Legal and organizational aspects of implementing artificial intelligence-based assistants in the daily activities of pedagogy and risk management

Abstract

The article examines the legal and organizational aspects of implementing generative artificial intelligence-based assistants in everyday pedagogical activities and the risk management system in educational organizations. It is shown that bottom-up initiative practices, in which teachers and students use neural network services for content creation, assignment checking, and personalized learning, outpace the formation of normative regimes, creating a space of legal uncertainty and conflicts of responsibility due to the opaque decision-making chain by algorithms. Based on normative-legal monitoring (content analysis of federal acts and local documents of 54 organizations, as well as terms of use of 10 AI platforms), gaps in the regulation of cross border data transfer, protection of personal data of minors and employees, and copyright protection in hybrid authorship are identified. Sociological data (questionnaire and interviews with 1845 education workers and administrators from 12 regions) record the phenomenon of technological optimism: the increase in the frequency of AI use is accompanied by a decrease in legal awareness, rare acquaintance with user agreements, and minimal practice of consulting lawyers, which increases the likelihood of incidents. Quantitative risk assessment shows the dominance of the disinformation threat due to model hallucinations in terms of aggregate criticality, with simultaneous potential catastrophic nature of data leaks and high cost of their prevention; algorithmic bias, technical dependence on external services, and violations of third parties rights are highlighted separately. Analysis of the structure of time costs demonstrates that the acceleration of material development and formatting is compensated by a sharp increase in verification time, especially at the basic level of tool proficiency, which restructures the teacher s labor towards auditing and semantic expertise. The consequences for academic integrity, privacy, and student agency are discussed, as well as managerial dilemmas between prohibitive measures and the formation of shadow practices; the necessity of preventive risk management, local regulations, and a flexible regulatory framework that preserves innovativeness while ensuring safety and cognitive sovereignty is substantiated.