Ethics in Brief: From Fearing the Press to Fearing AI—Adaptation Over Resistance
By Khodadad (Ko) Sharif
According to Aristotle, something is “artificial” if it has no innate principle of its own production and instead relies on an external maker to exist (Phys. 2.1). Aristotle differentiates what “have in themselves a principle of motion and rest” from “artificial;” only because “the whole principle of motion seems to be from an external agent” (Id)—the human factor. The idea which brought earth metals, gold, silver, lithium, aluminum, copper, plastic, tin, and more together to give a rectangular object the ability to light up and communicate is that “external agent.” Your iPhone has always existed, just not in its current form. The ‘artificial’ elements that make it work today have always been around; even when we lived in caves. Human knowledge has no inherent negative or positive connotation; it is simply the growth and technological development that results from it. Artificial intelligence, like other technological developments, does not develop artificially; it is shaped by the “external agent”—the human mind. The design, impact, and use of what we create profoundly shape human choices.
The introduction of the printing press demonstrates this historical pattern. One of the central critics of the printing press was Filippo de Strata. He urged authorities to ban the machine. He expressed concerns about the invention, such as printers producing inaccurate editions of classical texts, competition encouraging speed over quality, printing threatening manuscript writing, and what is ethical to publish to the public (The War Against Printing by Alexander Lee, August 1, 2022). “Filippo argued, you could hardly open a volume without it being festooned with errors. This clearly did immense damage both to classical scholarship and to education.” (Id). While the printing press differs greatly from modern AI systems, the controversy surrounding its emergence closely mirrors today’s debates.
No doubt, artificial intelligence — the artificial creation and control of human ideas — has been documented to hallucinate or generate false information, and so does the human mind. Presenting imaginary ideas, on the one hand, can be an Oscar-winning sci-fi movie, and on the other hand, it can run afoul of the rules of ethics. “In April [2026] the Alabama Supreme Court sanctioned an attorney who had filed legal briefs laden with inaccurate citations generated by AI, including numerous references to cases that did not exist. After being informed he had cited a made-up precedent in one filing, the lawyer promised it wouldn’t happen again—but then cited nonexistent cases at the end of the very next sentence, as a justice noted in a concurring opinion.” (Scientific American by Steven Melendez, May 22, 2026).
The human mind is capable of misinterpreting the law or taking it out of context—we call that incompetence. AI misinterprets the law or hallucinates cases because of its ability to manipulate and, more importantly, its inability to respect boundaries. We do not assign intent because we have shifted that responsibility. The responsibility that the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) is tasked with, is not to prohibit, but to guide lawyers to use AI as a tool to assist, doing so while shifting the responsibility of competence to the user—requiring the lawyer to protect client information, confirm the validity of the AI-generated research, and hold to their duty of candor to the tribunal (The proposed comment to Rule 3.3). The proposed recommendation includes “the obligation to verify the accuracy and existence of cited authorities, including ensuring no cited authority is fabricated, misstated, or taken out of context, before submission to a tribunal, including any cited authorities generated or assisted by artificial intelligence or other technological tools.” Rather than prohibiting use, instead “when using technology, including artificial intelligence, a lawyer must independently review, verify, and exercise professional judgment regarding any output generated by the technology” by AI. (The proposed comment to Rule 1.1).
It is important to recognize that the term ‘artificial’ is not created in a vacuum and carries neither a negative nor a positive meaning; it is not inherently bad, but rather a powerful tool whose impact depends on how we choose to regulate its use. Similarly, while the printing press contributed to the spread of controversial ideas and misinformation, these consequences did not make the technology itself inherently bad. Instead, this issue highlighted the need for a new regulatory framework and responsible use. Since we can control the industries that use these technologies, we have the responsibility to determine how artificial intelligence will be integrated into our lives. Rather than responding to AI through fear and resistance, we should focus on adapting to its challenges. Artificial Intelligence is our responsibility; we must remain vigilant and committed to educating it to align with our ethical boundaries—adapting over resistance.
