ArticleEthics and information technology2025
The fundamental rights risks of countering cognitive warfare with artificial intelligence.
Article in Ethics and information technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emotionally based strategic communications as a new tool in defensive cognitive warfare.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article analyses ideas to use AI-supported systems to counter 'cognitive warfare' and critically examines the implications of such systems for fundamental rights and values. After explicating the notion of 'cognitive warfare' as used in contemporary public security discourse, the article describes the emergence of generative AI tools that are expected to exacerbate the problem of adversarial activities against the online information ecosystems of democratic societies. In response, researchers and policymakers have proposed to utilize AI to devise countermeasures, ranging from AI-based early warning systems to state-run content moderation tools. These interventions, however, interfere, to different degrees, with fundamental rights and values such as privacy, communication rights, and self-determination. This article argues that such proposals insufficiently account for the complexity of contemporary online information ecosystems, particularly the inherent difficulty in establishing causality and attribution. Reliance on the precautionary principle might offer a justificatory frame for AI-enabled measures to counter 'cognitive warfare' in the absence of conclusive empirical evidence of harm. However, any such state intervention must be based in law and adhere to strict proportionality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.