Evolving Ethical Communicability in Generative AI Interfaces: A Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Ethical Principles Across System Versions

Libiane Gomes; João Carlos Santana Silveira; Helena Martins; Cristiane Aparecida Lana; Maria Lúcia Bento Villela

doi:10.5753/jis.2026.7388

Authors

Libiane Gomes Federal University of Viçosa https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3970-2099
João Carlos Santana Silveira Federal University of Minas Gerais https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8664-0593
Helena Martins Federal University of Viçosa https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1954-9910
Cristiane Aparecida Lana Federal University of Lavras https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-6055
Maria Lúcia Bento Villela Federal University of Viçosa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6189-1300

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5753/jis.2026.7388

Keywords:

Ethical Communicability, Semiotic Inspection Method, Generative AI Systems, Longitudinal Analysis

Abstract

Background: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have become central interactive artifacts in activities such as information seeking, creative work, education, and decision support. As these systems increasingly mediate human-computer interaction, concerns regarding transparency, accountability, autonomy, fairness, and social impact have intensified. Although ethical principles for AI are well established in regulatory documents and conceptual frameworks, prior research has shown that their communication through interface elements is often inconsistent and opaque. Furthermore, the rapid evolution of generative AI systems raises challenges for understanding ethical communicability as an evolving, rather than static, property of interactive systems. Purpose: This paper investigates how ethical communicability in generative AI systems evolves over time by conducting a longitudinal comparative analysis of successive system versions. Extending prior work presented at IHC 2025, the study compares recent and earlier versions of three widely used generative AI systems, examining changes in how ethical principles are communicated at the interface level. The goal is to identify patterns of continuity, improvement, and regression, contributing empirical and conceptual insights to the design and evaluation of generative AI based interactive systems. Methods: The study adopts the Semiotic Inspection Method (SIM) in a scientific context, supported by a semiotics-based epistemic tool for ethical reflection, to analyze how ethical principles are communicated through interface signs. The analysis is guided by the AI4People ethical principles of Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Autonomy, Justice, and Explicability. Using the same inspection protocol, ethical scenarios, and analytical categories employed in the original study, we re-inspected the current versions of the three systems. The results from both inspection phases were systematically compared using a structured analytical framework, enabling the identification of additions, refinements, and inconsistencies in ethical communication across versions. Researcher triangulation was applied to ensure analytical rigor and consistency. Results: The longitudinal comparison reveals that ethical communicability in generative AI systems is dynamic and uneven. Some systems show incremental improvements, particularly in interface elements related to explicability and risk mitigation, such as clearer disclaimers, refined feedback mechanisms, and expanded data control options. However, other ethical principles - especially beneficence and justice - remain weakly communicated or largely implicit across versions. The analysis also exposes persistent inconsistencies between metalinguistic commitments expressed in policies and the ethical cues available during interaction. These findings suggest that system updates do not necessarily lead to systematic or holistic improvements in ethical communication, but rather to fragmented and principle-specific changes. Conclusion: By shifting from a static to a longitudinal perspective, this study demonstrates the value of analyzing ethical communicability as an evolving property of generative AI interfaces. The findings highlight that updates to generative AI systems can both strengthen and undermine the communication of ethical principles, underscoring the need for continuous and systematic ethical evaluation in the design of interactive systems. The paper contributes empirical evidence on how ethical communication changes over time, methodological insights into the use of SIM for longitudinal analysis, and design implications for fostering more transparent, accountable, and human-centered generative AI systems. This extended investigation reinforces the relevance of ethical communicability as a core concern for HCI research and practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Barbosa, G. D. J., Nunes, J. L., De Souza, C. S., and Barbosa, S. D. J. (2024). Investigating the extended metacommunication template: How a semiotic tool may encourage reflective ethical practice in the development of machine learning systems. In Proceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, IHC '23, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3638067.3638070.

Barbosa, S. D. J., Barbosa, G. D. J., Souza, C. S. d., and Leitão, C. F. (2021). A semiotics-based epistemic tool to reason about ethical issues in digital technology design and development. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '21, page 363–374, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445900.

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., and Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? ffff. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '21, page 610–623, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922.

Binns, R., Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., and Shadbolt, N. (2018). 'it's reducing a human being to a percentage': Perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–14. ACM. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173951.

Brey, P. and Dainow, B. (2024). Ethics by design for artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics, 4(4):1265–1277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00330-4.

De Souza, C. S. (2005). The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. MIT press.

de Souza, C. S., Leitão, C. F., Prates, R. O., and da Silva, E. J. (2006). The semiotic inspection method. In Proceedings of VII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, IHC '06, page 148–157, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1298023.1298044.

de Souza, C. S. and Leitão, C. F. (2009). Semiotic engineering methods for scientific research in HCI. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

de Souza, C. S., Leitão, C. F., Prates, R. O., Amélia Bim, S., and da Silva, E. J. (2010). Can inspection methods generate valid new knowledge in hci? the case of semiotic inspection. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(1):22–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.08.006.

Duarte, E. F., Toledo Palomino, P., Pontual Falcão, T., Porto, G. L. P. M. B., Portela, C. d. S., Ribeiro, D. F., Nascimento, A., Costa Aguiar, Y. P., Souza, M., Moutin Segoria Gasparotto, A., and Maciel Toda, A. (2024). Grandihc-br 2025-2035 - gc6: Implications of artificial intelligence in hci: A discussion on paradigms ethics and diversity equity and inclusionff. In Proceedings of the XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, IHC '24, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3702038.3702059.

European Commission (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy ai. [link]. Accessed on 15 July 2026.

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., and Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4):689–707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.

Friedman, B. and Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. Mit Press.

Gomes, L., Silveira, J. C. S., Martins, H., Lana, C. A., and Villela, M. L. B. (2025). Communicating ethical considerations in generative ai systems. In Anais do XXIV Simpósio Brasileiro sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais, pages 718–742, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. SBC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/ihc.2025.10939.

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., and Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9):389–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.

Johnson, B. and Smith, J. (2021). Towards ethical data-driven software: Filling the gaps in ethics research practice. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Ethics in Software Engineering Research and Practice (SEthics), pages 18–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/SEthics52569.2021.00011.

Johnson, D. G. (2004). Computer ethics. pages 63–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757017.ch5.

Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., and Elhalal, A. (2021). From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices, pages 153–183. Springer International Publishing, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_10.

Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Accountability in a computerized society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1):25–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639315.

Nunes, J. L., Barbosa, G. D. J., de Souza, C. S., and Barbosa, S. D. J. (2024). Using Model Cards for ethical reflection on machine learning models: an interview-based study. Journal on Interactive Systems, 15(1 SE -):1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/jis.2024.3444.

OECD (2019). Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence. [link]. Accessed on 15 July 2026.

Pereira, F. H. S., Prates, R. O., Maciel, C., and Pereira, V. C. (2016). Analysis of interaction anticipation and volitive aspects in digital posthumous communication systems. In Proceedings of the 15th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, IHC '16, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3033701.3033720.

Pereira, R., Darin, T., and Silveira, M. S. (2024). Grandihc-br: Grand research challenges in human-computer interaction in brazil for 2025-2035ff. In Proceedings of the XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, IHC '24, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3702038.3702061.

Prates, R. O., Rosson, M. B., and de Souza, C. S. (2015). Making Decisions About Digital Legacy with Google's Inactive Account Manager BT - Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015. pages 201–209, Cham. Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22701-6_14.

Rodrigues, K. R. d. H., Carvalho, L. P., Freire, A. P., and Pimentel, M. d. G. C. (2024). Grandihc-br 2025-2035 - gc2: Ethics and responsibility: Principles regulations and societal implications of human participation in hci researchff. In Proceedings of the XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, IHC '24, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3702038.3702055.

Shneiderman, B. (2020). Bridging the gap between ethics and practice: Guidelines for reliable, safe, and trustworthy human-centered ai systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., 10(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3419764.

UNESCO (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. [link]. Accessed on 15 July 2026.

Valério, F. A. M., Guimarães, T. G., Prates, R. O., and Candello, H. (2017). Here's what i can do: Chatbots' strategies to convey their features to users. In Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, IHC '17, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3160504.3160544.