Evidence record 14633 · automatically gathered

Requiem Without an Orchestrator: A Commentary on Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska (2024)

Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska (2024) analyse the harms of AI-enabled re-creation services and offer four recommendations to providers. I accept their diagnosis but argue that their prescription shares a premise with the industry it seeks to reform: that a responsible provider remains present to carry it out. All four recommendations (retirement procedures, meaningful transparency, adult-only access, and mutual consent) are addressed to a continuing operator. Yet the paper’s own opening example,

Record details

Published: 29 July 2026
Source: Philosophy & Technology
Category: Research
Topics: Healthcare · Transparency
Retrieved: 30 July 2026

source-onlyevidence status

These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.

How to cite this record

ethics.ai (29 July 2026), “Requiem Without an Orchestrator: A Commentary on Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska (2024),” evidence record 14633, https://ethics.ai/record/14633 (originally published by Philosophy & Technology).

JSON

Use and limitations

This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.