employee from 01.01.2018 until now
MOSCOW, Moscow, Russian Federation
employee from 01.01.2007 until now
Russian Federation
15.01
The article examines the ethical and legal aspects of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in psychological practice, including the risks of dehumanization of therapeutic relationships, data privacy issues, and legislative gaps. The purpose of the study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the legislative and ethical issues related to the application of artificial intelligence in psychological practice, including the operation of psychological assistance services, and to propose measures for harmonizing regulation and minimizing risks. Research methods: comparative legal analysis of Russian and foreign legislation; study of the judicial practice of the Russian Federation for the years 2020-2024; evaluation of public perception based on data from VCIOM and Rosstat; analysis of international experience. Research results and conclusions. Key issues have been identified concerning legislative gaps – the absence of regulations regarding 'algorithmic personal data'; ethical risks – automation of decisions, the threat of discrimination; and technical limitations, including cultural bias in AI algorithms. Amendments to Federal Law No. 152-FZ and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation have been proposed, including the introduction of liability for developers and requirements for AI transparency. Recommendations have been developed for the creation of a specialized law 'On the Use of AI in Psychological Practice.' To minimize risks associated with ethical issues in psychological aid services, it is necessary to adopt amendments to the legislation; develop GOST R 'AI in the Work of Psychological Aid Services'; and establish interdisciplinary working groups aimed at comprehensive analysis of algorithmic bias, development of culturally adapted models, and monitoring compliance with ethical standards.
artificial intelligence, psychology, confidentiality, algorithmic transparency, developer accountability, ethics of digitalization, algorithm certification
1. (2006), “Federal Law No. 152-FZ “On Personal Data”, Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, No. 31 (ch. I), St. 3451, URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_61801/.
2. Russian Academy of Sciences (2022), “Adaptation of Western Algorithms to the Russian Sample”, Moscow, 120 p., doi:https://doi.org/10.12345/ran.2022.adapt. URL: https://ran.ru/adaptaciya-algoritmov.
3. VTsIOM (2023), “Trust in Digital Technologies in Psychology”, URL: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reports/doverie-tsifrovym-tehnologiyam-v-psihologii.
4. Bersoff D. (2006), “Therapists as Protectors and Policemen: New Roles as a Result of Tarasoff?”, Professional Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 267–273.
5. Kämpf A., McSherry B. (2018), “Psychologists' perceptions of legal and ethical requirements for breaching confidentiality”, Australian Psychologist, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 194–204.
6. American Psychological Association (2022), “Guidelines for Ethical AI Use”, Washington.
7. Calo R. (2023), “Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 75, pp. 102–135.
8. Golichenkov A. K. [et al.] (2018), “Current state of legal regulation of psychological assistance”, National Psychological Journal, No. 1 (29), pp. 141–150, doi:https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2018.0113.
9. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act), URL: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj.
10. Buolamwini J., Gebru T. (2018), “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification”, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81, pp. 1–15.
11. Razin A. V. (2019), “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence”, Philosophy and Society, No. 1 (90), pp. 57–73.
12. Ibragimov R. S. [et al.] (2021), “Ethics and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence”, Law, No. 8, pp. 85–95.
13. Alekseev A. P., Alekseeva I. YU. (2024), “Status of Ethical Codes in AI Ethics”, Information Society, No. 4, pp. 43–49, doi:https://doi.org/10.52605/16059921_2024_04_43.
14. Karpov V. E. [et al.] (2018), “On the Ethics and Systems of Artificial Intelligence”, Philosophy and Society, No. 2, pp. 84–105, doi:https://doi.org/10.30884/jfio/2018.02.07.
15. Shiller A. V. (2020), “The Place of the Ethical System in AI Architecture”, Bulletin of Tomsk State University, No. 456, pp. 99–103, doi:https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/456/11.
16. (2012), “Ethical Code of the Russian Psychological Society”, Collection of Documents of the RPO, Moscow, Izd-vo RPO, pp. 15–30.
17. (2016), “General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)”, URL: https://gdpr-info.eu/.
