In: F. Lara & J. Deckers (eds.): Ethics of artificial intelligence. Cham: Springer, pp. 191–219.
  30. GAUTHIER, D. P. (2006): Morals by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. GEISSLINGER, M., POSZLER, F., BETZ, J. et al. (2021): Autonomous driving ethics: from trolley problem to ethics of risk. In: Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), pp. 1033–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00449-4.
  32. GERLICH, M. (2023): Perceptions and acceptance of Artificial Intelligence: A multi-dimensional study. In: Social Sciences, 12(9), pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090502.
  33. GIGNAC, G. E. & SZODORAI, E. T. (2024): Defining intelligence: Bridging the gap between human and artificial perspectives. In: Intelligence, 104, 101832, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2024.101832.
  34. GOTTFREDSON, L. S. (1997): Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. In: Intelligence, 24(1), pp. 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8.
  35. GREENE, J. D., NYSTROM, L. E., ENGELL, A. D. et al. (2004): The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. In: Neuron, 44(2), pp. 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027.
  36. HAGENDORFF, T. (2020): The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. In: Minds and Machines, 30(1), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8.
  37. HASSAN, N. M., HAMAD, S. & MAHAR, K. (2022): Mammogram breast cancer CAD systems for mass detection and classification: a review. In: Multimedia Tools and Applications, 81(14), pp. 20043–20075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12332-1.
  38. HELION, C. & PIZARRO, D. A. (2015): Beyond dual-processes: The interplay of reason and emotion in moral judgment. In: J. Clausen & N. Levy (eds.): Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_160.
  39. HERRERA, F. & CALDERÓN, R. (2025): Opacity as a feature, not a flaw: The LoBOX governance ethic for role-sensitive explainability and institutional trust in AI. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2505.20304.
  40. HO, K. (2005): Situating global capitalisms: A view from Wall Street investment banks. In: Cultural Anthropology, 20(1), pp. 68–96.
  41. HOBBES, T. (1997): Leviathan: or the matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiastical and civill. New York: Atria Books.
  42. JALŠENJAK, B. (2020): The Artificial Intelligence singularity: What it is and what it is not. In: S. Skansi (ed.): Guide to Deep Learning Basics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37591-1_10.
  43. JENKINS, R., ČERNÝ, D. & HŘÍBEK, T. (2022): Autonomous vehicle ethics: The trolley problem and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197639191.001.0001.
  44. JONES, C. R. & BERGEN, B. K. (2023): Does GPT-4 pass the Turing test? In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2310.20216.
  45. JONES, C. R. & BERGEN, B. K. (2024): People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2405.08007.
  46. JULIANI, A., ARULKUMARAN, K., SASAI, S. et al. (2022): On the link between conscious function and general intelligence in humans and machines. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.05133.
  47. KEELING, G. (2020): Why trolley problems matter for the ethics of automated vehicles. In: Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(1), pp. 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00096-1.
  48. KLINE, R. (2011): Cybernetics, Automata Studies, and the Dartmouth Conference on Artificial Intelligence. In: IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 33(4), pp. 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2010.44.
  49. LAUX, J., WACHTER, S. & MITTELSTADT, B. (2024): Trustworthy artificial intelligence and the European Union AI Act: On the conflation of trustworthiness and acceptability of risk. In: Regulation & Governance, 18(1), pp. 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12512.
  50. LEAVY, S., O’SULLIVAN, B. & SIAPERA, E. (2020): Data, power and bias in Artificial Intelligence. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2008.07341.
  51. LEWIS, D., LASEK-MARKEY, M., GOLPAYEGANI, D. et al. (2025): Mapping the Regulatory Learning Space for the EU AI Act. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503.05787.
  52. LIN, Z. (2025): Beyond principlism: Practical strategies for ethical AI use in research practices. In: AI and Ethics, 5, pp. 2719–2731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00585-5.
  53. LOCKE, J. (2010): Two treatises of government: in the former, the false principles and foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and his followers are detected and overthrown; the latter is an essay concerning the true original, extent, and end of civil-government. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, LTD.
  54. LOPES, D. (2023): Towards the artificial brain: A base framework for modelling consciousness and unconsciousness. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.08863.
  55. MACFARLANE, B. (1999): Re-evaluating the Realist Conception of War as a Business Metaphor. In: Teaching Business Ethics, 3(1), pp. 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009753807317.
  56. MALLIORI, A. & PALLIKARAKIS, N. (2022): Breast cancer detection using machine learning in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis: A systematic review. In: Health and Technology, 12(5), pp. 893–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-022-00693-4.
  57. MARMOLEJO-RAMOS, F., WORKMAN, T., WALKER, C. et al. (2022): AI-powered narrative building for facilitating public participation and engagement. In: Discover Artificial Intelligence, 2(1), p. 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-022-00023-7.
  58. MCNAMARA, A., SMITH, J. & MURPHY-HILL, E. (2018): Does ACM’s code of ethics change ethical decision making in software development? Lake Buena Vista FL: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236024.3264833.
  59. MENTXAKA, O., DÍAZ-RODRÍGUEZ, N., COECKELBERGH, M. et al. (2025): Aligning trustworthy AI with democracy: A dual taxonomy of opportunities and risks. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2505.13565.
  60. MESTVIRISHVILI, M., MESTVIRISHVILI, N., KVITSIANI, M. et al. (2020): Emotional intelligence for moral character: Do emotion-related competencies lead to better moral functioning? In: Psychological Studies, 65(3), pp. 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00564-w.
  61. MONTRÉAL DECLARATION ON RESPONSIBLE AI (2018a): [online], [Retrieved February 10, 2026]. Available at: https://montrealdeclaration-responsibleai.com/.
  62. MOOR, J. (2006): The Dartmouth College Artificial Intelligence conference: The next fifty years. In: AI Magazine, 27(4), pp. 87–91.
  63. MOSQUEIRA-REY, E., HERNÁNDEZ-PEREIRA, E., ALONSO-RÍOS, D. et al. (2023): Human-in-the-loop machine learning: a state of the art. In: Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(4), pp. 3005–3054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10246-w.
  64. NATALE, S. (2021): Deceitful media: Artificial Intelligence and social life after the Turing test. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190080365.003.0004.
  65. NOVELLI, C., CASOLARI, F., ROTOLO, A. et al. (2024): Taking AI risks seriously: a new assessment model for the AI Act. In: AI & Society, 39(5), pp. 2493–2497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01723-z.
  66. ONEŢ, A.-E. & CIOCOI-POP, A.-B. (2022): Of battle and business: Military language in the corporate environment. In: International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION, 28(2), pp. 213–218. https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2022-0075.
  67. PASQUALE, F. (2015): The black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  68. PAULO, N. (2023): The trolley problem in the ethics of autonomous vehicles. In: The Philosophical Quarterly, 73(4), pp. 1046–1066. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqad051.
  69. PAULY, P. J. (1982): Samuel Butler and his Darwinian critics. In: Victorian Studies, 25(2), pp. 161–180.
  70. POWLES, J. & HODSON, H. (2017): Google DeepMind and healthcare in an age of algorithms. In: Health and Technology, 7(4), pp. 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-017-0179-1.
  71. RAHWAN, I. (2018): Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract. In: Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), pp. 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8.
  72. RATHI, I., TAYLOR, S., BERGEN, B. K. et al. (2024): GPT-4 is judged more human than humans in displaced and inverted Turing tests. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.08853.
  73. RAWLS, J. (2005): A theory of justice: Original edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v.
  74. Robotics Openletter to the European Commission. (2018b):. https://robotics-openletter.eu/.
  75. ROSS, P. & MAYNARD, K. (2021): Towards a 4th industrial revolution. In: Intelligent Buildings International, 13(3), pp. 159–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2021.1873625.
  76. ROUSSEAU, J.-J. (2012): On the social contract. Newburyport: Dover Publications.
  77. SANDU, A. & NISTOR, P. (2021): Digital Dementia. In: Eastern-European Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics, 4(1), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.18662/eejmhb/4.1/22.
  78. SCHWAB, K. (2016): The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means and how to respond. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/.
  79. SETH, J. (2024): Public Perception of AI: Sentiment and Opportunity. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.15998.
  80. SHARMA, V., GOYAL, M. & MALIK, D. (2017): An intelligent behavior shown by Chatbot system. In: International Journal of New Technology and Research, 3(4), p. 263312.
  81. SHRAGER, J. (2024): ELIZA Reinterpreted: The world’s first chatbot was not intended as a chatbot at all. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2406.17650.
  82. SKYRMS, B. (2014): Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139924825.
  83. SPITZER, M. (2012): Digitale Demenz: wie wir uns und unsere Kinder um den Verstand bringen [Digital dementia: How we are driving ourselves and our children crazy]. München: Droemer.
  84. THEA VON HARBOU (2015): Metropolis. S.l.: Edcon Publishing.
  85. THELISSON, E. & VERMA, H. (2024): Conformity assessment under the EU AI act general approach. In: AI and Ethics, 4(1), pp. 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00402-5.
  86. TUPASELA, A. & DI NUCCI, E. (2020): Concordance as evidence in the Watson for Oncology decision-support system. In: AI & Society, 35(4), pp. 811–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00945-9.
  87. VON ESCHENBACH, W. J. (2021): Transparency and the Black Box Problem: Why we do not trust AI. In: Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), pp. 1607–1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00477-0.
  88. WALKER, R., DILLARD-WRIGHT, J. & IRADUKUNDA, F. (2023): Algorithmic bias in artificial intelligence is a problem—And the root issue is power. In: Nursing Outlook, 71(5), p. 102023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2023.102023.
  89. WANG, L. (2024): Mammography with deep learning for breast cancer detection. In: Frontiers in Oncology, 14, 1281922, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1281922.
  90. WANG, P. (2019): On defining Artificial Intelligence. In: Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 10(2), pp. 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2478/jagi-2019-0002.
  91. WEIZENBAUM, J. (1966): ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. In: Communications of the ACM, 9(1), pp. 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168.
  92. YEW, R.-J., MARINO, B. & VENKATASUBRAMANIAN, S. (2025): Red Teaming AI Policy: A Taxonomy of Avoision and the EU AI Act. In: arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2506.01931.
  93. YIGITCANLAR, T., DEGIRMENCI, K. & INKINEN, T. (2024): Drivers behind the public perception of artificial intelligence: insights from major Australian cities. In: AI & SOCIETY, 39(3), pp. 833–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01566-0.
  94. ZHAN, H. & WAN, D. (2024): Ethical considerations of the trolley problem in autonomous driving: A philosophical and technological analysis. In: World Electric Vehicle Journal, 15(9), 404, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15090404.