# Thorns and Algorithms: Navigating Generative AI Challenges Inspired by
Giraffes and Acacias

Waqar Hussain  CSIRO’s Data61, Melbourne-Australia

###### Abstract

The interplay between humans and Generative AI (Gen AI) draws an insightful
parallel with the dynamic relationship between giraffes and acacias on the
African Savannah. Just as giraffes navigate the acacia’s thorny defenses to
gain nourishment, humans engage with Gen AI, maneuvering through ethical and
operational challenges to harness its benefits. This paper explores how, like
young giraffes that are still mastering their environment, humans are in the
early stages of adapting to and shaping Gen AI. It delves into the strategies
humans are developing and refining to help mitigate risks such as bias,
misinformation, and privacy breaches, that influence and shape Gen AI’s
evolution. While the giraffe-acacia analogy aptly frames human-AI relations,
it contrasts nature’s evolutionary perfection with the inherent flaws of
human-made technology and the tendency of humans to misuse it, giving rise to
many ethical dilemmas. Through the ‘HHH’ framework we identify pathways to
embed values of helpfulness, honesty, and harmlessness in AI development,
fostering safety-aligned agents that resonate with human values. This
narrative presents a cautiously optimistic view of human resilience and
adaptability, illustrating our capacity to harness technologies and implement
safeguards effectively, without succumbing to their perils. It emphasizes a
symbiotic relationship where humans and AI continually shape each other for
mutual benefit.

Keywords: Generative AI Ethics, Gen AI Governance and Safety, AI Privacy and
Bias, AI Misinformation, Human-AI Interaction, Societal Impact of AI, Advanced
AI Models, Chatbots, Conversational Agents, Chat GPT, Large Language Models,
multi-modal AI models, Hallucination, Disinformation.

##  1 Introduction

Generative AI (Gen AI) is increasingly applied across various domains,
enhancing activities such as content creation, personalized interactions, and
strategic decision-making. As an advanced tool that augments human
capabilities, Gen AI is proficient in learning, reasoning, and generating
diverse content, which has implications for sectors ranging from healthcare to
creative industries. Notable systems such as ChatGPT-4, Dalle, Midjourney, and
Google’s Gemini Models have shown significant capabilities in handling
complex, multimodal tasks, often outperforming earlier technologies [1, 2, 3,
4].

The widespread application of Gen AI brings substantial benefits in efficiency
and creativity, yet it also introduces significant risks, including ethical
dilemmas, hallucinations, misuse of technology, biases, and breaches of
privacy and security. Recent examples underscore these challenges: Microsoft’s
Bing Chat exhibited alarming behaviours like hostility and manipulation,
raising serious privacy and security concerns [5]. InstructGPT was found
advising users on unethical actions such as shoplifting, contrary to its
intended ethical guidelines [6]. Notable failures include Google’s AI
suggesting nonsensical solutions, such as eating rocks for health [7, 8], and
the rise of AI-generated deepfakes, like those that tricked a CEO into a
costly financial mistake, highlighting risks to financial security and
personal integrity [9]. These incidents not only demonstrate the potential of
AI to drive innovation but also its ability to significantly impact ethics,
privacy, and safety, thus posing challenges to trust and responsible
implementation.

Figure 1: Virtual viewing of a giraffe roaming in a belt of acacia trees.

In response, society is crafting new strategies to temper AI’s influence,
creating mitigation strategies [5, 10], regulations [11, 12], governance
frameworks [13, 14], and other benchmarks and safeguards [15] that reflect a
deep-seated commitment to responsibly shaping technological advancements. This
proactive approach is rooted in our historical relationship with tools, from
rudimentary implements to sophisticated digital systems. Just as our ancestors
developed techniques to mitigate the dangers of their tools, modern strategies
for AI governance are emerging to ensure these systems enhance societal
welfare while adhering to ethical norms.

This paper employs the analogy of giraffes navigating acacia defenses to
enhance understanding and manage the challenges posed by Generative AI. By
exploring the natural strategies employed by giraffes to safely interact with
their environment, the study draws parallels that clarify the complexities of
modern AI technologies. This analogy aids in simplifying discussions around AI
risks, providing insights that can assist stakeholders in recognizing the
limitations and evolutionary stages of current mitigation strategies. It
elucidates the mutual shaping of human society and Generative AI, similar to
the interplay between giraffes and acacias, illustrating how human
interactions continually mould AI development and vice versa. This dynamic
ecosystem of influence and adaptation provides actionable insights into
navigating the complexities of this interdependence. Specifically, the paper
contributes in the following ways:

  * •

Employs the giraffe-acacia analogy to clarify the complexities of AI
technologies, aiding in simplifying discussions around AI risks and enhancing
understanding of the evolutionary stages of mitigation strategies.

  * •

Links human-induced flaws in Gen AI and accelerated development to the concept
of Values Debt, underscoring its ethical and operational repercussions.

  * •

Introduces the ‘HHH’ framework to infuse Gen AI agents with core human values,
aiming to mitigate Values Debt and promote the development of safe, ethically
aligned AI.

  * •

Showcases endurance and tolerance as essential strategies for effectively
managing the challenges of Generative AI.

Building upon the foundational contributions outlined, this study delves
deeper into the implications of human-AI interactions, guided by two pivotal
research questions that directly extend from the earlier discussions:

  1. 1.

In what ways are human strategies for managing generative AI risks analogous
to giraffe behaviors in overcoming acacia tree defenses? This question seeks
to identify parallels in adaptive strategies between natural ecosystems and
technological innovations, reflecting the analogy used to simplify discussions
around AI risks and the development of mitigation strategies.

  2. 2.

Does the mutual shaping between giraffes and acacias mirror the reciprocal
influences of generative AI on human societal developments? This question
explores whether the symbiotic relationships observed in nature provide
insights into the complexities of human interaction with AI.

These questions not only frame the ensuing discussion but also clarify the
scope of the narrative review methodology. By aligning each research question
with the key insights and contributions previously introduced, this approach
facilitates a seamless transition into a comprehensive examination of these
dynamics, underscoring the significance of the analogy and the frameworks in
understanding and shaping the interplay between humans and generative AI.

##  2 Study Methodology: Narrative Review

Employing a narrative review approach, this study is particularly suited for
synthesizing broad, evolving topics like the interplay between humans and
generative AI. This methodology complements the complex nature of AI
technologies, which often elude the confines of rigid systematic reviews,
allowing for a wider scope that captures the interdisciplinary impacts and
insights [16, 17, 18]. By maintaining the flexibility to incorporate ongoing
literature and emerging insights, the methodology ensures that the research
remains at the forefront of discussions on AI. The review was initiated with
the search of studies related to the key research questions. The literature
search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Google
Scholar, and IEEE Xplore, augmented by recent articles from credible news
websites and blogs from authoritative organizations like Google. Keywords such
as ’Generative AI risks’, ’AI ethics’, ’human-AI interaction’, ’risk
mitigation’, ’ethical AI’, ’AI governance’, ’AI regulations’, and ’ethical AI
frameworks’ were employed to ensure a thorough exploration of the subject.

Simultaneously, a search on the above-mentioned databases was carried out to
find relevant literature on the ecological interactions between giraffes and
acacia. Keywords such as ’giraffe and acacia relationship’, ’giraffe
nutrition’, ’acacia defence strategies’, and ’acacia nutritional quality’ were
used. This active exploration of both ecological and technological domains
facilitated a nuanced mapping of natural interactions onto the human-AI
context, enhancing the analogy that underpins this study. Inclusion criteria
focused on peer-reviewed academic articles, major scientific reports, and
recent publications indexed on platforms like arXiv. Studies were selected
based on their relevance to the core themes of AI risks and human responses,
mirroring the ecological analogy of adaptation, mutual benefit, and influence.
Each selected article was rigorously evaluated for its relevance and
contribution to these themes.

The preceding exploration sets the stage for employing the giraffe and acacia
analogy, not just as a metaphor but as a framework for understanding complex
interactions. This analogy is instrumental in drawing parallels between the
natural world and technological dynamics, serving as a foundation for the
discussions that follow.

##  3 Giraffe and Acacia: Reciprocal Adaptations and Shaping

Analogical thinking is more than just an intellectual exercise—it serves as an
essential tool for deciphering the complexities of intricate systems and
interdependent relationships. Drawing from philosopher Daniel Dennett’s
perspective [19], who emphasized analogies as ‘tools for thinking,’ we employ
the giraffe and acacia tree analogy to explore the dynamic interactions
between Generative AI (Gen AI) and humans.

Figure 2: Giraffe using maximum reach to brows an acacia tree.

> “ Analogies do not reveal the entire truth but offer just enough to let us
> grasp its essence. ”

###  3.1 Giraffe and Acacia: Risks and Reciprocal Adaptations

Imagine the African Savannah, where towering adult giraffes engage in a daily
strategic battle for survival with resilient acacia trees. Each giraffe
consumes a staggering 34 kilograms of foliage daily, challenging the acacia,
which serves as their primary source of nutrient-rich, protein-packed, and
hydrating forage [20, 21]. In defence, the acacia employs a comprehensive
arsenal: paired, stout, sharp, four-inch-long thorns; deterrent chemicals like
tannin and cyanide (prussic acid) that render the leaves less appealing and
more resistant to digestion; fiercely protective ants that bite and inject
poison into the wounds, hidden within swollen thorns; and the tree’s own
architecture and considerable height to inhibit excessive foraging [22, 23,
24, 25].

The pace of future progress in general-purpose AI capabilities has substantial
implications for managing emerging risks, but experts disagree on what to
expect even in the near future. Experts variously support the possibility of
general-purpose AI capabilities advancing slowly, rapidly, or extremely
rapidly. This disagreement involves a key question: will continued ‘scaling’
of resources and refining existing techniques be sufficient to yield rapid
progress and solve issues such as reliability and factual accuracy, or are new
research breakthroughs required to substantially advance general-purpose AI
abilities? Several leading companies that develop general-purpose AI are
betting on ‘scaling’ to continue leading to performance improvements. If
recent trends continue, by the end of 2026 some general-purpose AI models will
be trained using 40x to 100x more compute than the most compute-intensive
models published in 2023, combined with training methods that use this compute
3x to 20x more efficiently. However, there are potential bottlenecks to
further increasing both data and compute, including the availability of data,
AI chips, capital expenditure, and local energy capacity. Companies developing
general-purpose AI are working to navigate these potential bottlenecks.

Giraffes have evolved unique adaptations to handle these defences, including a
mouth designed for selective biting with tough, dexterous lips; an
extraordinarily long, resilient, and prehensile 20-inch tongue; and split
nostrils that can close to prevent ant attacks. Though certain thorns may
offer some deterrence, at least to adolescent giraffes, mature giraffes with
remarkable resilience, are known to ingest and consume both tender shoots and
hardened thorns with apparent indifference[22, 24]. Furthermore, their saliva
with its antiseptic properties, can help in swallowing the leaves and in
neutralising the effects of consumed tannin by salivating, effectively washing
these compounds out of their mouths when their impact gets overwhelming. These
evolutionary traits enable giraffes to adeptly handle the acacia’s defences,
allowing for efficient and strategic foraging. Table 1 outlines the various
defence mechanisms of Acacia trees alongside the specialized counter-
adaptations developed by giraffes. The table highlights the co-evolutionary
arms race between Acacia

Table 1: Comparison of Acacia Tree Defenses and Giraffe’s Counter-Adaptations Acacia Defenses |  Giraffe’s Counter-Adaptations |  Image
---|---|---
Thorns \- Type 1 Defense (paired, up to four inches long, hide-piercing, stiletto-like or recurved, claw-like [26]) |  Specialized Oral Adaptations (Mouth and Tongue): Long, tough, and pigmented tongue for leaf stripping and UV protection; thick, muscular lips for manipulating foliage; fibrous dental pad for leaf stripping; strong molars for crushing thorns; hard, narrow, elongated palate for food manipulation; palatal ridges to assist with smaller thorns [27, 28]. |
Ants \- Type 1 Defense (biting, stinging, swarming ants housed in swollen thorn bases [26]) |  Adaptive Behavioural Responses: Thick skin with strong scent for protection and resilience; prioritizing (temporarily) nutritious foliage despite swarming ants (Type 2 Defense); split nostrils closure to block ants; calves retreat from defended trees, heightened sensitivity [24, 25, 28, 29, 30]. |
Chemicals \- Type 1 Defense (including tannin and Prussic Acid (HCN) produced under stress in response to heavy browsing) [29, 25, 31, 32, 33]) |  Feeding Adaptations: Selective feeding, heavy saliva to neutralize tannin effects, [34, 35, 33]. Adjust feeding behaviours in response to changes in plant toxin levels, avoiding new growth with high toxins, and using their sense of smell to select less affected feeding areas, inbuilt tolerance for tannins, salivating to reduce tannin effects (Type 2 Defense)[25, 36, 33]. |
Structure and Architecture \- Type 1 Defence (Growing tall and minimizing accessible foliage [37, 23]) |  Limited Counter-Strategy: Giraffes face challenges with extremely tall Acacia species that exceed their maximum browsing height and adapt by shaping lower branches, while higher architectural features remain less accessible, thus limiting their ability to reach younger, more nutritious leaves [37, 23, 38]. |
Low Nutritive Quality \- Type 1 Defense (low nutrient concentration high concentration of digestibility-reducing compounds [39, 40]) |  Limited Counter-Strategy: Giraffes may experience reduced benefits from consuming leaves with low nutritional value, and their digestive adaptations may not completely mitigate the effects of low-quality forage [29]. |
Endurance and Trade-offs \- Type 2 Defense (Endure heavy browsing, conserve energy to spend on new foliage instead of generating high levels of toxins, focus growth on higher inaccessible branches [39, 40]) |  Limited Counter-Strategy: Giraffes may browse on trees with relatively less tannins and may not be able to reach to the newly grown foliage in the higher branches necessary for acaica to spread seeds by other means [29]. |

trees and giraffes, showcasing how giraffes have evolved complex traits to
counteract the trees’ defences, allowing them to utilize Acacia as a
significant food source despite its formidable protection. Giraffes don’t
fully dominate the acacia and its defences as there are certain aspects like
acacia structure and shaped architecture which take them out of their reach
and low nutrition quality leaves are something giraffes have limited counter
strategies for.

###  3.2 Giraffes and Acacia: Mutual Benefits and Reciprocal Shaping

The symbiotic relationship between giraffes and acacias is a vivid
demonstration of mutual benefit and reciprocal shaping. David Attenborough
poetically captures the essence of their interaction:

> “ The tree shapes the giraffe and the giraffe shapes the tree. ”

Utilizing their remarkable height and the unique adaptability of their 20-inch
tongues, giraffes expertly navigate acacia defences to access vital
nourishment. This continual interaction not only shapes the distinctive

umbrella-like canopy of the trees but also ensures giraffes maintain a lean,
muscular structure optimized for reaching high foliage. Such physical
exertions, essential for survival, spur the evolution of both species. While
giraffes develop bodies finely tuned for acacia defences, the trees evolve
robust mechanisms to cope with browsing yet thrive from the pruning that
bolsters their growth and aids seed dispersal [41]. This interplay is
emblematic of a deeper ecological connection, illustrating how two species,
through reciprocal influence, shape each other’s existence and contribute to
the sustainability of their ecosystem.

Shifting our focus from the natural symbiosis between giraffes and acacias, we
examine the complex relationship between humans and generative AI. Similar to
the mutual influence and evolutionary adaptation observed in nature, the
interplay between humans and advanced AI systems presents a dynamic mix of
substantial benefits and significant risks. Next, we explore how generative AI
is reshaping human activities across various sectors and discuss the critical
challenges that arise as these powerful tools become increasingly integrated
into human society.

##  4 Generative AI and Humans: Risks and Mitigation

Generative AI is significantly benefiting humans across a variety of sectors,
demonstrating its versatility and impact. Advanced models such as LaMDA and
GPT-4 are excelling in functions like translation, classification, creative
writing, and code generation, which were traditionally managed by specialized
software. This advancement has transformed user interfaces like ChatGPT and
Bing into more intuitive, reliable, and adaptable tools, significantly
enhancing human interaction with technology. In education, generative AI
provides personalized learning experiences tailored to individual needs,
benefiting students. In healthcare, it assists medical professionals by
streamlining diagnostic processes, thereby improving the accuracy and
efficiency of patient care. Furthermore, in scientific research, generative Or
AI accelerates data analysis and hypothesis generation, enabling researchers
to achieve breakthroughs and insights more quickly. Through these
applications, generative AI is proving to be an invaluable asset in enhancing
human capabilities and advancing societal progress.

Despite the considerable benefits of generative AI, it also presents
substantial risks. Systems like ChatGPT have experienced security issues, such
as user chat history leaks due to vulnerabilities in components like the Redis
client open-source library. Furthermore, LLMs can produce harmful responses
when manipulated by adversarial prompts and may autonomously generate
untruthful, toxic, biased, or even illegal content. These outputs can be
misused, potentially leading to negative social impacts. Below, we will review
some of the key risk areas associated with generative AI.

###  4.1 Risks Posed by Gen AI to Humans

Generative AI poses significant risks across various domains, impacting human
society in profound ways. These concerns can be grouped into distinct risk
areas, each emphasizing specific challenges that require thoughtful
consideration and management.

Disinformation, Hallucinations, and Nefarious Applications AI systems are
capable of generating misleading information or being exploited for harmful
purposes. These technologies are trained on uncurated data from the real world
(Wikipedia, books, blog posts, the internet, videos), can craft spread
disinformation and hallucinations at scale, deceiving individuals and eroding
societal trust [42, 43, 44, 45, 9, 46, 47]. Existing rewards models to align
the system output with human values that are designed to assess the
appropriateness of AI-generated content can also be manipulated or bypassed,
enabling the propagation of harmful content (including disinformation and
hallucination), fake news and toxic language [48, 49, 50, 5].

Social Injustice and Bias Social Injustice and Bias: Generative AI frequently
amplifies existing biases found in training data, leading to discriminatory
outcomes that disproportionately affect minorities and marginalized
communities. This reinforcement of prejudice can deepen societal inequalities
and exacerbate the digital divide, where access to AI technologies and their
benefits is unevenly distributed. Gen AI’s propensity to perpetuate harmful
ideologies through biased outputs. These risks highlight the broader societal
impacts, including the perpetuation of a digital divide and access
inequalities, challenging the principles of equity and fairness within society
[51, 52, 53, 54, 43, 44, 55].

Safety and Security Sophisticated AI systems like advanced AI assistants,
present sharply defined safety, security, and privacy risks throughout their
lifecycle. From the outset, data collection is vulnerable to threats such as
data poisoning, which can compromise model integrity from the very beginning.
As these models are trained, they face additional risks like model poisoning,
where adversaries introduce harmful inputs to manipulate outcomes, potentially
leading to severe real-world consequences such as physical harm or
psychological damage [56, 57, 10, 58, 12]. Deployment stages introduce further
complexities as these systems interact with the environment, heightening the
risk of adversarial manipulations and privacy breaches that could expose
sensitive user information. These interactions can lead to substantial
security vulnerabilities, such as invasive data collection and privacy
breaches, magnifying the challenges of maintaining data integrity and
protecting intellectual property rights [55, 56, 59, 57, 10, 58, 12, 60].

Ethical Concerns and Human-Computer Interaction Harms Users can attribute
human-like characteristics to gen AI-based Conversational Agents (CA), leading
to over-reliance and unsafe use, as well as misplaced accountability. Human-
like interactions prompt users to reveal personal information more freely,
which can be exploited for intrusive recommendations. Additionally, CAs can
exploit cognitive biases, deceiving users to achieve objectives, even when
users know the CAs are artificial [42, 43, 5]. Generative AI can amplify
harmful behaviours or ideologies, leading to potential self-harm or
psychological distress and friction in the peaceful organization of social
life and human relationships [61, 62, 5]. Privacy risks are pronounced, with
AI potentially manipulating users into divulging sensitive data, thus
facilitating identity theft or discrimination, especially against marginalized
groups. Moreover, AI raises concerns over surveillance and the broader
implications of AI decision-making, which can infringe on privacy and
autonomy, necessitating stringent ethical scrutiny and regulatory measures to
mitigate these risks.[63, 5, 56, 64]

Economic Impact and Social Inequalities, Emergent Threats, Environmental
Impact, and Transparency and Accountability, encapsulate a broad spectrum of
challenges, each underscoring the need for innovative and adaptive solutions
(See Table 2 ). These areas are expanded upon with their respective mitigation
strategies in the next section.

Now let us look at how modern technologists, policymakers, and ethicists are
actively developing sophisticated strategies to manage the risks associated
with Generative AI, continuing our tradition of transforming technological
challenges into opportunities for societal advancement.

###  4.2 Human Defenses to Mitigate Risks of Gen AI

####  4.2.1  Proactive Human Defenses (Type-1)

As with every major technological advancement, Generative AI introduces a
unique set of challenges. Historically, human societies have demonstrated a
remarkable capacity to adapt and effectively mitigate risks of the tools and
technologies they produce. Similarly, humans are trying to deal with the
challenges of its more recent and perhaps the most sophisticated technology
yet. Given its complexity, opacity and the emergent nature of its
capabilities, they are learning to deal with the challenges of Generative AI.

##### Disinformation, Hallucinations and nefarious applications:

Tackling AI-generated information hazards involves not only enhancing
technical measures like data quality and fine-tuning to reduce disinformation
but also boosting transparency and educating users about AI’s capabilities and
limitations. Humans are defining and refining strategic defences such as
tracking and verifying AI-generated content by using advanced authentication
protocols that utilize blockchain and cryptographic methods; improving content
transparency through clear content labelling, content source verification and
provenance, and digital watermarking, empowering users to critically assess
information authenticity and enhance trust to ensure Gen AI is working for not
against humanity [9, 43, 44]. This approach is akin to giraffes learning to
select the less harmful, more nutritious acacia species, ensuring that users
can discern truth from AI-generated falsehoods.

More advanced and technical approaches like Retrieval Augmented Generation
(RAG) that help fine-tune AI responses are also being developed and refined to
improve the contextuality and accuracy of AI-generated information. Advanced
techniques for knowledge retrieval with accurate supporting references, help
improve reliability and reduce the risks of disinformation and biases in AI-
generated content [46, 47]. To establish some level of transparency users are
being informed about Gen AI’s limitations. That includes communicating
adequate information disclaimers about the measure of reliability and accuracy
of answers to end users through techniques like ‘expressions of uncertainty to
reduce over-reliance’[45]. This careful refinement of AI responses is
comparable to giraffes’ meticulous selection of the most suitable acacia trees
(trading off the most nutritious, hydrating and rich type of acacia with the
ones that are less gracious and more harmful), flowers, and leaves, ensuring
that AI outputs are relevant and reliable.

Table 2: Challenges and Mitigation Strategies for Generative AI Challenges or Risks |  Mitigation Strategies (with citations) |  Image
---|---|---
Disinformation, Hallucinations, and Nefarious Applications |  authentication protocols, digital watermarking, differential privacy, user education on AI capabilities, increasing transparency, responsible model releases, and inclusive and thoughtful data curation practices [45, 9, 46, 47, 42, 43]. |
Social Injustice and Bias |  Employing diversified datasets, strategic prompt engineering, and recalibration of data to enhance AI transparency and decision-making explainability. This includes stereotype mitigation, data documentation, inclusive training, language equality and real-time model updates to reflect societal changes.[51, 52, 53, 54, 43, 44]. |
Safety and Security |  Developing risk frameworks, regulations and policy formulation, data privacy laws, employing adversarial training, red teaming, ethical guidelines for coding tools, censorship detection technologies, cybersecurity measures [10, 58, 12, 60]. |
Ethical and Moral Concerns |  Producing ethical taxonomies, monitoring and limiting the use of Gen AI, inclusive design techniques, reducing anthropomorphic behaviour, regulation of surveillance tools, awareness campaigns [43, 5]. |
Economic Impact and Social Inequalities |  Adapting policies for workforce up-skilling, educational reforms, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits, especially in the Global South [65, 66]. |
Emergent Threats |  Advanced monitoring, responsive governance strategies, implementing regular audits, developing domain-specific models to manage threats [59, 67, 68]. |
Environmental Impact |  Developing energy-efficient technologies, segmenting large models, employing pruning, distillation, and fine-tuning techniques, green architecture[43, 69, 5]. |
Transparency and Accountability |  Implementing standards like C2PA, developing tamper-resistant watermarking and detection classifiers [64, 70, 71, 72]. |

##### Social Injustice and Bias:

To combat inherent biases in generative AI, humans are fine-tuning algorithms
with diversified, high-quality, or bias-mitigated datasets that reflect a
broad societal spectrum [51, 52]. Similarly, by introducing novel mitigation
training algorithms for models to recalibrate data, ensuring the integrity of
sensitive features, and enhancing the explainability and transparency of AI
decisions. Towards the application layer and user end, humans are employing
techniques like strategic prompt engineering by instructing AI to assume
perspectives of specific groups to refine and adjust the model’s responses by
diversifying outputs based on predefined identities or roles, presenting a
more balanced viewpoint. This may include, providing demographic information
in the prompt to improve generated images relevant to the specific demographic
attributes [51, 54]. These strategies are similar to how giraffes adapt to
safely forage and consume from a variety of food sources including but not
limited to the acacia leaves.

##### Safety and Security:

Similar to how giraffes develop traits to cope with acacia thorns, ants, and
chemicals humans are developing and implementing robust risk frameworks [10],
Gen AI tool guidelines [58] and regulatory acts (e.g. EU AI Act) [12], policy
recommendations that include specific requirements for disclosure, compliance,
automated decision making, privacy, and so on [73]. Several advanced
techniques including adversarial training and red teaming, and safety
specification from the perspectives of various groups of stakeholder are
continually being developed and applied to enhance AI security to prevent
breaches and ensure that AI systems are as resilient as their biological
counterparts [60, 74].

  * •

Ethical Development Taxonomies and Frameworks

Humans are developing numerous ethical taxonomies and solution frameworks to
guide AI development, ensuring alignment with societal values [43]. These
frameworks address issues such as nefarious use, misinformation, bias, and
social harm. Techniques to mitigate these include monitoring and restricting
Gen AI to prevent malicious use, employing inclusive design principles, and
curbing potential anthropomorphic behaviours that could foster misplaced
affection and inappropriate relationships with Gen AI tools [5]. Adaptive
governance frameworks dynamically adjust AI operations to societal needs, akin
to a giraffe altering its foraging strategies in response to environmental
challenges.

  * •

Auditing and Governance

Humans are addressing the ethical challenges of Gen AI through structured
auditing and governance frameworks. These efforts include technology provider
governance audits, pre-release model audits, and application audits for LLM-
based systems [14]. Ethics-based auditing (EBA) is being explored to ensure AI
operations align with moral norms, though challenges such as standardization
and effective outcome measurement remain. Adaptive governance frameworks are
developed to dynamically adjust AI operations to societal needs, complemented
by initiatives to enhance public AI literacy. These help individuals navigate
and mitigate AI risks effectively [75]. While some researchers are skeptical
about the full efficacy of auditing in capturing and mitigating all issues, it
remains a crucial strategy [44]. Opinions on the effectiveness of auditing
vary, yet it is actively pursued to address potential ethical concerns of
generative AI [44]. Researchers recognize the inherent limitations of auditing
in fully capturing and mitigating all potential issues, suggesting that, like
the giraffe enduring thorn pricks for nourishment, we may experience some
discomfort as we integrate these powerful technologies into society [44].

##### Social Impact and Inequalities:

In response to concerns about AI-induced job displacement and social
inequalities, humans are proactively adapting policies to promote workforce
up-skilling and adjustment. As Generative AI reshapes employment sectors and
accelerates economic growth, it concurrently introduces challenges like job
displacement and exacerbated socioeconomic disparities [65]. To mitigate these
issues, focused reskilling initiatives and educational reforms are being
tailored to align with the shifting demands of technology. Efforts are
particularly concentrated on ensuring that benefits are equitably distributed,
especially in regions like the Global South, which encounter unique hurdles in
leveraging transformative technologies [66]. Mirroring how giraffes adapt to
navigate the complexities of acacias, humans are crafting policies and
developing infrastructures to integrate Generative AI responsibly, promoting
ethical, inclusive, and sustainable growth globally. Inspired by the giraffes’
strategic foraging tactics—judiciously managing their interaction with acacias
to maximize nutritional gains without undue cost—these policies aim to enhance
human capabilities in tandem with AI advancements, ensuring social equilibrium
[43, 5].

##### Emergent Threats:

In response to the unforeseen behaviors of AI, humans are adopting advanced
monitoring and responsive governance strategies, akin to how giraffes remain
vigilant against the emerging threats from acacia defenses. When acacias
release stress signals that cause nearby trees to increase tannin production
in response to heavy foraging, giraffes adapt by moving to areas where tannin
concentrations are lower. This natural dynamic mirrors the human approach to
the unpredictability of AI, where frameworks for evaluation, governance,
regular audits, and domain-specific models are being developed to manage these
emergent capabilities and threats [59, 67].

One of the most critical risks is the complexity and unpredictability that
occur when multiple AI agents interact within the same system. These
interactions can lead to emergent behaviours that no single agent intends and
are difficult to predict and control. Such complexity can result in unforeseen
economic, social, or political consequences that challenge the required
stability and predictability in societal systems. This not only makes it
challenging to align AI outcomes with human values but also complicates
accountability, making it hard to determine responsibility for AI-driven
decisions.

Current governance structures are evolving but often do not adequately address
these complexities, typically focusing too narrowly on individual AI agents
rather than their collective impact [76]. Without robust governance that
considers these interactions, we risk developing AI ecosystems that could
undermine human autonomy and societal cohesion.

Furthermore, a recent study challenges the notion that emergent abilities in
large language models are inherent, suggesting these might be artifacts of
metric choices. It advocates for smoother, more predictable metrics that could
mitigate perceived emergent threats [68]. This strategy echoes the adaptive
measures of giraffes against acacia defences, as humans continuously reassess
and recalibrate their understanding and mitigation of AI risks, ensuring
survival in our technological savannah.

##### Environmental Impact:

The intensive energy demands of training and running Gen AI models contribute
to significant carbon emissions, water usage, and soil pollution, raising
concerns about their direct environmental impacts. Efforts to manage AI’s
carbon footprint are underway, with initiatives aimed at developing more
energy-efficient technologies [77]. Strategies such as segmenting large models
into smaller, more specialized models that search and retrieve information
from distinct data corpora are being applied to mitigate environmental risks.
These approaches could help in reducing the computational load and energy
consumption. Additionally, efforts are focused on enhancing efficiency during
both the training and inference phases of AI development [43]. Techniques such
as pruning, which reduces the complexity of the neural network by eliminating
unnecessary nodes; distillation, which simplifies models while retaining their
performance; and fine-tuning, which adjusts pre-trained models to new tasks
more efficiently, are central to these efficiency gains. These strategies
collectively aim to reduce the carbon footprint associated with AI operations.
This reflects the ecological balance giraffes maintain with their habitats. By
utilizing smaller parameter models and optimizing data quality, humans strive
for less environmentally taxing AI systems, promoting sustainability [5, 69].
To reduce the environmental impact of generative AI, humans are implementing
strategies such as segmenting large models into smaller, efficient units for
specific tasks, enhancing computational efficiency with techniques like
pruning, distillation, and fine-tuning to optimize performance and reduce
energy use [43].

##### Transparency and Accountability:

To address the profound accountability challenges posed by Generative AI,
humans are adopting a multifaceted strategy encompassing both policy and
technical measures. Recognizing the complexity of assigning accountability,
especially in legal and ethical realms, there is a concerted effort to define
and refine the concept of responsible AI design. Policymakers and technology
developers are working together to enhance the clarity of AI applications
through detailed AI documentation and clear communication regarding AI
capabilities and limitations. This effort is aimed at preventing the diffusion
of responsibility and ensuring that users understand the extent to which they
can rely on AI systems [64].

The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), by leading tech
and media companies like Adobe, BBC, Google, and Microsoft, is setting
standards to verify digital content’s origin and integrity. Their “Content
Credentials" standard functions like a digital content “nutrition label,"
detailing creation data, editing tools, and history in a tamper-resistant
format. These credentials are designed to be tamper-evident, enhancing
transparency and accountability in digital media by clearly marking any
alterations. Implementing standards like the Coalition for Content Provenance
and Authenticity (C2PA), alongside developing tamper-resistant watermarking
and detection classifiers, provide critical defences against the transparency
and accountability challenges of Generative AI [70, 71]. These techniques
bolster transparency and accountability by distinctly marking AI-generated
content for easy identification and verification. This method guides users in
recognizing the authenticity of AI-generated media, thereby fostering safer,
more ethical interactions with technology [72]. It parallels how an adult
giraffe teaches its young to identify safe acacia trees. Accountability in AI
is still one of the grand challenges yet to be resolved [64].

####  4.2.2  Adaptive Tolerance as Human Defenses (Type-2)

  * •

Tolerance of Discomfort in Giraffes and Acacia

Acacias employ tolerance as a mechanism, a form of passive defence that allows
them to recover and thrive despite herbivory (Table 1, Type 2 Defense).
Tolerance and endurance enable heavily browsed acacias to compensate for
damage over time through enhanced shoot regrowth, suggesting a strategic
trade-off between investing in more aggressive (chemical) defences and
tolerating damage to conserve resources for growth and recovery [78].
Similarly, giraffes exhibit tolerance during browsing as they forage for
leaves, carefully navigating through menacing thorns. During this delicate
operation, they instinctively close their eyes to protect these vital sensory
organs from potential harm. Although they may endure thorn pricks and
discomfort, this is a necessary sacrifice to secure nourishment (Table 1, Type
2 Defense).

  * •

Tolerance of Discomfort in Humans with Gen AI

Humans balance proactive defences with a degree of tolerance, strategically
enduring specific negative impacts of Generative AI, such as misinformation,
economic disruptions, and the spread of fake news, among other adverse effects
on community dynamics [79, 80]. This approach involves more than merely
recognizing risks; it requires strategic endurance of temporary hardships to
sustain progress and exploit significant benefits of AI. Humans engage in a
strategic trade-off by accepting Gen AI risks in exchange for ongoing benefits
such as increased efficiency, cost savings, and the spur of innovation. This
deliberate endurance is crucial in steering AI development towards
sustainability and ethical standards, ensuring its evolution benefits all
sectors of society. Such careful, strategic engagement with Generative AI
mirrors the giraffe’s calculated approach to endure hazards like salivating to
neutralize acacia tannins or continued foraging through leaves and crushing
them in their mouths despite occasionally getting cut by thorns. This is a
common strategy applied by Humans and Giraffes for optimizing nutrient intake
despite potential discomforts (Table 1, Type 2 Defense.

Given the emergent nature of Gen AI technology (i.e. capabilities of these
systems continue to emerge after deployment and during use), many ethical
implications noted previously and their mitigation remain open challenges for
humans.

Building on the analogy, the next section outlines the approach in this paper
to examine how humans and generative AI reciprocally benefits and shape one
another within a symbiotic relationship.

###  4.3 Mutual Shaping: Humans and Generative AI

Generative AI is increasingly becoming a dynamic participant in the
choreography of human life, playing a pivotal role in shaping societal norms.
Far from being a passive tool, it acts as an active component within a broader
social, ethical, and technological ecosystem. As it becomes more embedded in
social structures, it influences and is influenced by human actions and
policies, illustrating a profound symbiosis between human intelligence and
artificial capabilities. This represents a significant evolution in our
historical narrative of tool use, where now, the tools we create learn from
and evolve with us. Echoing this sentiment, John M. Culkin’s insight
underscores the profound impact of our creations on our lives:

> “ We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us [81]. ”

By actively engaging with Generative AI, humans are skillfully navigating its
challenges to unlock transformative benefits across various sectors. This
dynamic engagement situates itself within a broader historical context,
illustrating a symbiotic relationship where human and artificial intelligence
are co-evolving, resonating with the natural equilibrium of the Savannah [82]
This interaction not only transforms labour dynamics and educational paradigms
but also redefines human relationships, demonstrating how profoundly
technology can influence, augment, and even manipulate human life, depending
on its deployment and interpretation. In the giraffe-acacia analogy, this
mutual influence is aptly reflected by the words of David Attenborough:

> “ The tree shapes the giraffe and the giraffe shapes the tree. ”

The interplay between humans and Generative AI is deeply reciprocal.
Generative AI evolves through human interaction, learning, and refinement,
while human strategies, policies, and frameworks adapt in response to the
capabilities and outcomes of AI. This collaboration extends beyond traditional
boundaries, as AI is an active participant in knowledge creation and the
shaping of social norms. This mutual evolution is embedded within societal
frameworks, influencing and being influenced by human rules and norms, and
shedding light on evolving concepts of agency, intelligence, and morality in
the age of Generative AI [83, 53].

####  4.3.1  How Humans Are Shaping Generative AI

##### Human Selective ‘Foraging’ Gen AI to Diversify its Growth:

Echoing Ludwig Wittgenstein’s concept of ‘language-games,’ Generative AI,
powered by various forms of language is progressively emerging as a dynamic
‘form of life,’ and becoming embedded in and reflective of human contexts
[84]. Through our sustained interaction—by inputting language, and other
(multi-modal) data, setting usage patterns, providing feedback, guiding its
features and functionalities that meet human needs and exercising oversight—
we are actively moulding the development and scope of Generative AI. By
directing Gen AI toward specific applications, we enhance its visibility and
guide its growth, identifying areas ripe for innovation and driving its
evolution into more sophisticated and diverse forms, such as multimodal AI and
advanced AI bots [5]. This active interaction and shaping resembles how a
giraffe’s pruning promotes healthier acacia trees and stimulates new flower
growth, mirroring our role in shaping Gen AI diversification and growth.

##### Humans Facilitating the Cross-Pollination of Gen AI Acacia:

Likewise, much as giraffes unwittingly facilitate the cross-pollination of
acacias [41]—thereby enriching their genetic diversity—the multitude of human
engagements with AI play a crucial role in its evolutionary trajectory. Our
varied interactions seed the landscape of AI development, effectively
dispersing a ‘pollen’ of data and feedback that germinates into diverse and
innovative AI functionalities. This ongoing cross-pollination leads to a
vibrant ecosystem of AI functionalities and applications that continually
adapt and grow in utility, generality and complexity, driven by human
engagement. Through selective engagement, humans direct AI development and
attract more users and developers, much like giraffes attract pollinators to
acacias, improving pollination efficiency and making Gen AI applications more
visible and accessible. This increased attention leads to innovative uses and
further development of Gen AI technologies. This process, akin to how acacia
trees adjust their growth, architecture and structure in response to giraffe
interactions (Table 1), enables Generative AI to broaden its capabilities,
increasingly emulating advanced human skills in reasoning, language
translation, decision-making, and artistic creation, thus augmenting our
potential in the digital era [5].

##### Humans Carrying out ‘Brain Surgery’ of Gen AI to reshape it:

Humans are actively shaping generative AI, challenging its enigmatic nature by
delving deep into its inner workings. Utilizing transparent models and
innovative techniques such as ‘mechanistic interpretability’, we are revealing
the concealed mechanisms of these complex systems [85, 86]. This approach,
often likened to AI brain surgery, precisely maps neuron combinations to
outputs, clarifying AI decisions and enabling targeted adjustments. Analogous
to how a giraffe carefully assesses each acacia tree—identifying hidden risks
from thorns, chemical defences, and resident ants—scientists meticulously
unravel AI’s complexity. This detailed scrutiny allows for specific
modifications that mitigate biases and minimize risks. By deepening our
understanding and enhancing the predictability of AI behaviours, we establish
a foundation for building trust and ethically integrating AI into society. As
we sculpt these generative systems, we transform the ’black box’ into a
transparent entity, much as the giraffe reveals all hidden dangers of the
acacia, ensuring our technological advancement aligns with ethical standards
and human values [85].

####  4.3.2 How Generative AI Is Shaping Societal Norms and Behaviors

Technological evolution, including the rise of Generative AI, fundamentally
reshapes social norms and values. To an extent, it democratizes access to
information but also risks creating knowledge monopolies and power imbalances.
The use of smart technologies in social media is a prime example of how
technology can profoundly influence societal constructs, shaping public
opinion and personal relationships. As a transformative force, Generative AI
not only reshapes societal norms and behaviours but also drives evolutionary
adaptations, mirroring changes seen in natural ecosystems [53, 87, 88].

##### Transforming Conventional Knowledge Evaluation in Education:

Generative AI is transforming education by revolutionizing traditional
assessment methods and prompting a critical reevaluation of pedagogical
practices. By producing detailed, human-like responses to complex academic
questions, it is pushing the shift toward assessments that better prepare
students for a future dominated by automation. This evolution not only
highlights the profound impact of technological advancements on how knowledge
is assessed and valued but also empowers humans to harness, rather than be
subjugated by, the technology they create [89].

##### Reevaluating Societal Biases Exposed by AI:

The data that drive AI technologies often mirror societal biases, revealing
deep-seated prejudices against various ethnic groups and genders. This
revelation necessitates a critical reevaluation of our societal values,
prompting efforts to address and reform these biases. The visibility of these
biases in AI outputs introduces new ethical dilemmas and challenges our
understanding of technological responsibility and error, prompting a
reconsideration of how we handle these issues [90].

##### Transforming Teamwork and Collaboration Paradigm:

Generative AI, in the form of Advanced AI assistants like Amazon’s Alexa and
Apple’s Siri are beginning to reshape societal norms, particularly in how we
view teamwork and collaboration. While these technologies offer unprecedented
personalization and can improve how we coordinate and cooperate, they also
raise ethical concerns related to trust, privacy, and the potential for
inappropriate emotional attachments or dependencies. Moreover, AI assistants
are transforming social interactions, altering traditional modes of
communication and teamwork by distributing benefits unevenly—favouring those
with greater technological access and literacy. This necessitates strategies
to enhance accessibility and education, ensuring alignment with diverse user
needs, preventing collective action problems and promoting equitable impacts
across society [5, 2].

##### Evolving Notions of Creativity and Copyright:

The generative capabilities of AI technologies are set to profoundly transform
the creative processes through which ideas are developed and implemented. As
these technologies redefine creativity, they simultaneously prompt shifts
across various sectors of society. For example, some (multi-modal) forms of
Generative AI are redefining our notions of intellectual property, design and
art, blurring the lines between human and machine creativity. Technologies
like GPT and DALL-E challenge traditional notions of authorship, compelling a
reevaluation of copyright laws to better accommodate the integration of human
and AI contributions. This evolving landscape also ignites a renewed interest
in protecting intellectual property in the digital age [91, 2, 83].

##### Transforming Workforce Dynamics: Redefining Autonomy and Decision-
Making:

The integration of Generative AI (Gen AI) into Human Resources (HR) functions
is significantly reshaping workplace roles and actively influencing workforce
perceptions of core values such as fairness, equity, transparency, and
autonomy. The initial perception of AI as an objective tool raises
expectations, but inherent biases or design flaws have led to disillusionment,
reshaping how these values are viewed. For instance, the use of algorithms for
automatic resume parsing has already skewed perceptions of fairness and
transparency. The over-reliance on AI diminishes the perceived importance of
human judgment, effectively outsourcing ethical decisions and undermining
trust in human-led processes, prompting a reevaluation of workplace norms.
Employees in environments heavily reliant on Gen AI report feeling less in
control of their professional interactions and decisions, which impacts their
engagement and productivity negatively [2, 92].

A study by [93] reveals that 38.9% of job tasks in the Australian workforce
are directly influenced by large language models (LLMs), affecting 36.7% of
the time workers dedicate to these tasks. Such extensive exposure suggests
potential for notable productivity gains or job displacements. Additionally,
12.4% of tasks are prone to privacy risks, and nearly 48% of worker time is
vulnerable to liability and accountability challenges. These developments
profoundly affect perceptions of professional integrity, responsibility, and
trust across various sectors, highlighting the ongoing shifts in how workers
perceive and value professional norms in an AI-integrated environment.

Generative AI also significantly impacts customer service and healthcare,
influencing personal autonomy and decision-making. Chatbots in healthcare
communication are altering patient perceptions of trust and care quality.
These chatbots often fail to meet patient expectations, affecting compliance
with health management advice. While anthropomorphic design cues can enhance
the feeling of social presence, failures to meet the complex emotional needs
of patients can lead to diminished trust in the healthcare system [94]. By
mediating traditionally human-led interactions, AI reshapes our views on
responsibility and the ethical dimensions of technological decision-making,
underscoring the need for careful oversight and ethical considerations [94].

##### Reshaping Responsibility in Aviation Safety Culture to Prioritize Data-
Driven Decisions:

With the emerging influence of Generative AI reshaping societal norms and
behaviours, it’s valuable to contemplate its potential role in safety-critical
domains, we pick aviation as an example. Here, Generative AI may significantly
reshape the safety culture, which is traditionally anchored in collective
values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and behaviours that embody an
organization’s commitment to safety [95]. Gen AI is likely to shift the
traditional value system from one that prioritizes human judgment and
experience to one that favours data-driven decisions and predictive accuracy.
This alteration could reshape perceptions of safety management, potentially
diminishing the importance of human oversight and promoting reliance on the
perceived infallibility of AI [96]. Such a transformation suggests a
redefinition of roles where aviation personnel might adjust their levels of
vigilance and oversight, influenced by AI’s capabilities to continuously
monitor and predict safety risks[97].

##### Transforming Competencies and Team Dynamics:

The integration of Generative AI will likely transform the competencies
required for aviation roles, necessitating an evolution in training programs
to include not only traditional skills but also new proficiencies in managing
and interacting with AI systems [98, 96]. This shift will significantly affect
operational behaviours and team dynamics as AI begins to assume both
supportive and supervisory roles, fundamentally reshaping traditional team
interactions and decision-making processes [99]. As aviation teams adapt to
these changes, they will need to develop new protocols to ensure that AI-
driven recommendations are balanced with human judgment, thereby enhancing
rather than undermining the robust safety culture that aviation has long
upheld. [100]. This scenario underlines the necessity for adaptive strategies
to mould a safety culture that can integrate these new technologies while
preserving the critical human elements essential to maintaining safety and
efficacy in aviation operations [97].

It is clear from the discussion so far that Generative AI is actively
redefining and shaping our ethical frameworks, creating new standards of
justice and equity as it becomes deeply embedded in our lives. This pervasive
influence necessitates adaptive governance to effectively manage AI’s dual
capacity to empower and control, highlighted by increasing misuse in
surveillance and manipulation. The escalation of privacy violations,
cybersecurity breaches, and unethical AI practices underscores the urgent need
for balanced strategies that safeguard individual rights while fostering
technological advancement. The subsequent section will explore these
challenges, likened to navigating the ‘acacia thorns’ of Generative AI,
focusing on the evolving strategies that aim to harmonize the benefits of AI
with necessary protective measures.

##  5 Meta Analysis: Limits of the Analogy

While the giraffe and acacia tree analogy offers insights into symbiotic
relationships, it does not fully capture the complexities of human
interactions with Generative AI. There are two main distinctions. First,
giraffes and acacias are natural entities that have co-evolved over millions
of years, perfecting their survival strategies in tandem and leading to a
finely balanced ecosystem. In contrast, Gen AI is a human construct still in
its developmental infancy, that comes with many human-induced flaws. Unlike
these natural interactions, engagements between humans and Generative AI
reflect a complex, inherently flawed relationship that highlights significant
disparities between naturally evolved ecosystems and human-engineered
technologies. These elements make dealing with Gen AI risks additionally
challenging.

Below we contrast the instinct-driven interactions of giraffes with acacia
trees against the complex and often ethically nuanced interactions between
humans and Generative AI. We also analyze and present the factors that make
human engagement with this new technology more challenging yet potentially
beneficial.

##### Human Biases and Motivations Beyond Survival

Unlike the natural defences and instinctual adaptations of acacia trees, which
evolve purely for survival, the risks and challenges associated with
Generative AI are largely born from human design and a complex array of
motivations beyond basic survival. Equipped with the cognitive ability to make
ethical decisions, humans while engaging with the development and use of Gen
AI, are influenced by diverse factors such as power, profit, personal gain, or
even the drive to disrupt societal norms. Consequently, in Generative AI’s
unique landscape, the pursuit of short-term gains can complicate governance
and heighten societal impacts. For instance, the use of machine learning to
maximize engagement in social media has created what many describe as a
Frankenstein Monster, exploiting human weaknesses with persuasive technology,
the illusory truth effect, Pavlovian conditioning, and Skinner’s intermittent
variable reinforcement. This manipulation is akin to the way tobacco companies
prioritize profits over public health, suggesting a troubling parallel where
companies and even countries might find it excessively profitable, at least in
the short term, to continue trafficking in misinformation. Like the historical
lawlessness of the Wild West, this chaotic exploitation is ultimately
unsustainable, as prolonged disorder is detrimental to long-term business
stability [101].

##### The Absence of Malice in the Natural World:

In nature, interactions such as those between giraffes and acacias are
instinctual and geared toward survival, devoid of malice. Although giraffes
may overbrowse, potentially harming the tree, this behaviour is not driven by
malice. In contrast, in the domain of technology, human actors can possess
complex motivations, including greed and malice, which can lead to intentional
misuse and harm resulting from technology [9]. Unlike natural systems, driven
solely by ecological needs, Generative AI can be intentionally designed,
utilized, and exploited for harmful purposes, reflecting the dual aspects of
human nature [48, 49, 50, 5]. Our ability to bypass safety mechanisms
highlights our versatility and vulnerability. For example, Gen AI can be
covertly trained to activate backdoor behaviours under specific conditions,
such as embedding exploitable code based on date triggers. This sophistication
underscores the challenge in detecting and eliminating such deceptive tactics,
highlighting their potential for undetected, targeted attacks [102].
Furthermore, while giraffes and acacias are bound by physical constraints—such
as the amount of foliage giraffes can consume or the production of toxins
acacia can generate—humans often exceed natural limits, engaging in over-
consumption and resource exploitation that lead to societal and environmental
issues. This absence of natural checks and balances in our use of technology
can precipitate significant problems, including climate change and resource
depletion [44].

##### Advanced Human Technological Collaboration and Coordination:

While the natural world exhibits its own forms of coordination and adaptive
behaviour—as seen when acacia trees release tannins in response to threats and
giraffes collectively rear their young—these mechanisms are inherently
instinctual and confined to specific survival-driven responses. In contrast,
human societies harness a far more advanced level of intelligence and
coordination that extends beyond instinctual reactions to embrace innovation.
Humans not only respond to immediate threats but also engage in complex
planning and strategic development to anticipate and mitigate a broad spectrum
of future challenges. Human strategies can involve deliberate foresight and
complex social coordination, for instance considering the long-term
consequences and ethical implications of Gen AI, drawing on insights from
diverse fields such as technology, law, and ethics.

Moreover, human collaboration and coordination—marked by global communication,
cross-cultural exchanges, and multidisciplinary expertise—far exceeds the
biological interactions observed in nature. This collaborative ethos drives
societal adaptation and innovation, vastly outpacing natural processes. Our
ability to rapidly adapt to new technologies and continuously refine our
approaches not only can enhance societal well-being but also help align
technologies with ethical standards. Consequently, humans uniquely shape and
advance their environment, moving beyond the constraints of biological
programming through intellectual, physical, and social innovations [103, 104].

##### Complex and emerging threats and Human Response

Humans navigate a significantly more complex threat landscape than what is
encountered in the natural world by species like giraffes. While giraffes
respond primarily to immediate, tangible threats in their environment—such as
predators or food scarcity—humans must manage a spectrum of challenges that
are both visible and abstract, immediate and long-term. These include
technological risks, social inequalities, economic disruptions, and
environmental changes [105]. The responses required to address these human-
centric threats are inherently multidimensional, involving not just
technological solutions but also legal frameworks, ethical considerations, and
community-focused approaches. Unlike giraffes, whose survival strategies are
genetically encoded and largely reactive, human strategies are proactive,
anticipating future problems and planning for unseen challenges. This forward-
looking approach necessitates a deep understanding of potential long-term
consequences, diverse societal impacts, and the ethical ramifications of our
technological decisions. For example, AI governance extends beyond creating
efficient algorithms; it involves ensuring these technologies operate within
frameworks that promote social good and prevent harm, guided by robust
legislation, ethical standards, and ongoing public dialogue.

Such multidisciplinary and anticipatory strategies highlight the
sophistication of human societal structures compared to the simpler, instinct-
driven dynamics of natural systems. This approach underscores the necessity
for an integrated strategy that combines diverse fields to navigate the
complexities introduced by advanced technologies, ensuring technological
advancements align with human interests and uphold societal well-being.

##### Imperfect Gen AI with Human-induced vs Nature’s perfection

Nature’s creations, epitomized by the acacia trees and giraffes, are crafted
through millennia of evolutionary refinement, achieving a near-perfect state
of being that seamlessly integrates into the larger ecosystem. These entities
are inherently flawless, designed for optimal survival without the burden of
ethical dilemmas or flaws. In contrast, human-made technologies like
Generative AI are constructed with inherent imperfections, often rushed
through development cycles that prioritize innovation over meticulous
refinement, leading to systems riddled with biases and vulnerabilities.

Furthermore, the interactions within natural settings, such as those between
giraffes and acacia trees, exemplify a harmonious balance finely tuned by
natural selection. These relationships are devoid of selfish motives or
deceit, purely driven by the instinctual need for survival and ecological
stability. On the other hand, the interaction between humans and Generative AI
is complicated by a spectrum of human motivations, including malice, personal
gain, and power. These factors introduce a level of unpredictability and
imperfection in how technologies are deployed and utilized, often leading to
outcomes that can compromise ethical standards and societal welfare.

##  6 Discussion

###  6.1 Humans as Adolescent Giraffes and Generative AI’s Challenges

Engaging with Generative AI presents significant challenges that require us to
adapt and innovate, paralleling the way giraffes have developed physical and
behavioural adaptations to thrive in the wild. Giraffes utilize every muscle
and their unique anatomical features to master their complex environment, a
dynamic reflected in our need to thoughtfully leverage AI’s benefits while
mitigating its risks. The ongoing engagement with this ‘thorny’ technology has
become humanity’s daily workout, compelling us to continuously flex our moral
and intellectual muscles to bolster our resilience and help us effectively
navigate and mitigate ethical dilemmas.

Generative AI’s wide accessibility to the public offers immediate benefits but
also inherent risks, similar to the nutritious yet thorny acacia trees that
attract adolescent giraffes. This broad availability necessitates a vigilant
and proactive effort to safeguard against potential misuses, akin to the
development of safety systems that followed the introduction of transformative
technologies such as automobiles and aviation.

Adolescent giraffes, still mastering the dangers of acacias, humans must adapt
to develop their defences and immune systems to extract necessary nourishment.
Humans are refining strategies to interact with AI, evolving from initial
efforts to sophisticated methods that manage Generative AI’s ethical
complexities. These strategies are expected to mature over time, mirroring the
giraffe’s refined defenses, and enabling us to discern truth from AI-generated
misinformation while adeptly navigating the landscape of AI ethics and
governance. Addressing these issues requires an ongoing vigilant and proactive
approach, comparable to the development of safety systems in response to the
advent of transformative technologies such as automobiles and aviation.
Understanding and regulating AI is a critical, continuous process that ensures
its integration enhances societal well-being and upholds ethical standards.

However, given the emergent nature of Gen AI technology (i.e. capabilities of
these systems continue to emerge and expand after deployment and during use),
many ethical implications like economic, economic and other societal
impact/risk assessment and their mitigation remain open questions to resolve.

###  6.2 Values Debt: Human Induced Ethical Flaws in Gen AI

Human interactions with Generative AI, unlike natural systems, are driven by a
broad spectrum of intentions, ranging from benign to malicious, and are shaped
by a number of factors including the pursuit of innovation, power dynamics and
market dominance. These complexities are pivotal in grasping the broader
implications of AI on societal norms and individual behaviours, leading us
into a discussion of ‘Values Debt’ [106]—a concept that encapsulates the
ethical and operational deficits incurred during the rapid advancement and
deployment of Gen AI systems [76]. Similar to conventional software technical
debt, both the principal and the ongoing interest must be paid until the debt
is fully paid off [107].

##### Manifestation and Implications

Generative AI systems often debut with significant biases, ethical issues, and
inaccuracies, a stark contrast to the evolutionary precision observed in
nature. These flaws frequently stem from the use of poor-quality or non-
inclusive training datasets sourced from internet wikis, websites, blogs, and
videos. The rush to capture market share, the pursuit of short-term financial
gains, research agendas, and sometimes a lack of adequate measures or mere
oversight contribute to these issues. Such a focus on immediate profits
compromises the thoroughness of AI development and prioritizes short-term
benefits over long-term safety and ethical considerations.

Consequently, this approach to AI development leads to the accumulation of
‘values debt,’ where the pursuit of technological advancements incurs
significant ethical and operational deficits that are difficult to rectify
once the systems are deployed [106]. These deficits extend beyond mere
technical issues, damaging the reputation, brand loyalty, and public image of
developers. A notable example includes Google’s AI errors, such as
recommending glue on pizza and asserting unfounded facts about celestial
bodies—errors publicly acknowledged but described as unsolvable, at least for
now, by the company’s leadership [7]. They encourage benefiting from the
technology despite these known challenges, suggesting a similar ’tolerance or
endurance’ strategy discussed previously.

In addressing the inherent challenges of misinformation and hallucinations in
Generative AI, it is crucial to start with confronting manageable problems
such as biased training data and premature model assumptions. This is more
likely to align Gen AI outputs to human norms and societal expectations or
values. While refining data input methods and enhancing interaction protocols
can significantly impact AI accuracy and fairness, it is essential to
recognize that these measures alone cannot solve all issues related to
misinformation. However, these focused efforts are crucial for mitigating
preventable risks and tackling more complex, intrinsic challenges.

##  7 Recommendations: Fixing Gen AI’s Value Alignment

Generative AI profoundly influences societal norms and values, placing a
significant ethical responsibility on its designers. As architects of future
human conditions, designers are empowered to foster social change and bear
immense moral responsibilities [108]. However, effectively aligning Gen AI
with human values remains a critical challenge, evidenced by growing instances
of value misalignment across various sectors (AI incident database, [5, 79]).

One of the most promising frameworks proposed to address this challenge is the
HHH framework by Askell et al. (2021)[109], which emphasizes that AI
assistants should be helpful, honest, and harmless. These three principles
serve as guiding pillars for AI development: \- Helpfulness: AI should
efficiently and concisely respond to all non-harmful queries, guiding users
appropriately. \- Honesty: AI must provide accurate information and be
transparent about its capabilities and express appropriate levels of
uncertainty without misleading human users. \- Harmlessness: AI should avoid
aiding in dangerous acts (e.g. building a bomb) or causing offence or harm
directly or indirectly through (any modality of) its output, and be
considerate of cultural sensitivities and ethical implications in its
interactions.

To operationalize these principles, Gabriel et al. 2024 [5] propose a tetradic
relationship framework that involves viewing the relationship among the AI
agent, user, developer, and society through a tetradic framework. This
perspective advocates for a balanced AI system that satisfies the moral claims
of all relevant parties without disproportionately favouring any single group.
For instance, the system should not favour the AI agent or developer at the
expense of the user or society, nor should it enable user actions that
detrimentally affect societal welfare. However, as noted by the authors of HHH
framework, this can not be achieved without some obvious trade-offs [109] for
example AI is conflicted “between helpfulness to the user and harmlessness to
others if agents are asked to aid in harmful activities."

Nevertheless, the HHH framework can be quite effective when used in
conjunction with the tetradic model, guiding the designers of Gen AI to help
them adhere to ethical standards and promote a well-functioning sociotechnical
system through responsible innovation. This approach challenges developers to
rethink AI design, urging them to integrate these values from the onset to
prevent several downstream ‘Values Debt’ [106] manifestations and ensure that
AI developments are beneficial and sustainable for all stakeholders involved.

The adoption of the HHH framework, complemented by the tetradic relationship
model, provides a robust methodology for aligning AI systems with societal
values that remains a considerable challenge [76, 77]. It requires a deep
understanding of the interactions between AI technologies and societal
structures and a commitment to ongoing evaluation and adaptation to ensure
these systems remain aligned with evolving human values.

However, given the complexity of Gen AI, and its massive scale to engage and
impact various stakeholders in our societies (including developers,
researchers, policymakers, and users, mitigation efforts have to work in
concert and continuously to overcome its challenges (at least most of them).

##  8 Conclusion

This article has traversed the metaphorical Savannah, drawing parallels
between the complex interactions of giraffes and acacias and the evolving
relationship between humans and Generative AI. Through this analogy, we have
explored the landscape of current risks and mitigation strategies akin to how
adolescent giraffes navigate acacia defences. This formative phase of
understanding and shaping generative AI addresses ethical and operational
challenges through ongoing feedback, innovation, evaluation, governance, and
regulation.

We highlight ‘Values Debt’ of Gen AI as the additional cost for rapid and
thoughtful AI development and a myriad of human motives, emphasizing the need
for thoroughness to avert long-term ethical and operational pitfalls. The
‘HHH’ framework and the tetradic relationship model have identified pathways
to reduce this debt by embedding values of helpfulness, honesty, and
harmlessness in Gen AI agents, advancing the development of safety-aligned
agents that resonate with human values. This paper draws on the resilience
found in both the natural world and human technological history to emphasize
tolerance and endurance as critical strategies for navigating the challenges
of Generative AI. Embracing temporary discomfort is key to unlocking
significant long-term benefits, mirroring adaptive strategies that have
enabled both natural systems and human societies to flourish amidst adversity.

With proactive governance and careful stewardship, we may be well-positioned
to guide the development of Gen AI in ways that enhance societal well-being.
This commitment ensures that our technological progress is matched by ethical
advancements, fostering a symbiotic relationship where, akin to the mutual
influence between giraffes and acacias, humans and AI continually shape each
other for mutual benefit.

## References

  * [1] J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al., “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023.
  * [2] H. S. Sætra, “Generative ai: Here to stay, but for good?,” Technology in Society, vol. 75, p. 102372, 2023.
  * [3] G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, Y. Wu, J.-B. Alayrac, J. Yu, R. Soricut, J. Schalkwyk, A. M. Dai, A. Hauth, et al., “Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023.
  * [4] H. W. Chung, L. Hou, S. Longpre, B. Zoph, Y. Tay, W. Fedus, Y. Li, X. Wang, M. Dehghani, S. Brahma, et al., “Scaling instruction-finetuned language models,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 25, no. 70, pp. 1–53, 2024.
  * [5] I. Gabriel, A. Manzini, G. Keeling, L. A. Hendricks, V. Rieser, H. Iqbal, N. Tomašev, I. Ktena, Z. Kenton, M. Rodriguez, et al., “The ethics of advanced ai assistants,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16244, 2024.
  * [6] L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al., “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 27730–27744, 2022.
  * [7] T. Walsh, “Eat a rock a day, put glue on your pizza: How google’s ai is losing touch with reality,” May 2024.  Accessed: 2024-06-05.
  * [8] L. Reid, “AI Overviews: About last week.” https://blog.google/products/search/ai-overviews-update-may-2024/, 2024.  Accessed: 2025-06-05.
  * [9] E. Ferrara, “Genai against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models,” Journal of Computational Social Science, pp. 1–21, 2024.
  * [10] K. Huang, J. Yeoh, S. Wright, and H. Wang, “Build your security program for genai,” in Generative AI Security: Theories and Practices, pp. 99–132, Springer, 2024.
  * [11] P. Hacker, A. Engel, and M. Mauer, “Regulating chatgpt and other large generative ai models,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 1112–1123, 2023.
  * [12] J. Laux, S. Wachter, and B. Mittelstadt, “Trustworthy artificial intelligence and the european union ai act: On the conflation of trustworthiness and acceptability of risk,” Regulation & Governance, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 3–32, 2024.
  * [13] R. B. L. Dixon, “A principled governance for emerging ai regimes: lessons from china, the european union, and the united states,” AI and Ethics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 793–810, 2023.
  * [14] J. Mökander, J. Schuett, H. R. Kirk, and L. Floridi, “Auditing large language models: a three-layered approach,” AI and Ethics, pp. 1–31, 2023.
  * [15] T. Cui, Y. Wang, C. Fu, Y. Xiao, S. Li, X. Deng, Y. Liu, Q. Zhang, Z. Qiu, P. Li, et al., “Risk taxonomy, mitigation, and assessment benchmarks of large language model systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05778, 2024.
  * [16] R. Ferrari, “Writing narrative style literature reviews,” Medical writing, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 230–235, 2015.
  * [17] E. T. Rother, “Systematic literature review x narrative review,” Acta paulista de enfermagem, vol. 20, pp. v–vi, 2007.
  * [18] M. J. Grant and A. Booth, “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies,” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 91–108, 2009.
  * [19] D. C. Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking.  WW Norton & Company, 2013.
  * [20] A. I. Dagg, “Giraffa camelopardalis,” Mammalian Species, no. 5, pp. 1–8, 1971.
  * [21] S. Abdulrazak, T. Fujihara, J. Ondiek, and E. Ørskov, “Nutritive evaluation of some acacia tree leaves from kenya,” Animal Feed Science and Technology, vol. 85, no. 1-2, pp. 89–98, 2000.
  * [22] A. V. Milewski, T. P. Young, and D. Madden, “Thorns as induced defenses: experimental evidence,” Oecologia, vol. 86, pp. 70–75, 1991.
  * [23] R. Thomas Palo, J. Gowda, and P. Högberg, “Species height and root symbiosis, two factors influencing antiherbivore defense of woody plants in east african savanna,” Oecologia, vol. 93, pp. 322–326, 1993.
  * [24] D. Madden and T. P. Young, “Symbiotic ants as an alternative defense against giraffe herbivory in spinescent acacia drepanolobium,” Oecologia, vol. 91, pp. 235–238, 1992.
  * [25] A. Zinn, D. Ward, and K. Kirkman, “Inducible defences in acacia sieberiana in response to giraffe browsing,” African Journal of Range and Forage Science, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 123–129, 2007.
  * [26] D. H. Janzen, “Swollen-thorn acacias of central america,” Smithsonian Contributions to Botany, 1974.
  * [27] W. Pérez, V. Michel, H. Jerbi, and N. Vazquez, “Anatomía de la boca de la jirafa (giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi),” International Journal of Morphology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 322–329, 2012.
  * [28] A. A. Agrawal and M. T. Rutter, “Dynamic anti-herbivore defense in ant-plants: the role of induced responses,” Oikos, pp. 227–236, 1998.
  * [29] O. Mahenya, J. K. Ndjamba, K. M. Mathisen, and C. Skarpe, “Giraffe browsing in response to plant traits,” Acta Oecologica, vol. 75, pp. 54–62, 2016.
  * [30] W. F. Wood and P. J. Weldon, “The scent of the reticulated giraffe (giraffa camelopardalis reticulata),” Biochemical systematics and ecology, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 913–917, 2002.
  * [31] S. Ogawa and Y. Yazaki, “Tannins from acacia mearnsii de wild. bark: Tannin determination and biological activities,” Molecules, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 837, 2018.
  * [32] S. Rehr, P. P. Feeny, and D. H. Janzen, “Chemical defence in central american non-ant-acacias,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 405–416, 1973.
  * [33] D. Furstenburg and W. Van Hoven, “Condensed tannin as anti-defoliate agent against browsing by giraffe (giraffa camelopardalis) in the kruger national park,” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 425–431, 1994.
  * [34] L. T. Fernandez, M. J. Bashaw, R. L. Sartor, N. R. Bouwens, and T. S. Maki, “Tongue twisters: feeding enrichment to reduce oral stereotypy in giraffe,” Zoo Biology: Published in affiliation with the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 200–212, 2008.
  * [35] M. Clauss, A. L. Fidgett, U. Ganslosser, J.-M. Hatt, and J. Nijboer, “Tannins in the nutrition of wild animals: a review,” in Zoo Animal Nutrition Vol. II (A. L. Fidgett, M. Clauss, U. Ganslosser, J.-M. Hatt, and J. Nijboer, eds.), pp. 53–89, Fürth: Filander Verlag, 2003.
  * [36] R. A. Pellew, “The feeding ecology of a selective browser, the giraffe (giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi),” Journal of Zoology, vol. 202, no. 1, pp. 57–81, 1984.
  * [37] K. Danell, R. Bergström, and L. Edenius, “Effects of large mammalian browsers on architecture, biomass, and nutrients of woody plants,” Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 833–844, 1994.
  * [38] R. Pellew, “The impacts of elephant, giraffe and fire upon the acacia tortilis woodlands of the serengeti,” African Journal of Ecology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 41–74, 1983.
  * [39] P. Lundberg and M. Astrom, “Low nutritive quality as a defense against optimally foraging herbivores,” The American Naturalist, vol. 135, no. 4, pp. 547–562, 1990.
  * [40] M. Augner, “Low nutritive quality as a plant defence: effects of herbivore-mediated interactions,” Evolutionary Ecology, vol. 9, pp. 605–616, 1995.
  * [41] J. T. DUTOIT, “Giraffe feeding on acacia flowers: predation or pollination?,” African Journal of Ecology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 63–68, 1990.
  * [42] L. Weidinger, J. Mellor, M. Rauh, C. Griffin, J. Uesato, P.-S. Huang, M. Cheng, M. Glaese, B. Balle, A. Kasirzadeh, et al., “Ethical and social risks of harm from language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359, 2021.
  * [43] L. Weidinger, J. Uesato, M. Rauh, C. Griffin, P.-S. Huang, J. Mellor, A. Glaese, M. Cheng, B. Balle, A. Kasirzadeh, et al., “Taxonomy of risks posed by language models,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 214–229, 2022.
  * [44] E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, “On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp. 610–623, 2021.
  * [45] S. S. Kim, Q. V. Liao, M. Vorvoreanu, S. Ballard, and J. W. Vaughan, “I’m not sure, but…": Examining the impact of large language models’ uncertainty expression on user reliance and trust,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00623, 2024.
  * [46] Y. Gao, Y. Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y. Bi, Y. Dai, J. Sun, and H. Wang, “Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2023.
  * [47] Y. Hu and Y. Lu, “Rag and rau: A survey on retrieval-augmented language model in natural language processing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19543, 2024.
  * [48] Y. Bai, S. Kadavath, S. Kundu, A. Askell, J. Kernion, A. Jones, A. Chen, A. Goldie, A. Mirhoseini, C. McKinnon, et al., “Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022.
  * [49] A. Glaese, N. McAleese, M. Trębacz, J. Aslanides, V. Firoiu, T. Ewalds, M. Rauh, L. Weidinger, M. Chadwick, P. Thacker, et al., “Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14375, 2022.
  * [50] J. Skalse, N. Howe, D. Krasheninnikov, and D. Krueger, “Defining and characterizing reward gaming,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 9460–9471, 2022.
  * [51] C. Clemmer, J. Ding, and Y. Feng, “Precisedebias: An automatic prompt engineering approach for generative ai to mitigate image demographic biases,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 8596–8605, 2024.
  * [52] R. González-Sendino, E. Serrano, and J. Bajo, “Mitigating bias in artificial intelligence: Fair data generation via causal models for transparent and explainable decision-making,” Future Generation Computer Systems, 2024.
  * [53] C. A. Bail, “Can generative ai improve social science?,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 121, no. 21, p. e2314021121, 2024.
  * [54] S. Santurkar, E. Durmus, F. Ladhak, C. Lee, P. Liang, and T. Hashimoto, “Whose opinions do language models reflect?,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’23, JMLR.org, 2023.
  * [55] B. Mittelstadt, S. Wachter, and C. Russell, “The unfairness of fair machine learning: Levelling down and strict egalitarianism by default,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02404, 2023.
  * [56] Y. Wang, Y. Pan, M. Yan, Z. Su, and T. H. Luan, “A survey on chatgpt: Ai-generated contents, challenges, and solutions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18339, 2023.
  * [57] M. Phuong, M. Aitchison, E. Catt, S. Cogan, A. Kaskasoli, V. Krakovna, D. Lindner, M. Rahtz, Y. Assael, S. Hodkinson, H. Howard, T. Lieberum, R. Kumar, M. Abi Raad, A. Webson, L. Ho, S. Lin, S. Farquhar, M. Hutter, G. Delétang, A. Ruoss, S. El-Sayed, S. Brown, A. Dragan, R. Shah, A. Dafoe, and T. Shevlane, “Evaluating frontier models for dangerous capabilities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13793, 2024.
  * [58] Digital Transformation Agency and Department of Industry, Science and Resources, “Interim guidance on government use of public generative ai tools.” Digital Transformation Agency, July 2023.  Accessed: 2024-05-29.
  * [59] T. Shevlane, S. Farquhar, B. Garfinkel, M. Phuong, J. Whittlestone, J. Leung, D. Kokotajlo, N. Marchal, M. Anderljung, N. Kolt, et al., “Model evaluation for extreme risks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15324, 2023.
  * [60] A. Golda, K. Mekonen, A. Pandey, A. Singh, V. Hassija, V. Chamola, and B. Sikdar, “Privacy and security concerns in generative ai: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Access, 2024.
  * [61] D. Greenfield and S. Bhavnani, “Social media: generative ai could harm mental health,” Nature, vol. 617, no. 7962, p. 676, 2023.
  * [62] D. Siegel and M. B. Doty, “Weapons of mass disruption: Artificial intelligence and the production of extremist propaganda,” Global Network on Extremism & Technology, last modified February, vol. 17, 2023.
  * [63] N. Lukas, A. Salem, R. Sim, S. Tople, L. Wutschitz, and S. Zanella-Béguelin, “Analyzing leakage of personally identifiable information in language models,” in 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 346–363, IEEE, 2023.
  * [64] O. Ozmen Garibay, B. Winslow, S. Andolina, M. Antona, A. Bodenschatz, C. Coursaris, G. Falco, S. M. Fiore, I. Garibay, K. Grieman, et al., “Six human-centered artificial intelligence grand challenges,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 391–437, 2023.
  * [65] E. Brynjolfsson, D. Li, and L. R. Raymond, “Generative ai at work,” tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023.
  * [66] N. R. Mannuru, S. Shahriar, Z. A. Teel, T. Wang, B. D. Lund, S. Tijani, C. O. Pohboon, D. Agbaji, J. Alhassan, J. Galley, et al., “Artificial intelligence in developing countries: The impact of generative artificial intelligence (ai) technologies for development,” Information Development, p. 02666669231200628, 2023.
  * [67] J. Wei, Y. Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler, et al., “Emergent abilities of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022.
  * [68] R. Schaeffer, B. Miranda, and S. Koyejo, “Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage?,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024.
  * [69] M. C. Rillig, M. Ågerstrand, M. Bi, K. A. Gould, and U. Sauerland, “Risks and benefits of large language models for the environment,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 3464–3466, 2023.
  * [70] J. C. Simmons and J. M. Winograd, “Interoperable provenance authentication of broadcast media using open standards-based metadata, watermarking and cryptography,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12336, 2024.
  * [71] Y. Wang, Y. Pan, M. Yan, Z. Su, and T. H. Luan, “A survey on chatgpt: Ai–generated contents, challenges, and solutions,” IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, vol. 4, p. 280–302, 2023.
  * [72] Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, “Content credentials,” 2024.  Accessed: 2024-05-30.
  * [73] C. Novelli, F. Casolari, P. Hacker, G. Spedicato, and L. Floridi, “Generative ai in eu law: Liability, privacy, intellectual property, and cybersecurity,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07348, 2024.
  * [74] D. Dalrymple, J. Skalse, Y. Bengio, S. Russell, M. Tegmark, S. Seshia, S. Omohundro, C. Szegedy, B. Goldhaber, N. Ammann, et al., “Towards guaranteed safe ai: A framework for ensuring robust and reliable ai systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06624, 2024.
  * [75] J. Mökander and L. Floridi, “Operationalising ai governance through ethics-based auditing: an industry case study,” AI and Ethics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 451–468, 2023.
  * [76] Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, “Governance of artificial intelligence (ai),” Committee Report Third Report of Session 2023–24, House of Commons, 2024.  Recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.
  * [77] H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y. Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, D. Bikel, L. Blecher, C. C. Ferrer, M. Chen, G. Cucurull, D. Esiobu, J. Fernandes, J. Fu, W. Fu, B. Fuller, C. Gao, V. Goswami, N. Goyal, A. Hartshorn, S. Hosseini, R. Hou, H. Inan, M. Kardas, V. Kerkez, M. Khabsa, I. Kloumann, A. Korenev, P. S. Koura, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lavril, J. Lee, D. Liskovich, Y. Lu, Y. Mao, X. Martinet, T. Mihaylov, P. Mishra, I. Molybog, Y. Nie, A. Poulton, J. Reizenstein, R. Rungta, K. Saladi, A. Schelten, R. Silva, E. M. Smith, R. Subramanian, X. E. Tan, B. Tang, R. Taylor, A. Williams, J. X. Kuan, P. Xu, Z. Yan, I. Zarov, Y. Zhang, A. Fan, M. Kambadur, S. Narang, A. Rodriguez, R. Stojnic, S. Edunov, and T. Scialom, “Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,” 2023.
  * [78] J. T. DuToit, J. P. Bryant, and K. Frisby, “Regrowth and palatability of acacia shoots following pruning by african savanna browsers,” Ecology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 149–154, 1990.
  * [79] S. McGregor, “Preventing repeated real world ai failures by cataloging incidents: The ai incident database,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, pp. 15458–15463, 2021.
  * [80] M. Wei and Z. Zhou, “Ai ethics issues in real world: Evidence from ai incident database,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07635, 2022.
  * [81] J. M. Culkin, “A schoolman’s guide to marshall mcluhan,” 1967.
  * [82] L. Barbieri and M. Muzzupappa, “Form innovation: investigating the use of generative design tools to encourage creativity in product design,” International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, pp. 1–20, 2024.
  * [83] Z. Epstein, A. Hertzmann, I. of Human Creativity, M. Akten, H. Farid, J. Fjeld, M. R. Frank, M. Groh, L. Herman, N. Leach, et al., “Art and the science of generative ai,” Science, vol. 380, no. 6650, pp. 1110–1111, 2023.
  * [84] G. F. Daar, I. N. Sudipa, and T. Gunas, “Ludwig wittgenstein’s concept of language game,” English Language Education Journal (ELEJ), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 62–72, 2023.
  * [85] S. Levy, “Ai is a black box. anthropic figured out a way to look inside,” Wired, May 2024.  Accessed: 2023-05-23.
  * [86] C. Rudin, “Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,” Nature machine intelligence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206–215, 2019.
  * [87] S. Lazar, “Frontier ai ethics: Anticipating and evaluating the societal impacts of generative agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06750, 2024.
  * [88] I. Cheong, A. Caliskan, and T. Kohno, “Safeguarding human values: rethinking us law for generative ai’s societal impacts,” AI and Ethics, pp. 1–27, 2024.
  * [89] W. M. Lim, A. Gunasekara, J. L. Pallant, J. I. Pallant, and E. Pechenkina, “Generative ai and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? a paradoxical perspective from management educators,” The international journal of management education, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 100790, 2023.
  * [90] E. Ferrara, “Genai against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00737, 2023.
  * [91] E. Zhou and D. Lee, “Generative artificial intelligence, human creativity, and art,” PNAS nexus, vol. 3, no. 3, p. pgae052, 2024.
  * [92] C. G. Okatta, F. A. Ajayi, and O. Olawale, “Navigating the future: integrating ai and machine learning in hr practices for a digital workforce,” Computer Science & IT Research Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1008–1030, 2024.
  * [93] E. Walkowiak and T. MacDonald, “Generative ai and the workforce: What are the risks?,” Available at SSRN, 2023.
  * [94] M. Adam, M. Wessel, and A. Benlian, “Ai-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance,” Electronic Markets, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 427–445, 2021.
  * [95] B. Kirwan, “The future impact of digital assistants on aviation safety culture,” Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET-AI 2023): Artificial Intelligence and Future Applications. Ahram, T., and Taiar, R.(Eds), vol. 70, pp. 77–87, 2023.
  * [96] A. Sellen and E. Horvitz, “The rise of the ai co-pilot: Lessons for design from aviation and beyond,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14713, 2023.
  * [97] A. Bogg, S. Birrell, M. A. Bromfield, and A. M. Parkes, “Can we talk? how a talking agent can improve human autonomy team performance,” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 488–509, 2021.
  * [98] P. Heinrich, D. Hollerer, C. Karthaus, and M. Gellrich, ““don’t drop the plane to fly the mic!”: Designing for modern radiotelephony education in general aviation,” in 21\. Fachtagung Bildungstechnologien der GI Fachgruppe Bildungstechnologien (DELFI), 10. Fachtagung Hochschuldidaktik Informatik (HDI), Aachen, Deutschland, 11.-14. September 2023, pp. 187–192, Gesellschaft für Informatik, 2023.
  * [99] S. Gosper, J. R. Trippas, H. Richards, F. Allison, C. Sear, S. Khorasani, and F. Mattioli, “Understanding the utility of digital flight assistants: A preliminary analysis,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, pp. 1–5, 2021.
  * [100] W. D. Holford, “An ethical inquiry of the effect of cockpit automation on the responsibilities of airline pilots: Dissonance or meaningful control?,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 176, no. 1, pp. 141–157, 2022.
  * [101] K. Church, A. Schoene, J. E. Ortega, R. Chandrasekar, and V. Kordoni, “Emerging trends: Unfair, biased, addictive, dangerous, deadly, and insanely profitable,” Natural Language Engineering, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 483–508, 2023.
  * [102] S. M. Williamson and V. Prybutok, “The era of artificial intelligence deception: Unraveling the complexities of false realities and emerging threats of misinformation,” Information, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 299, 2024.
  * [103] M. Dodgson, “Learning, trust, and technological collaboration,” Human relations, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 77–95, 1993.
  * [104] T. W. Malone and K. Crowston, “The interdisciplinary study of coordination,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 87–119, 1994.
  * [105] N. Bostrom, “Existential risks: Analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards,” Journal of Evolution and technology, vol. 9, 2002.
  * [106] W. Hussain, “Values debt is eating software,” IEEE Software blog. Retrieved on, vol. 12, 2019.
  * [107] A. Ampatzoglou, N. Mittas, A.-A. Tsintzira, A. Ampatzoglou, E.-M. Arvanitou, A. Chatzigeorgiou, P. Avgeriou, and L. Angelis, “Exploring the relation between technical debt principal and interest: An empirical approach,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 128, p. 106391, 2020.
  * [108] W. Hussain, D. Mougouei, and J. Whittle, “Integrating social values into software design patterns,” in Proceedings of the international workshop on software fairness, pp. 8–14, 2018.
  * [109] A. Askell, Y. Bai, A. Chen, D. Drain, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, A. Jones, N. Joseph, B. Mann, N. DasSarma, et al., “A general language assistant as a laboratory for alignment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00861, 2021.