AI LAW MODEL FOR ETHICAL LEGISLATION: STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

A comprehensive analysis of international practice shows that even the most ambitious and technologically advanced AI acts leave significant gaps — from vague and contradictory definitions of basic concepts, insufficiently elaborated and fragmented ethical requirements, to the complete absence or insufficiency of a deep assessment of the socio-psychological and cultural consequences of AI implementation. Such shortcomings and regulatory gaps can lead to serious legal conflicts, ethical crises, increased social tensions, as well as to the loss or undermining of public trust in digital institutions and public policy in general.

The purpose of the project "Model AI Law for Ethical Law: Strategic Recommendations for the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence" is not only to warn against mechanical and little critical copying of foreign regulatory models, but also to form a thorough approach adapted to the realities of national jurisdictions, based on deep interdisciplinary expertise and comprehensive risk analysis. This approach involves considering the legal, technical, ethical, social, cultural, and medical aspects of AI implementation, which makes it possible to consider LLM technology as a multidimensional phenomenon with long-term consequences. The key idea is that AI laws cannot be the product of the work of narrow-profile initiators who are far from a systematic understanding of the technology, or authors specializing exclusively in one field (law, technology, medicine, etc.) without proper involvement of related fields. Only a broad association of interdisciplinary lawyers, highly qualified technical specialists, sociologists, psychologists, doctors, ethicists, cybersecurity and risk management specialists as part of integrated research groups provides a real opportunity to cover the entire range of direct and indirect risks, as well as to predict the long-term social, economic and political consequences of the development and use of AI.

The structure of the study provides not only a formal statement of provisions, but also sections that define and disclose in detail the fundamental principles of human-centeredness, transparency, accountability, non-discrimination and cyber resilience, taking into account international standards and scientific approaches. At the same time, these sections are combined with analytical blocks, which systematically describe problem areas identified in other countries, provide examples of negative consequences of ignoring these principles, and formulate recommendations for avoiding such risks in Ukrainian legislation. In particular, the following critical aspects are emphasized:

• legal gaps and lack of clearly defined enforcement mechanisms that allow individual actors to avoid or minimize liability for the direct or indirect harmful consequences of the use of AI, including economic, ethical and social losses;

• the lack of a single, scientifically based and normatively fixed risk assessment scale, which complicates the objective identification of the level of danger of specific AI solutions and creates opportunities for conscious or unintentional manipulations in the classification of systems, in particular in order to avoid regulatory requirements or reduce the scope of verification measures;

• lack of effective, transparent and legally enshrined mechanisms of public control and independent audit, capable of ensuring systematic monitoring, objective assessment and public information about the compliance of AI systems with ethical and legal standards;

• ignoring a deep and comprehensive analysis of the psychological, emotional, and sociocultural impacts of AI on vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and other socially sensitive categories, which can lead to deepening inequality, social exclusion, and negative transformations of cultural values;

• weak integration and insufficient regulatory consolidation of internationally recognized technical standards and protocols into legal regulation, which complicates the unification of requirements, reduces the compatibility of national solutions with global ecosystems, and creates risks of technical and legal fragmentation.

Thus, this draft law is not only a draft law in the traditional sense, but also a deeply thought-out analytical and regulatory warning designed to become a conceptual guide for future state policy in the field of artificial intelligence. Its task is to incorporate a multi-level preventive mechanism into AI legislation that would combine preventive, adaptive, and corrective regulatory tools that can flexibly respond to new technological challenges and ethical dilemmas. The implementation of this approach should guarantee not only a formal balance between legal regulation, technological innovation and public security, but also ensure the stability of this balance in the context of rapid transformations and global competition, avoiding strategic and tactical mistakes already made by world leaders in this area.