An Ethical Review of Human Existence in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Automation, Autonomous Weapons, and the Threat of Superintelligence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62671/gaset.v2i1.300Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Automation, Human Existence, Human-Centered Ethical Governance, SuperintelligenceAbstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly evolved into one of the most influential technologies of the twenty-first century, transforming human activities across economic, social, political, and security domains while simultaneously raising increasingly complex ethical concerns regarding human existence. This study aims to critically examine the ethical implications of AI by focusing on three interconnected domains automation, autonomous weapons, and superintelligence and to identify ethical principles capable of supporting responsible AI governance. A Critical Literature Review (CLR) was employed to synthesize peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, and internationally recognized policy documents retrieved from major academic databases and global organizations, including Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, ACM Digital Library, UNESCO, OECD, the European Commission, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The findings reveal that although AI substantially enhances productivity, innovation, and decision-making capabilities, it also introduces significant ethical challenges, including workforce transformation, accountability gaps in autonomous military operations, diminished human autonomy in AI-assisted decision-making, and long-term existential risks associated with highly autonomous intelligent systems. The synthesis further demonstrates that current ethical approaches remain fragmented because they frequently address these issues independently rather than as interconnected dimensions of AI development. This study concludes that a Human-Centered Ethical Governance Framework, grounded in the principles of human dignity, human autonomy, transparency, accountability, fairness, and meaningful human oversight, provides a more comprehensive approach for governing AI technologies and ensuring that future AI development remains aligned with fundamental human values while supporting sustainable coexistence between humanity and intelligent machines.
References
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188–2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716
Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
European Commission. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Publications Office of the European Union.
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
Future of Life Institute. (2017). Autonomous weapons: An open letter from AI and robotics researchers. https://futureoflife.org/open-letter-autonomous-weapons/
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Hendrycks, D., Mazeika, M., & Woodside, T. (2023). Natural selection favors AIs over humans (arXiv:2303.16200). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16200
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2021). Autonomous weapon systems: Technical, military, legal and humanitarian aspects. International Committee of the Red Cross.
International Labour Organization. (2023). Generative AI and jobs: A global analysis of potential effects on job quantity and quality. International Labour Organization.
M. R. Raditya and E. Nurmiati, "Tata Kelola Keamanan Informasi dan Kepatuhan Etika melalui Prosedur Audit Trail,"
Journal of Informatics and Business, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 497–504, 2026.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). U.S. Department of Commerce.
OECD. (2024). OECD AI principles. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Viking.
Sharkey, A. (2019). Autonomous weapons systems, killer robots and human dignity. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9494-0
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. (2025). AI Index report 2025. Stanford University.
Stix, C. (2021). Actionable principles for artificial intelligence policy: Three pathways. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(5), Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00316-7
Subiyakto, A., Yudhanta, S., Nurmiati, E., et al. Reviewing Factors of Audience Engagement in Live Streaming. Jurnal CoreIT, Vol. 11 No. 1, 2025. DOI: 10.24014/coreit.v11i1.36039.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Veale, M., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2021). Demystifying the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.9785/cri-2021-220402
World Economic Forum. (2024). The future of jobs report 2024. World Economic Forum.
