Abstract
This article discusses the evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) definitions, and the challenges associated with its application in recruitment, particularly in the context of protecting candidates’ privacy. A key issue is the imprecision of AI definitions, which affects the effectiveness of regulations and the establishment of ethical standards. Inaccurate definitions can lead to excessive or insufficient regulation, encompassing technologies unrelated to AI or overlooking advanced systems with high risks. Moreover, AI in recruitment raises new privacy concerns that go beyond traditional data protection. To address these challenges, the concept of hybrid privacy has been proposed, integrating various dimensions of privacy protection: informational, physical and virtual accessibility, and decision‑making. The evolution of AI definitions, from Turing’s test (1950) to contemporary approaches, illustrates how the understanding of this technology has changed and what implications this has for ethics and legal regulations. Current AI definitions and regulations require further refinement to keep pace with the dynamic development of technology. Inaccurate definitions lead to interpretive issues that hinder effective implementation of the law. The conclusions suggest the need for flexible regulations and the development of ethical standards that protect candidates’ privacy while also taking into account the interests of employers. A dynamic balance is crucial between rigid and flexible regulations that can adapt to the evolving nature of AI technology and its associated ethical challenges, such as balancing candidates’ privacy with employers’ interests.
References
1. Ajunwa I., The paradox of automation as anti-bias intervention, „Cardozo Law Review” 2020, nr 41(3), s. 1671–1741 https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/clr/vol41/iss5/2 [dostęp: 16.11.2025].
2. Albrecht S., Lauristin M., Jourová V., The ethics of using AI in hiring processes, „Journal of Ethical AI Practices ” 2023, [unpublished manuscript/working paper], https://btu.edu.ge/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-Ethics-of-Using-Artificial-Intelligence-in-Hiring-Processes.pdf.
3. Arrow K.J., Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.), Wiley & Sons, New York, London 1951.
4. Barocas S., Selbst A.D., Big data's disparate impact, „California Law Review” 2016, nr 104(3), s. 671–732.
5. Berdowska A., Wspomaganie procesu rekrutacji pracowników za pomocą chatbotów – analiza wybranych rozwiązań, „Projektowanie i analiza komunikacji w organizacji” 2018 nr 5(124), s. 93–112.
6. Binns R., Algorithmic accountability and public reason, „Philosophy & Technology” 2018, nr 31(4), s. 1–14.
7. Boden M.A., AI: Its Nature and Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2016, s. 1–4.
8. Bogen M., Rieke A., Help wanted: An examination of hiring algorithms, equity, and bias, Upturn 2018, https://www.upturn.org/.
9. Calo R., Robotics and the lessons of cyberlaw, „California Law Review” 2015, nr 103(3), s. 513–563, https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38P69X.
10. Calo R., The boundaries of privacy harm, „Indiana Law Journal” 2011, nr 86(3), s. 1131–1162.
11. Dastin J., Amazon scraps AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women, Reuters 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G [dostęp: 10.08.2025].
12. Dennett D., Consciousness explained, Little, Brown and Company New York, Boston, London 1991.
13. Duch W., Informatyka neurokognitywna. Stan obecny, zastosowania, perspektywy, Seminarium, Politechnika Wrocławska, Wrocław 10 lutego 2021, https://staff-ksi.pwr.edu.pl/seminariumITT/pdf/05-02-21.pdf [dostęp: 10.08.2025].
14. Eubanks V., Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor, [w:] Law, Technology and Humans, F. Gordon (ed.), St. Martin’s Press, New York 2018.
15. European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on artificial intelligence. COM (2021) 206 final, 2021 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/210421-ai-act_en.
16. European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act), 2021, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206 [dostęp: 16.11.2025].
17. European Commission, Artificial intelligence act. Regulation (EU) 2024/123, 2024 https://europa.eu/legislation [dostęp: 16.11.2025].
18. European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), TechDispatch – Neurodata, 3 czerwca 2024, s. 1–8.
19. Fishburn P.C., Utility theory for decision making, Wiley, New York, 1970.
20. Floridi L., Mittelstadt B., Allo P., The ethics of artificial intelligence: A primer, The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2019.
21. Floridi L., The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2023.
22. Frankish K., Ramsey W., The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014.
23. Gavison R., Privacy and the limits of law, „Yale Law Journal” 1980, nr 89(3), s. 421–471.
24. Ghazanfar H., Hag A.U., Ethical and legal implications of AI in Human Rerource Management, “Journal of Social and Organizational Matters”, 2025, 4(2), s. 417–428.
25. IBM, Artificial intelligence in practice, 2024, https://www.ibm.com/artificial-intelligence-in-practice [dostęp: 10.08.2025].
26. Jwa A.S., Poldrack R.A., Adressing Privacy Risk in neuroscience data: from data protection to harm prevention, „Journal of Law & the Bioscience” 2022, nr 9(2), s. XX–XX.
27. Komisja Europejska, Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act), COM (2021) 206 final, Bruksela, 21 kwietnia 2021, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e0649735-a372-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1 [dostęp: 10.08.2025].
28. Kuhn T.S., Struktura rewolucji naukowych, tłum. M.M. Ławniczak, Wydawnictwo Znak, Kraków 2019, s. 45–68.
29. Lakoff G., Kobiety, ogień i rzeczy niebezpieczne: Co kategorie mówią nam o umyśle, tłum. T. Brzezińska, Wydawnictwo Universitas, Kraków 2011.
30. McCarthy J., Minsky M., Rochester N., Shannon C.E., A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, „AI Magazine” 2006, nr 27(4), s. 12–14, Dartmouth College, Hanover (NH), https://ojs.aaai.org/aimagazine/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1904 [dostęp: 16.11.2025].
31. Minsky M., Steps Toward Artificial Intelligence, Dept. of Mathematics & Research Lab. of Electronics, MIT, 1960, https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/minsky/minsky-steps.pdf .
32. Minsky M., The Society of Mind, Simon & Schuster, New York 1986.
33. Mittelstadt B., Floridi L., The ethics of big data: Current and foreseeable issues in biomedical context, „Science and Engineering Ethics” 2016, nr 22(2), s. 303–341.
34. Nilsson N.J., Principles of artificial intelligence, „ZAMM – Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics” 1983, nr 63(11), s. 476.
35. Nilsson N.J., The Quest for Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009.
36. Noble S.U., Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism, NYU Press, New York 2018.
37. O’Neil C., Broń matematycznej zagłady. Jaak big data zwiększa nierównonści społeczne i zagraża demokracji, tłum. M.Z. Zieliński, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2017.
38. Oman Z.U., Siddiqua A., Noorain R., Artificial Intelligence and its ability to reduce recruitment bias, „World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews” 2024, nr 24(1), s. 551–564.
39. Oman A., Siddiqua S., Ethical and legal implications of AI in hiring processes, „Human Resource Management Review” 2024, nr 39(2), s. 1–18.
40. OpenAI, Artificial general intelligence (AGI), 2023, https://openai.com/research/agi [dostęp: 10.08.2025].
41. Parent W.A., Privacy, Morality, and the Law, „Philosophy and Public Affairs” 1983, nr 12(4) , s. 273.
42. Parlament Europejski i Rada, Rozporządzenie (UE) 2024/1689 z dnia 13 czerwca 2024 r. w sprawie ustanowienia zharmonizowanych przepisów dotyczących sztucznej inteligencji (AI Act), Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej I, nr 1689, 12 lipca 2024, https://www.si-dla-sprawiedliwosci.gov.pl/publikacja-ai-act [dostęp: 16.11.2025].
43. Pietruszkiewicz W., Twardochleb M., Roszkowski M., Hybrid approach to supporting decision making processes in companies, „Control and Cybernetics” 2011, nr 40(1), s. 126–133.
44. Popper K., Logika odkrycia naukowego, tłum. J.M. Kowalski, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2009.
45. Raghavan M., Barocas S., Kleinberg J., Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376313.
46. Raghavan M., et al., Mitigating AI bias in hiring algorithms: A critical perspective, „Journal of AI Ethics” 2020, nr 3(2), s. 34–50.
47. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union, L119/1.
48. Rosch E., Principles of Categorization, [w:] E. Rosch, B.B. Lloyd (red.), Cognition and Categorization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, miejsce wydania 1978, s. 27–48.
49. Russell S.J., Norvig P., Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th ed.), Hoboken NJ: Pearson 2021.
50. Schoeman F.D., Privacy and social values: Theories and concepts, „The Stanford Journal of Philosophy” 1984, nr 1(2), s. 28–52.
51. Searle J., Mind, language and society: Philosophy in the real world, Basic Books, New York 2005.
52. Sen A., Collective choice and social welfare, Holden-Day, San Francisco 1970.
53. Simon H.A., Newell A., Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1972.
54. Słocka L., Aktualność unijnego system ochrony danych osobowych w świetle przetwarzania neurodanych, „Przegąd prawa medycznego” 2021, nr 3(4), s. 79–97.
55. Solove D.J., Understanding privacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2008.
56. Stryker C., Kavlakoglu E., What is Artificial Intelligence?, „Think”, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence [dostęp: 10.08.2025].
57. Suleyman M., DeepMind co-founder suggest new Turing test for AI chatbots, „Business Insider”, 6 sierpnia 2023, https://www.businessinsider.com/deepmind-co-founder-suggests-new-turing-test-ai-chatbots-report-2023-6 [dostęp: 16.11.2025].
58. Suleyman M., komentarz w podkaście Have a Nice Future, WIRED, 16 sierpnia 2023, https://www.wired.com/story/have-a-nice-future-podcast-18/ [dostęp: 16.11.2025].
59. Suleyman M., My new Turing Test, Mustafa Suleyman Official Website, 2023, https://mustafa-suleyman.ai/my-new-turing-test [dostęp16.11.2025].
60. Świskak P. Filozofia nauki i nauki społeczne po okresie pozytywizmu logicznego, „Edukacja Filozoficzna” 1998, nr 26, s. 21–35.
61. Techsetter (n.d.), Dyskryminacja w rekrutacji: Dlaczego AI powiela stereotypy? [dostęp: 10.08.2025].
62. Tufekci Z., Big data: Pitfalls and perils. Social Science Research Network, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410974.
63. Turing A., Computing machinery and intelligence, „Mind” 1950, nr 59(236), s. 433–460, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433.
64. Véliz C., Privacy is power: Why and how you should take back control of your data, Bantam Press, London 2020.
65. Wachter S., Mittelstadt B.D., A right to explanation? An exploration of the impact of the General Data Protection Regulation on AI, „International Data Privacy Law” 2019, nr 9(3), s. 178–190, https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz014.
66. Westin A.F., Privacy and freedom, Atheneum, New York 1967.
67. Wieczorkowski P., Big Data a prywatność. Naruszenie prywatności w świecie wirtualnym – wyniki badań, „Roczniki Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych” 2017, nr 45, s. 33–43.
68. Wilkins L., Artificial intelligence in recruitment: Challenges and risks, „Journal of HR Technology” 2021, nr 45(3), s. 12–29.
69. Wittgenstein L., Dociekania filozoficzne, tłum. J. Kijak, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 1972.
70. Zuboff S., The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power, PublicAffairs, New York 2019.