Limits of artificial intelligence in controlling and the ways forward: a call for future accounting research

Abstract

PurposeLooking at the limits of artificial intelligence (AI) and controlling based on complexity and system-theoretical deliberations, the authors aimed to derive a future outlook of the possible applications and provide insights into a future complementary of human–machine information processing. Derived from these examples, the authors propose a research agenda in five areas to further the field.Design/methodology/approachThis article is conceptual in its nature, yet a theoretically informed semi-systematic literature review from various disciplines together with empirically validated future research questions provides the background of the overall narration.FindingsAI is found to be severely limited in its application to controlling and is discussed from the perspectives of complexity and cybernetics. A total of three such limits, namely the Bremermann limit, the problems with a partial detectability and controllability of complex systems and the inherent biases in the complementarity of human and machine information processing, are presented as salient and representative examples. The authors then go on and carefully illustrate how a human–machine collaboration could look like depending on the specifics of the task and the environment. With this, the authors propose different angles on future research that could revolutionise the application of AI in accounting leadership.Research limitations/implicationsFuture research on the value promises of AI in controlling needs to take into account physical and computational effects and may embrace a complexity lens.Practical implicationsAI may have severe limits in its application for accounting and controlling because of the vast amount of information in complex systems.Originality/valueThe research agenda consists of five areas that are derived from the previous discussion. These areas are as follows: organisational transformation, human–machine collaboration, regulation, technological innovation and ethical considerations. For each of these areas, the research questions, potential theoretical underpinnings as well as methodological considerations are provided.

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Corporate governance reform in the era of artificial intelligence: research overview and prospects based on knowledge graph

“…The research of Artificial Intelligence is highly technical and professional, and each branch field is in-depth and unconnected, so it covers a wide range. According to the past studies, (Losbichler & Lehner, 2021) proposed to build human-machine information processing. Dignam (2020) led it to public education, while (Dong et al, 2021) considered apply Al technology into R&D and patents.…”

Evolution of artificial intelligence and its impact on human rights: from sociolegal perspective

“…Speech Recognition allows computers towards translating spoken language in the form of text[11]. By the help of a smartphone (Losbichler and Lehner, 2021), it will allow one to use effectively talk-to-test. NLP has many applications in the business.…”

“…By using AI, robots can perceive meaningful alteration in function and environment[12]. In the perspective of robots, AI is considered a growing area covering in-depth research and development (Losbichler and Lehner, 2021). However, till date, robots have yet not been able to ensure as universal compared to non-robot usage of ML (Bharadwaj, 2021).…”

The impact and trend in graduate accounting education in Brazil

“…Stancheva-Todorova (2018) says that AI will bring the following impacts on the accounting profession: new skills, new tasks and roles, replacement of tasks and automatically in education, training, and research development. The challenge for researchers lies in the cooperation with AI specialists in the development of solutions to fill in the complexity gap that exists between the accounting domain and artificial intelligence, in addition to the help that AI can provide researchers (Losbichler & Lehner, 2021;Stancheva-Todorova, 2018;Baldwin, Brown & Trinkle, 2006;Bogaerd & Aerts, 2011).…”