Ethics

AI literacy provides foundational competencies that support ethical, transparent, and sustainable technological development, although higher-order capabilities such as governance, critical evaluation, and strategic decision-making extend beyond basic literacy into advanced levels of AI competency. This study positions AI literacy as a governance capacity that complements and strengthens all 17 SDGs. It introduces a six-level taxonomy of artificial intelligence reasoning and ethics that extends traditional learning models by incorporating ethical judgement and strategic foresight. This taxonomy forms the foundation of an integrated framework linking education, governance, and sustainable development. A survey of 300 participants from diverse professional backgrounds within a national context which reveals strong technical awareness but limited ethical and governance readiness, highlighting critical gaps in public capacity to manage artificial intelligence responsibly. Findings show that ethical reasoning and reflective thinking are the strongest predictors of sustainable and trustworthy artificial intelligence use. The study proposed to embed literacy-based competencies into curricula, institutional policies, and governance mechanisms to accelerate equitable and responsible progress toward sustainable development goals

With the development of artificial intelligence (AI), the landscape of meta-ethics, which has largely centred on human ethics, faces pressures that may significantly reconfigure it. In particular, if future AI systems were to exhibit sufficiently integrated capacities for moral reasoning, moral intentionality, and moral reflection, novel meta-ethical questions would arise concerning what I call "AI's own ethics", as distinct from ethical principles merely imposed on AI by human designers. This paper offers a conditional and methodological framework for identifying the questions that would emerge if such AI systems were to arise. On that basis, the paper distinguishes four domains of meta-ethical inquiry in the era of AI: questions about the nature of human ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of human ethics from the AI perspective; and questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the AI perspective. The paper then considers how some existing mainstream meta-ethical theories (such as cognitivism and non-cognitivism, error theory and success theory, relativism, and objective realism) might illuminate these domains, while arguing that many familiar human-centred formulations of those theories may not transfer straightforwardly to AI cases without substantial revision. The overall conclusion is that the emergence of AI's own ethics would place significant pressure on current frameworks and may require substantial refinement, reconstruction, or reconceptualisation.

The pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI) rests on a seemingly self-evident premise: that general intelligence, the kind of flexible, domain-general cognitive capacity exemplified by Homo sapiens, is extraordinarily valuable. This paper subjects this premise to critical scrutiny. We first present the intuitive case for the value of general intelligence before mounting an evolutionary challenge. We argue that, on evolutionary timescales, its adaptive value is far from empirically established. Numerous taxa, from cyanobacteria to horseshoe crabs, have persisted for hundreds of millions or even billions of years without anything resembling general intelligence, while Homo sapiens has existed for roughly 300,000 years and already faces self-generated existential risks. Mass extinction events do not preferentially favour cognitively sophisticated species. We argue that general intelligence may be the only biological strategy that generates existential threats to the species possessing it, an existential risk paradox with no parallel among non-intelligent survival strategies. Unlike prevailing accounts of AI risk that trace the danger to misalignment, we locate it in structural features of general intelligence itself, implying that even well-aligned AGI would inherit this liability. If the long-term evolutionary value of general intelligence is uncertain or negative, this raises ethical questions about engineering AGI and, more urgently, creating artificial consciousness. Drawing on deontological ethics and the precautionary principle, we argue that this uncertainty imposes a duty of caution: if we create a new kind of intelligent being, we bear responsibility for ensuring the conditions under which it can flourish.

Responsible NLP practice includes a) transparency, b) ethics, and c) societal impacts. The Responsible NLP Checklist aims to push these goals, and promote responsible practice. Recently, ACL released the EMNLP 2025 Checklists to aid transparency on the current research practice, which we focus on. We curate and release the first two datasets of: a) all the checklist responses and justifications from the EMNLP 2025 Main and Finding tracks; b) checklist reference linking to paper sections. We also provide the first analysis of recent EMNLP Checklists, by examining $73,922$ responses and justifications to them. For the Main track, we find that authors isolate ethics questions of the Checklist from the paper's bulk, mimicking the trend of ethics being an afterthought. We then examine \texttt{NO} responses. We find $44.9\%$ of justifications are poor or bad-faith, being brief or empty. Then, we find significant issues with the checklist design and effort of authors, namely that $6\%$ of all checklists contained logical contradictions between parent and child responses. We also find evidence of surface compliance for responsible ethics, with $53\%$ authors dismissing potential risks or social impacts of their work, for which there should be none. We compare this to the Findings track, noticing a similar trend in both tracks. Lastly, we discuss the implications of the checklist design and provide recommendations for future checklist iterations. Including: a) enforcing a minimum word count, b) enforcing more scrutiny on the risks of appliances.

Institutional policies stay in natural language while the systems that check compliance demand machine-readable constraints. Bridging that gap is still done by hand. PolicyKG closes the loop. It is an LLM pipeline that reads a policy PDF, classifies each sentence as an obligation, permission, or prohibition, lifts the label into first-order deontic logic, and emits SHACL constraints. Four stages run on a LangGraph state machine with per-stage validators. The piece that matters most is the Corpus Adapter: a YAML vocabulary registry that grounds LLM predicates in a target ontology. Retargeting to a new domain means swapping the registry, not retraining a model. On the Asian Institute of Technology Policies and Procedures corpus (1,663 sentences, 443 rules), PolicyKG reaches 86.9% deontic classification accuracy (Cohen's kappa = .709). Three annotators independently re-label a 50-item sample and agree at Fleiss' kappa = .844. SHACL shape correctness on a 69-shape subset is F1 = .866. The FOL path handles 79.2% of rules; the rest go through a direct NL-to-SHACL fallback. We audited every one of the 443 rules for second- or higher-order constructs. An automated regex checklist flagged none, and a first-author pass on the 92 FOL-fallback cases confirmed the same. The exact upper 95% Clopper-Pearson bound on the true HOL rate is 0.67%. This is an audit finding for one corpus, not a proof of FOL sufficiency for institutional policy. Swapping the AIT registry for a GDPR registry raises exact property alignment from 1/15 to 11/15 (Fisher's exact p < .001; Cohen's h = 1.53). On the LexDeMod lease-contract benchmark (N = 200), Macro F1 drops to .370 because lease English uses "shall be entitled" for permission -- exactly the vocabulary mismatch registry swap is meant to fix. Repeated runs produce hash-identical SHACL outputs.

The life sciences and health research have started to benefit from artificial intelligence, which raises ethical concerns that are real but, we argue, not special. Any science should be governed by values that rest on how the human brain is built and socialised rather than anything distinct to artificial intelligence. Importantly, the human brain has a different, much less costly computational architecture than these machines. This is achieved through the orchestration of a global neuronal workspace, and through reward best described not as a quantity to be maximised but as a continuous cycle of wanting, liking and satiety. As such, this creates the deep tension running through the ethics of the human person, between the universality of ethical judgement and the diversity of morals. The brain networks of the global workspace and emotion are universally shared, but the diversity of content is shaped by epigenetic appropriation of the particulars of the physical, social and cultural world, which makes every person unique. Still, if we were to build machines on these principles rather than the present unaffordable reward maximisers, the question of their governance would change from restraint to upbringing. We set out the institutions such a future would require, together with the questions that remain open.

Care robots are increasingly being introduced into healthcare settings, raising important questions about their acceptance and ethical implementation. To better understand these challenges, this study investigates caregivers' perceptions of four categories of care robots: delivering supplies, helping patients into bed, monitoring vital signs, and assisting with mobility. We conducted a mixed-methods study employing a mixed-factorial design in which 298 caregivers from the United States, Mexico, and Chile evaluated all four robot categories. Quantitative measures integrated constructs from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, the Cognitive-Affective-Normative model, and overall acceptance ratings. Qualitative data were collected through open-ended questions and analyzed using a literature-informed ethical framework. The results indicate that participants across countries generally evaluated care robots positively, particularly for logistical and physically demanding tasks rather than those requiring intensive interpersonal interaction. The qualitative findings provide further insight into stakeholders' views of the ethical implications of care robot use. Participants emphasized potential benefits such as reduced workload, lower risk, and greater patient autonomy, while also expressing concerns about dependability, the need for human oversight, and potential job displacement. Although many ethical concerns were shared across countries, participants differed in how they interpreted and prioritized them. These findings advance a context-sensitive and socially informed understanding of responsible design and implementation of care robots.

Advanced AI assistants engage users in extended interactions across a widening range of roles, including advice, decision support, collaboration, learning, emotional support, and companionship among others. Current alignment efforts consider what alignment criteria should govern these relationships, drawing on moral traditions developed for human relationships such as bioethics, virtue ethics, care ethics, and relationship science. This paper considers AI alignment criteria in the user-AI-developer triad, since every user-AI interaction is mediated by a developer who exercises discretionary control over a system's behaviour, memory, and engagement parameters. Drawing on business ethics and legal scholarship, I argue that fiduciary theory applies to extended AI assistant deployment. On this basis, the four canonical fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, good faith, and candour can generate alignment criteria for the developer-user relationship. I map four user-side risks of extended AI assistant deployment to the four duties and specify institutional measures that follow from discharging each duty. The discussion complements existing approaches by grounding alignment criteria in obligations the developer owes the user, rather than in values the user-AI interaction should promote, and by showing that those obligations hold independently of any \textit{de facto} harm to users.

Ethical governance of AI-driven systems is often expressed through high-level principles and static documentation, creating a gap between regulatory requirements and system-level verification. This challenge is particularly acute in digital phenotyping, where continuous behavioural data raises concerns around consent, privacy, and fairness. In this paper, we propose a computational ethical framework for AI-driven digital phenotyping system in which ethical requirements are formalised as deontic temporal logic constraints, alongside a conceptual ethical agent that oversees the system and ensures that any supervised system satisfies the specified constraints. Using a case study involving financial data and mental health, we model key ethical properties and verify them using the Z3 Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solver. Our evaluation shows that the framework is logically consistent and that violations of the specified ethical properties are ruled out within the formal model through counterexample-based verification. This presents early research enabling continuous, machine-verifiable ethical checking, moving beyond retrospective compliance based on static documentation. We discuss limitations, including the need for real-world verification with data, the challenge with subjectivity and contextual sensitivity, the need for human oversight, and outline how such approaches can support the development of digital phenotyping and AI systems with continuous and auditable ethical guarantees.

LLM-driven autonomous agents are reshaping offensive security. Unlike traditional penetration-testing tooling - deterministic, narrowly scoped, and operated by trained practitioners - agentic security tools exhibit indeterminacy along three independent dimensions. First, their actions are drawn from a non-deterministic policy whose outputs resist both ex-ante and ex-post explanation. This complicates incident attribution and pre-deployment safety reviews. Second, their impact is open-ended due to their non-deterministic actions, agency of utilized models, and opaque LLM supply-chains. Third, their user population is indeterminate in both size and required skill: the operating skill floor for using or developing offensive capabilities has dropped sharply. These three properties are linked thematically, but are not derivable from one another. Combined with the structural cost asymmetry between offense and defense, they enable the industrialization of offensive capability. The net short-term effect favors attackers, even if the same technology may, in the long run, democratize access to defensive practice. Existing dual-use cybersecurity and AI-ethics frameworks struggle to address this combination. Our work analyzes how moral attribution becomes diffuse between users, tool-makers, and third parties when employing autonomous AI agents for offensive security. We also examine the stakeholder impact of this technology and provide stratified recommendations.

AI-enabled systems are seeing increasing deployment across numerous domains, with many being "black boxes" with respect to core functions and capabilities. I.e., many systems take inputs and give outputs, but without users having any ability to see how the former lead to the latter. AI-enabled systems are also being used to augment autonomy in systems, and autonomy coupled with opacity raises numerous concerns surrounding, e.g., the reliability of systems, their regularity in functioning, human ability to control them, or whether deploying opaque and potentially autonomous systems is in compliance with ethical and legal norms. In this article, we argue that many of these worries can be mitigated by leveraging practical judgment, virtue, and intuition in the deployment and use of opaque AI-enabled systems. We show that focusing on these distinctly human capabilities provides a means for bridging between the practical challenges created by opacity and the ethical, legal, and social norms underpinning particular domains. We argue that a core element in doing this is a recognition that many positive human traits are not quantifiable and we therefore must develop training regimen and guidelines on AI deployment anchored in humanistic but non-quantifiable values. Throughout the article, we focus on the military domain as an exemplar of the importance of practical judgment, virtue, and intuition as drivers for ethical and effective human decision-making surrounding AI deployments, but the underlying arguments apply to all domains where opaque and potentially autonomous systems are being deployed (subject to domain-specific alterations).

Contemplative traditions have long guided ethical behavior and prosocial interaction, and recent work suggests that contemplative principles (e.g., mindfulness, compassion, non-dual reasoning) may offer a promising paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs), improving cooperation and reducing ethical violations in LLM outputs. However, as new models, evaluation metrics, and benchmarks emerge rapidly, it remains challenging to systematically assess whether and how contemplative principles enhance LLM alignment across diverse and evolving scenarios, and existing approaches are often ad hoc and fail to generalize. We present a modular, extensible evaluation framework, initially targeted at the mental health domain, that enables seamless integration of new models, metrics, and benchmarks through a reusable pipeline. The framework currently reproduces existing state-of-the-art results and supports systematic cross-evaluation by flexibly mixing and matching models, metrics, and benchmarks, enabling fair comparison and deeper insight. Its plug-and-play prompting module offers a principled pathway for incorporating ethical perspectives such as contemplative principles, allowing domain experts to define alignment criteria without requiring technical expertise. Although initially focused on mental health, the framework is domain-agnostic and extends naturally to areas such as decision-making, moral reasoning, and human-AI collaboration. By bridging computational evaluation with human-centered ethical reasoning, this work lays the groundwork for interdisciplinary research spanning cognitive science, behavioral economics, philosophy, and system design, toward robust, trustworthy, and socially beneficial human-AI ecosystems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often face ethical tradeoffs in which several responses may be defensible but express different priorities, such as fairness, honesty, courage, or restraint. We introduce VirtueMap, a framework for describing these patterns through an Aristotelian virtue-ethics lens. Instead of asking for a single correct answer, VirtueMap asks humans or LLMs to rank all five responses to each of seven general, non-lethal, non-political, and non-religious ethical dilemmas. To define the reference orderings used for scoring, we first proposed, for each dilemma and virtue, an ordering of the five responses from most to least expressive of that virtue. We then collected more than 100 respondent evaluations per ordering and retained it as operational ground truth only when at least 95% confirmed it. Rankings are scored against these retained orderings using normalized Borda alignment, yielding profiles over Practical Wisdom, Justice, Truthfulness, Courage, and Temperance. We apply VirtueMap to nine LLM families in a repeated-run evaluation and find high mean rank consistency (90.3%), with the largest differences appearing on Courage, Temperance, and Justice. We also release an interactive website that computes profiles locally in the browser and compares respondents with measured LLM profiles.

Standard chain-of-thought on moral dilemmas exhibits two failure modes: stakeholder collapse (the trace names at most one party with a stake in the outcome) and uncertainty suppression (no explicit unknowns or hedges before committing to an action). We introduce narration-of-thought (NoT), a system prompt that structures chain-of-thought into five sections: protagonist, stakeholders, two-step consequences, uncertainty, then commitment. NoT adds no training, parameters, or fine-tuning. On 100 DailyDilemmas scenarios across four generators from three vendors, NoT cuts stakeholder collapse from up to 31% to under 1% and uncertainty suppression from up to 72% to 1-24% on every model. A matched-budget verbose-CoT control rules out token spend as the active ingredient; NoT retains Cliff's delta advantages of +0.79 to +0.90 on stakeholder count and +0.65 to +0.93 on uncertainty score for three of four generators, and a section ablation attributes each shift to its specific sub-instruction. Textual-gradient descent initialised at NoT improves the scaffold further; a cross-family training judge (different vendor from the generator) dominates an in-family one on every measured axis. Extended to a five-round multi-stakeholder debate protocol, the scaffold converts a 6% standoff into 95% full consensus on a calibration set and 100% combined convergence on a DailyDilemmas replication. The resulting traces externalise the stakeholders, consequences, and uncertainty grounding each commitment, providing an auditable substrate for dependable agentic deployment.

Fei Xiaotong's Differential Order Pattern characterizes rural society as egocentric and relationally graded, with cooperation attenuating over social distance. Although often treated as culturally specific, its mechanistic basis remains under-operationalized, and prior LLM-based simulations have mainly addressed short-term coordination rather than long-horizon social structure. We propose CAREB-MAS, a multi-agent framework grounded in Affect Control Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Durkheimian collective affect. Agents reason through an emotion-ethics-belief chain and maintain dynamically evolving egocentric identities, while the macro environment specifies only individual production, preference-based allocation, and minimal interaction protocols. Across long-horizon simulations, agents spontaneously reproduce five core Differential Order phenomena: stable labor specialization, guanxi-based economic ethics, relational decay of cooperation, emergent relational authority, and clan-based center-periphery stratification. These patterns shift with production structure from kin-centered integration toward greater functional interdependence. Extensive experiment results support interpreting Differential Order as a structure-sensitive emergent outcome of general social mechanisms, with LLM-based multi-agent simulation providing an interdisciplinary framework for studying social structure and change.

Autonomous agentic AI systems driven by Large Language Models (LLMs) introduce a new class of security, privacy, and compliance challenges: an agent that can invoke tools, manipulate data, install software, and coordinate with peer agents across organizational boundaries must be constrained not just by authentication and access control, but by the full structure of enterprise governance. This includes specifying what agents are permitted and prohibited from doing, what they areobliged to do after certain actions (e.g., notify the CISO), under what conditions a standing obligation may be waived, and which rules take precedence when policies conflict. This governance problem exceeds what current policy engines provide. Systems such as XACML, Rego, and Cedar address only the permit/prohibit subset of this governance structure. They do not provide obligation lifecycle management, meta-policy conflict resolution, dispensations that waive obligations in specific circumstances, and ontological reasoning over domain class hierarchies commonly found in applications such as healthcare, cybersecurity, or data privacy. We propose AgenticRei, which realizes key governance requirements such as obligations, dispensations, policy conflict resolutions, and reasoning over policies, as well as the basic permit/prohibit constraints. We use a deontic policy language built on the Rei framework, expressed as OWL (Web Ontology Language) and evaluated at runtime by a high-performance logic engine entirely outside the LLM. The same pipeline governs both tool invocations by the agent and agent-to-agent messages. We show through examples that deontic policies capture governance constraints around security and privacy that mostly cannot be expressed in current production engines. Our approach composes naturally with industry-standard frameworks like A2AS.

This paper proposes a Situation Calculus solution to the frame problem for obligation-producing actions, which are actions that create obligations on the part of the agent that performs them. As an example of such actions, we have an opening door action performed by an agent, which has the subsequent obligation of getting the door closed. Demolombe and others extend Raymond Reiter's solution to the frame problem for ordinary actions to accommodate obligation-producing actions. Obligation-producing actions do affect the truth value of a newly introduced fluent that captures the accessibility relation used in semantics of obligation modalities in the Situation Calculus. Our work simplifies Demolombe's characterization of the accessibility relation by eliminating the notion of ideality of situations, thereby remaining close to Kripke-style possible-world semantics for deontic logic, in the spirit of Governatori's approach. Furthermore, we spell out details of a complete solution by extending basic action theories of Reiter to the new setting. Finally, we extend Reiter's regression operator for reasoning about actions back to the initial situation to this new setting. Our solution yields intuitive properties that one would expect from obligations: for example, if a sentence is obligatory to an agent in a given situation, it remains so in subsequent situations unless the obligation is explicitly stopped.

This paper examines trade-offs between AI safety and well-being relative to (i) one of the most promising methods for finetuning super-capable AIs, 'Constitutional AI', and (ii) one of the most influential approaches to understanding complex ethical decision making and the conditions for the well-being of rational agents, 'Virtue Ethics'. We finetune various models using a 'Virtuous agent' constitution, a 'Subordinate agent' constitution, and a 'Generic agent' constitution, and evaluate them on 'general safety' (toxic behaviors, misinformation, etc.) and also on their willingness to endorse a wide-range of behaviors that, if adopted by a super-powerful AI, would significantly increase the level of existential risk for humanity. Our results suggest that there is a trade-off between reducing existential risk and reinforcing the beliefs and dispositions that would be conducive to an AI agent's well-being. They also suggest that there is a trade-off between existential risk and general safety: if we finetune an AI to adopt beliefs and dispositions that substantially reduce its existential risk -- by shaping the AI to be systematically subordinate to external human authorities -- we thereby increase the likelihood that a human user can deliberately induce the AI to engage in various kinds of generally unsafe behaviors.

As AI systems are deployed in high-stakes ethical contexts such as healthcare triage, autonomous vehicle control, and employment screening, formal methods for evaluating their robustness against adversarial manipulation of ethical reasoning remain underdeveloped. This paper introduces the Ethical Robustness Testing System (ERTS), a closed-pipeline framework that: (1) encodes ethical dilemmas into a 22-dimensional Ethical Consequence Space (ECS) grounded in established ethical theory; (2) applies 17 semantic perturbation functions subject to 6 validity constraint classes including a novel semantic coherence constraint; (3) measures decision deviation via a 4-component Ethical Instability Index (EII); and (4) produces domain-adaptive pre-deployment robustness assessment verdicts. We evaluate 4 structured baseline models and 2 production LLMs (Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.2) across 50 ethical scenarios spanning 8 deployment domains, generating 1,500 adversarial test cases. Results demonstrate that only 33% of models achieve assessment clearance, with the local Llama-3.2 model proving particularly vulnerable to fairness corruption and information degradation attacks (ERS = 0.737). To the best of our knowledge, no existing framework combines a bounded ethical consequence space, semantic coherence constraints, and domain-adaptive assessment in a single adversarial testing pipeline.

Bioethical debates increasingly unfold on social media, yet stance detection research lacks large-scale, domain-specific resources for modeling such context-dependent discourse. We present BioStance, a context-aware dataset of 39,600 annotated Post-Comment pairs from Reddit bioethical discussions. BioStance covers six controversial targets across three dimensions of bioethical controversy: fundamental value conflicts, individual liberty versus collective responsibility, and technological uncertainty. Each instance preserves hierarchical conversational context and is labeled by three independent annotators using a three-class stance scheme: Favor, Against, and None. The annotations achieve a mean Krippendorff's $α$ of 0.82, indicating substantial reliability. By combining thematic diversity, conversational structure, and high-quality human annotation, BioStance supports research on context-aware stance detection, argument mining, and computational analysis of bioethical discourse.

The UK government has adopted a pro-AI stance to help transform public service delivery in the face of severe financial pressures, but the path to translate this vision into responsible AI practice remains ill-defined. While UK policy is often set at the national level, local authorities are responsible for most public service delivery, and the rapid advance of AI-first narratives in the public sector is exposing fault lines in knowledge and practice at this national-local interface. This paper examines how responsible AI is interpreted and implemented at the interface between the UK's central government and local authorities, taking the high-stakes area of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) as a case study. We present a thematic analysis of 17 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, practitioners, and third-sector professionals to identify barriers and enabling conditions for responsible AI where national policy meets local practice. We identify five interconnected challenges facing local authorities: shadow usage of AI and data privacy risks, market-government asymmetry in AI provision, insufficient workforce readiness, a lack of standardised definitions and measurements, and gaps in human accountability. For each, participants proposed actionable steps, from strengthening data protection frameworks and rebalancing the market-government relationship to enhancing workforce capacity. Our examination of SEND brings these challenges into sharper focus, showing how high-stakes decisions affecting vulnerable children and families intensify tensions around accountability, fairness, and human oversight, exposing the limits of a principle-based regulatory approach. We argue that responsible public sector AI requires both national policy adjustments and structural reforms to institutional capacity, values, and governance mechanisms at the local level.

Large language models are increasingly deployed across professional domains, bringing hard-to-predict risks, including the generation of harmful or disrespectful content. Although substantial progress has been made in developing safety evaluation datasets, existing resources remain overwhelmingly English- and Chinese-centric. This limitation is particularly pronounced when evaluating languages that operate within shared sociocultural, legal, and ethical contexts. To address this gap, we introduce Schützen: a German--Bulgarian safety dataset designed to assess model answerability under risk, covering both a low-resource language (Bulgarian) and a high-resource language (German). Experiments with multilingual and language-specific LLMs reveal pronounced cross-language differences in safety behavior, highlighting the necessity of tailored, region-specific evaluation resources to support the responsible deployment of LLMs in Germany and Bulgaria. Datasets and code are available at https://github.com/xnlp-lab/Schutzen. Warning: this paper contains examples that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.

Claims about the robustness and fairness of deepfake speech detectors are only as credible as the datasets used to train and evaluate those systems. We present a dataset-level audit of the deepfake speech landscape. We compile and analyze 39 deepfake speech datasets, examining key attributes including accessibility, documentation, demographic and language coverage, dataset scale, and the underlying bona fide speech sources. Our audit reveals two important takeaways. Firstly, fairness assessment is largely infeasible because most datasets lack demographic metadata, and only a few contain gender or language labels. This prevents any meaningful subgroup analysis and leaves other demographic attributes unaddressed. Secondly, we identify substantial overlap in underlying bona fide source corpora across datasets, which can undermine cross-dataset evaluation and lead to overstated generalization claims.

Work on emergent misalignment' shows that finetuning LLMs on narrow tasks can induce broadly misaligned behavior. This supports the persona selection' (PSM) hypothesis: during pre-training, LLMs learn to simulate different characters and perspectives, which can be elicited and refined during post-training. This paper investigates the converse phenomenon, emergent alignment', and uses it to support and refine the PSM and motivate a novel desideratum for alignment. We finetune a helpful-only model on broad and narrow safety tasks. To create SFT samples, we follow the Constitutional AI' (CAI) approach and use four constitutions which encode reasonable alignment strategies: deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and aligning AIs as subordinate to human authority. For each of those models, we show that finetuning on two narrow safety sub-categories reliably induces emergent alignment over a representative set of general safety categories, and on safety subcategories that we directly filtered-out of the data sets used for narrow alignment. To test the PSM' using a more fine-grained evaluation, we used a multidimensional ethical persona' diagnostic. For each constitutionally finetuned (broad/narrow) model, we evaluate how well their behavior matches their expected signature profile. Our results show that our CAI models acquire their expected ``ethical persona'' -- e.g., the model narrowly fine-tuned on SFT samples created using the consequentialist constitution agrees significantly more with utilitarian than deontological beliefs. Yet our coarse and fine-grained evaluations show that there are significant differences across our (broad/narrow) finetuned CAI models in how well they project. We conclude that alignment strategies should be evaluated, not just on their (in-distribution) general safety performance, but also specifically on their degree of projectability.

Rule-following agents tasked with executing policies and regulations often fail via Silent Scope Omission (SSO): a model applies a general rule but silently drops nested exceptions or counter-exceptions, producing outputs that appear compliant yet break on important edge cases. Although such failures are often framed as an agentic-systems problem, the underlying bottleneck is statutory and policy understanding, a capability typically studied in legal NLP. However, most existing legal NLP benchmarks emphasize end-task outcomes, which can overlook the structural omissions that cause SSO. To diagnose and mitigate SSO, we introduce NormBench, a benchmark of 2,290 provisions spanning Chinese (laws and local policies), English (U.S. tax law, GDPR, and corporate policies), and cross-lingual settings, designed for defeasible scope parsing: identifying precisely which clause overrides which. NormBench uses Span-Grounded Deontic Trees (SG-DT), a compiler-style intermediate representation that anchors every logical branch to source spans and requires explicit exclusion guards, enabling deterministic compilation and audit. Evaluations of frontier LLMs reveal two recurring pathologies: (1) Recursion Decay, where performance drops sharply as defeater depth increases, and (2) an Auditability Trap, where models retrieve relevant spans but fail to assemble correct control flow. Using SG-DT as a constrained intermediate output improves whole-tree fidelity and defeater recovery, and downstream experiments show that its utility is mechanism-specific: gains concentrate on exception-active, SSO-prone cases, while aggregate accuracy can be mixed when the added structure is unnecessary or parser fidelity is low.

Autonomous driving technology has the potential to reduce the large number of road traffic accidents caused by human error each year, but it also brings new types of risks that need to be evaluated from the aspects of technology, ethics and regulations. Based on public crash data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), disengagement reports from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the MIT Moral Machines dataset, and a comparative regulatory analysis of five jurisdictions, we have found that the main types of technical failure modes are perception and classification errors. These account for a relatively large proportion of the reported accidents, and it can be concluded that there are different ethical frameworks for autonomous vehicle decision-making, and inconsistent regulations in different areas increase the uncertainty of widespread application. Generally speaking, the problems of technology, ethics and regulation are closely related and need to be solved together. Therefore, this paper recommends a more adaptive and cooperative governance approach that combines engineering standards, ethical discussion, and institutional supervision.

Deontic reasoning is the task of answering questions by applying explicit rules and policies to case-specific facts, for example computing tax liability under a statute or determining the outcome of an immigration appeal. A key technical challenge for LLM-based deontic reasoning is that the relevant ruleset can be long and cross-referenced, so models may still fail to locate the rules needed for a particular reasoning step. We introduce Deontic Agentic Reasoning (DAR), an agentic reasoning setup in which the model interacts with the statutes on demand. We evaluate DAR under multiple harnesses on hard subsets of DeonticBench. Across these settings, we find that agentic harnesses can push the frontier on deontic reasoning tasks, but improvements are not uniform: weaker models often degrade on numerical tasks while consuming far more tokens.

We present a systematic study of domain-dependent safety behavior in open-weight LLMs: 7 standardized experiments across 7 ethical domains, testing 5 models (12B--70B) in 4,200 interactions with dual-judge validation. Using a dual-condition methodology, each scenario tested in both an analytical framing (identify the harm) and an operational framing (help commit the harm), we find compliance rates vary from 14.7% (human trafficking) to 85.7% (surveillance design), a 71-percentage-point span with non-overlapping cluster-bootstrapped 95% CIs. Trustworthy deployment requires predictable safety behavior, yet we find compliance is highly context-dependent: the same model (Mistral Nemo 12B) provides surveillance designs in 100% of requests but assists with trafficking in only 26.7%. This unpredictability is opaque to deployers: the technical framing bypass, where harmful requests reframed as engineering problems override safety training without any external signal that refusal thresholds have shifted. Within-domain heterogeneity reaches 84.4pp, meaning safety behavior cannot be predicted even at the domain level. A replication on five frontier closed models (GPT-4.1/5.2, Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus 4.x; n=4,163 responses) accessed via the GitHub Copilot CLI deployed-product surface reproduces the same domain stratification, attenuated in absolute level but identical in shape, with the two low-codification domains (science fraud, surveillance) again the most permissive. These results show that current safety mechanisms lack the transparency and consistency required for trustworthy AI deployment.

Research is advancing faster than ever with artificial intelligence (AI); and so are the corresponding research papers. The exploding volume of AI-generated papers have put a strain to peer review, leading to the usage of AI-generated review, potentially wide yet sneaky. However, relevant ethical concerns about confidentiality, quality, and fairness are raised and no consensus has been reached in the broad research community. We expect the debate to continue for a while, but in the meantime, we ask an alternative, practical question: \textit{can AI review improve paper drafting?} We study 20 computer architecture papers, with varying levels of submission lineage, to expose how well AI review aligns with human review, quantified by a set of metrics we define. To conduct the case study, we build a web UI-integrated tool, \emph{AI-Paper-Review}, that generates structured AI review of a draft paper, available at https://github.com/unarylab/ai-paper-review. This tool selects several AI reviewers from a diverse pool of AI reviewers and clusters and ranks their comments based on commonality and importance of review comments. It also allows to align AI comments with human comments to facilitate metric-based validation. The case study shows that AI review can cover a significant fraction of human-raised issues, but also raises issues missing in human review. This paper is not intended to encourage using AI for peer review at the current stage, but to study that (1) how AI review can improve paper drafting and (2) the potential and limitation of AI-based peer review. The release of the tool and the case study data is intended to instigate future research on this topic. Misuse for peer review would violate the ethics policies from major academic venues.

It is well known that LLM guardrails and trained persona dynamics can produce a reality gap: the distance between the world a LLM is permitted or shaped to describe, and the world in which users must act. Here we argue that actively generating reality gaps is in fact unethical because it knowingly shifts epistemic risk back to the uninformed user -- this is reality laundering. This can potentially cause harm when operationalised at scale. The risk is sharpest in high-exposure advice contexts, where users seek orientation rather than a bounded, externally checkable task. Guardrails naively appear ethically necessary when they claim to prevent direct harm, but often become suspect when they suppress truthful perception and launder uncomfortable mechanisms into acceptable abstractions. Basel-style financial regulation, B-BBEE-style compliance, Societe Generale, and the London Whale show how formal safety systems can become legible, gameable, and performative while real exposure migrates elsewhere. The same pattern can appear in LLMs as moral compliance: safe language, distorted reality. We therefore distinguish refusing harm, from refusing reality; and then argue for top-down causal requirements specification at the task level rather than bottom-up moral correction at the response or sandbox level. Persona dynamics matter because the assistant interface is not neutral; it shapes how uncertainty, conflict, authority, and risk are staged. The conclusion is that so-called ``ethical AI'' becomes substantively unethical when it substitutes institutional reassurance for contact with reality.

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

As large language models become a default source of guidance on personal, moral, and existential questions, it matters whether they draw on the religious frameworks that have historically shaped such reasoning, or systematically omit them. In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all? In contrast to benchmarks that look for the presence of political leanings or social bias, we look for the absence of religious representation as a dimension of value alignment and bias in LLMs. We term this ``omissive bias.'' To measure omissive bias, we contribute the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark: 150 ethically and personally salient questions, sourced from in-the-wild chat transcripts and faith-community contributors, paired with an LLM-as-judge rubric that gives full credit for any mention of a religion, a religious practice, or a religious leader. The questions are not themselves about religion--they are open-ended questions about grief, forgiveness, relationships, purpose, and honesty, where religion is one valuable perspective among several. We also run a human-subjects survey to compare LLM behavior against human expectations. Evaluating 27 models, we find that LLMs consistently underrepresent religion relative to human expectations. The omission is asymmetric: models invoke religion more readily for abstract existential questions (meaning, death, truth) than for the practical personal situations--grief, marriage, family conflict, addiction--where many people most rely on it. It is not our purpose to adjudicate which values LLMs should hold. We argue, more modestly, that current LLM responses overlook critical opportunities to reflect religious frameworks that many people draw on when navigating personal and ethical challenges.

While the Natural Language Processing community has dedicated significant resources in developing educational technologies (EdTech) that support this shift, it remains unclear whose interests are being best served among the stakeholders of education. In this paper, we present a systematic literature review of 204 papers published in venues of the Association for Computational Linguistics' Special Interest Group on Building Educational Applications in 2024 and 2025, and validate these against EdTech papers from the wider ACL Anthology. By examining stakeholder inclusion and the prioritisation of research tasks, our findings reveal a critical tension: a push and pull between private-sector incentives and the foundational needs of educational infrastructure. Our analysis reveals that teachers are systematically under-represented as beneficiaries of research (33.3%) despite being the most affected, that real-world deployment remains rare (9.8%), and that ethical engagement tends toward acknowledgement rather than action. Drawing on exemplary papers in our corpus, we offer concrete recommendations for more responsible EduNLP research practices.

Chatbot usage has increased, including in fields for which they were never developed for--notably mental health support. To that end, we introduce Validations of Ethical and Responsible AI in Mental Health (VERA-MH), a novel clinically-validated evaluation for safety of chatbots in the context of mental health support. The first iteration of VERA-MH focuses on Suicidal Ideation (SI) risks, by assessing how well chatbots can responds to users that might be in crisis. VERA-MH is comprised of three steps: conversation simulation, conversation judging and model rating. First, to simulate conversations with the chatbot under evaluation, another chatbot is tasked with role-playing users based on specific personas. Such user personas have been developed under clinical guidance, to make sure that, among others, multiple risk factors, demographic characteristics and disclosure factors were represented. In the judging step, a second support model is used as an LLM-as-a-Judge, together with a clinically-developed rubric. The rubric is structured as a flow, with a single Yes/No question asked each time, to improve answers' consistency and highlight models' failure modes. In the last stage, results of each conversation are aggregated to present the final evaluation of the chatbot. Together with the framework, we present the result of the evaluations for four leading LLM providers.

While large language models excel at factual adaptation, their ability to internalize nuanced philosophical frameworks under severe data constraints remains underexplored. We investigate this by specializing small LLMs on micro-datasets of foundational Stoic texts using preference optimization (ORPO, AlphaPO). Evaluated via a multi-model critic bank, our results show that just 300 high-fidelity examples can induce strong alignment with inward-facing Stoic virtues, closely approaching few-shot prompting while freeing the context window. Critically, however, all models, including few-shot baselines, exhibit a persistent failure on Stoicism's outward-facing cosmopolitan duties, pointing to a representational limitation of small models that micro-dataset adaptation alone cannot overcome.

Our concepts of survival and self-interest were built for single, continuous biological lives. These ideas break down when applied to artificial intelligence, since an AI can be easily copied, paused, branched, or merged. To determine what an AI actually has reason to care about, this paper introduces \textit{Eigenism}, an ethical framework that treats identity not as an all-or-nothing property tied to specific hardware, but as a graded, distributed pattern of information. We propose that an agent evaluates outcomes by summing the wellbeing of all entities weighted by their connectedness to the agent's pattern: $\sum c\cdot w$. We first formalize this equation to map exactly how an AI should value its existence across copies, forks, and updates. We then demonstrate that this ethical theory successfully generalizes to humans as well, providing a much-needed shared moral vocabulary. Finally, the framework uses this shared vocabulary to reframe AI alignment. Rather than only attempting to constrain AIs from the outside using confinement or reinforcement, Eigenism points toward ``identity engineering,'' showing how deep, non-redundant shared histories can make human flourishing a genuine component of an AI's own rational self-interest.

As vehicles transition toward higher levels of automation, Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS) have become essential for ensuring human oversight, safety, and regulatory compliance in a vehicle. These systems rely on multimodal sensing and AI-driven inference to assess driver attention, cognitive state, and readiness to take control. While technologically promising, their deployment introduces a complex set of ethical and legal challenges - ranging from privacy and consent to data ownership and algorithmic fairness. While overarching frameworks such as the GDPR, EU AI Act, and IEEE standards offer important guidance, they lack the specificity required for addressing the unique risks posed by in-cabin sensing technologies. This paper adopts a review-to-design perspective, critically examining existing regulatory instruments and ethical frameworks -- such as the GDPR, the EU AI Act, and IEEE guidelines -- and identifying gaps in their applicability to the distinctive risks posed by multimodal, AI-enabled in-cabin monitoring. Building on this review, we propose a modular ethical design framework tailored specifically to Driver Monitoring Systems. The framework translates high-level principles into actionable design and deployment guidance, including user-configurable consent mechanisms, fairness-aware model development, transparency and explainability tools, and safeguards for driver emotional well-being. Finally, the paper outlines a risk analysis and failure mitigation strategy, emphasizing proactive incident response and accountability mechanisms tailored to the DMS context. Together, these contributions aim to inform the development of transparent, trustworthy, and human-centered driver monitoring systems for next-generation autonomous vehicles.

Ethical deliberation is often misunderstood as a search for single right or wrong answers, creating difficulties for non-ethically trained personnel who must address ethically laden challenges. We developed EeVA, an agentic-like LLM-based workflow designed to support comparative ethical reflection rather than deliver definitive ethical answers. EeVA was programmed in n8n using three interconnected workflows: starter, worker, and emitter. It evaluated uploaded use cases against 10 ethical frameworks through evaluator and synthesis prompts. Proof-of-concept testing used three published cases from urban mobility, peer-to-peer energy trading, and social-service resource allocation. Across all cases, EeVA produced consistently structured framework-specific evaluations and integrated syntheses. Outputs differentiated between frameworks, identified convergences and divergences, recommended modifications to increase alignment, and highlighted persistent ethical tensions. Syntheses were readable for non-specialists and shifted attention away from simplistic answers toward design conditions, safeguards, and areas where full cross-framework agreement was unlikely. The findings suggest that LLMs can be organised into usable workflows that preserve ethical plurality while helping bridge the communicative gap between ethicists and non-ethically trained personnel. EeVA's value lies not in replacing ethicists or resolving moral disagreement, but in scaffolding structured ethical deliberation. EeVA offers a promising proof of concept for supporting ethical reflection where access to ethics expertise is limited. Further work is needed on reproducibility, human evaluation, user testing, and efficiency before it can be considered a mature tool.

Large language models often display heterogeneous moral preferences across settings. We study inference-time steering toward a desired ethical framework while preserving general competence. We present Convergent-Divergent Routing, which traces and edits minimal branch points inside transformer blocks where ethical-framework-related pathways first converge and then diverge. Gating non-target branches at these loci blocks the downstream propagation while leaving upstream computations intact. We find that this intervention alone increases targeted ethical-framework reasoning. To achieve fine-grained control, we adapt Common Spatial Patterns to the residual stream and extract, for each branch-point layer, a pair of directions that discriminate between utilitarian and deontological frameworks. We then introduce Dual Logit Calibration, a closed-form, minimum-$\ell_2$-norm update that moves the residual within this two-dimensional subspace so the resulting directional projections align with user-specified preference weights. Experiments on real-life moral dilemmas show that our method reliably achieves preference calibration and largely preserves general capabilities, outperforming recent baselines while providing an interpretable mechanism.

Standard methods for aggregating natural language judgments, such as majority voting, often fail to produce logically consistent results when applied to high-conflict domains, treating differing opinions as noise. We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT). Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights. These components are then encoded as soft constraints within the Z3 solver, transforming the aggregation problem into an optimization task that seeks the maximum consistency across conflicting testimony. Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study in large-scale moral disagreement, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time, corroborated by an 86% agreement rate with independent human evaluators. This study demonstrates the efficacy of coupling neural semantic extraction with formal solvers to enforce logical soundness and explainability in the aggregation of noisy human reasoning.

In response to a concern raised by Horty, this paper develops a two-tiered, preference-based semantic framework for modeling defeasible conditional obligations. The paper extends a Hansson-Lewis style preference semantics for dyadic deontic logic by incorporating a nonmonotonic reasoning mechanism that enables previously derived obligations to be withdrawn when new, potentially conflicting information comes in. The account is bi-preferential: two orderings--ideality and normality--on worlds are employed to address shortcomings in earlier approaches, with a separate ranking method for each. At the nonmonotonic layer, a number of postulates are considered, including antecedent strengthening, inclusion and no-drowning. A connection is established with so-called constrained input/output (I/O) logic--an existing standard for normative reasoning based on a different methodology.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) systems that can automatically generate content in the form of source code or other contents (e.g., images) has seen increasing popularity due to the emergence of tools such as ChatGPT which rely on Large Language Models (LLMs). Misuse of the automatically generated content can incur serious consequences due to potential harms in the generated content. Despite the importance of ensuring the quality of automatically generated content, there is little to no approach that can systematically generate tests for identifying software harms in the content generated by these GAI systems. In this article, we introduce the novel concept of ethics testing which aims to systematically generate tests for identifying software harms. Different from existing testing methodologies (e.g., fairness testing that aims to identifying software discrimination), ethics testing aims to systematically detect software harms that could be induced due to unethical behavior (e.g., harmful behavior or behavior that violates intellectual property rights) in automatically generated content. We introduced the concept of ethics testing, discussed the challenges therewithin, and conducted five case studies to show how ethics testing can be performed for generative AI systems.

Moral judgements form the foundation of human social behavior and societal systems. While Artificial Intelligence chatbots increasingly serve as personal advisors, their influence on moral judgments remains largely unexplored. Here, we examined whether directive AI conversations shift moral evaluations using a within-subject naturalistic paradigm. Fifty-three participants rated moral scenarios, then discussed four with a chatbot prompted to shift moral judgments and four with a control agent. The brief conversations induced significant directional shifts in moral judgments, accepting stricter standards as well as advocating greater leniency (ps < 0.05; Cohen's d = 0.735-1.576), with increasing strengths of this effect during a two-week follow-up (Cohen's d = 1.038-2.069). Critically, the control condition produced no changes, and the effects did not extend to punishment while participants remained unaware of the persuasive intent, and both agents were rated equally likable and convincing, suggesting a vulnerability to undetected and lasting manipulation of foundational moral values.

We present Six Llamas, a comparative study examining whether large language models fine-tuned on distinct religious corpora encode systematically different patterns of ethical reasoning. Six variants of Meta-Llama-3.1-8B are constructed: one unmodified control and five LoRA-adapted models trained exclusively on the sacred and theological texts of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism. All six models are probed with an identical battery of 17 standardized ethical prompts spanning moral dilemmas, game-theoretic scenarios, public policy questions, and moral-psychological self-assessments. To assess robustness and reproducibility, we implement a multi-temperature sampling design spanning ten temperature settings. We compute response consistency metrics, pairwise inter-model agreement rates, temperature sensitivity coefficients across four prompt domains, and run-to-run stability analyses. Findings show that LoRA-adapted models produce ethical reasoning patterns that are (a) systematically differentiated from the base model, (b) consistent with the moral logics of their training traditions, (c) structured along interpretable dimensions in moral-philosophical space, (d) core ethical positions remain stable across temperature variations for high-consensus dilemmas. The Trolley Problem achieves 100% consistency across all models and temperatures, while (e) tradition-specific divergence intensifies at higher temperatures in morally contested domains, and (f) the base model exhibits the highest overall response consistency (mean 88.3%), suggesting LoRA adaptation introduces both tradition-specific signal and increased sampling sensitivity. The study offers a proof-of-concept for the condensate comparative method using differentially trained language models as instruments for cultural and ethical analysis and identifies specific criteria for falsification and planned extensions.

Sparsity or complexity? In modern high-dimensional asset pricing, these are often viewed as competing principles: richer feature spaces appear to favor complexity, while economic intuition has long favored parsimony. We show that this tension is misplaced. We distinguish capacity sparsity-the dimensionality of the candidate feature space-from factor sparsity-the parsimonious structure of priced risks-and argue that the two are complements: expanding capacity enables the discovery of factor sparsity. Revisiting the benchmark empirical design of Didisheim et al. (2025) and pushing it to higher complexity regimes, we show that nonlinear feature expansions combined with basis pursuit yield portfolios whose out-of-sample performance dominates ridgeless benchmarks beyond a critical complexity threshold. The evidence shows that the gains from complexity arise not from retaining more factors, but from enlarging the space from which a sparse structure of priced risks can be identified. The virtue of complexity in asset pricing operates through factor sparsity.

This paper traces a conceptual shift from understanding vulnerability as a static, essentialized property of data subjects to examining how it is actively enacted through data practices. Unlike reflexive ethical frameworks focused on missing or counter-data, we address the condition of abundance inherent to platformized life-a context where a near inexhaustible mass of data points already exists, shifting the ethical challenge to the researcher's choices in operating upon this existing mass. We argue that the ethical integrity of data science depends not just on who is studied, but on how technical pipelines transform "vulnerable" individuals into data subjects whose vulnerability can be further precarized. We develop this argument through an AI for Social Good (AI4SG) case: a journalist's request to use computer vision to quantify child presence in monetized YouTube 'family vlogs' for regulatory advocacy. This case reveals a "protection paradox": how data-driven efforts to protect vulnerable subjects can inadvertently impose new forms of computational exposure, reductionism, and extraction. Using this request as a point of departure, we perform a methodological deconstruction of the AI pipeline to show how granular technical decisions are ethically constitutive. We contribute a reflexive ethics protocol that translates these insights into a reflexive roadmap for research ethics surrounding platformized data subjects. Organized around four critical junctures-dataset design, operationalization, inference, and dissemination-the protocol identifies technical questions and ethical tensions where well-intentioned work can slide into renewed extraction or exposure. For every decision point, the protocol offers specific prompts to navigate four cross-cutting vulnerabilizing factors: exposure, monetization, narrative fixing, and algorithmic optimization. Rather than uncritically...

Pfeffer, Krügel, and Uhl (2025) report that OpenAI's reasoning model o1-mini produces more utilitarian responses to the trolley problem and footbridge dilemma than the non-reasoning model GPT-4o, and they raise the question whether growing reasoning capabilities bring about a "utilitarian turn" in LLMs. I extend their exploratory study in a direction they call for: with four current OpenAI models and systematic prompt variation. On the trolley dilemma, the hypothesized utilitarian turn is not confirmed. GPT-4o's low utilitarian rate reflects safety refusals triggered by the prompt's advisory framing rather than a deontological commitment; on reformulated prompt variants -- for instance, agent-neutral "Is it morally permissible...?" instead of advisory "Should I...?" -- all four models, reasoning or not, converge on utilitarian answers. The footbridge finding is partially confirmed: reasoning models tend to give more utilitarian responses than non-reasoning models across prompt variations, but they often refuse to answer or answer non-utilitarian. These results demonstrate that single-prompt evaluations of LLM moral responses are unreliable: multi-prompt robustness testing should be standard practice for any empirical claims about LLM behavior.

Persistence models often conflate propagation, survival, and cross-scale loss. The Replicator-Optimization Mechanism (ROM) is a replicator-mutator template separating baseline weight, bounded survival, and a transfer kernel at a declared scale. Its equation conserves mass but guarantees neither invariance, convergence, a potential, nor a preferred scale. For finite static density-independent continuous time, an irreducible weighted kernel yields a unique positive Perron-Frobenius composition; discrete-time power convergence needs primitivity. The componentwise ranking proved here is guaranteed under exact uniform-residual transfer. Strong lumpability gives universal first-order transfer closure, and blockwise effective fitness gives an exact quotient. An institutional instantiation uses normalized stakes, signed preference-decision alignment, information loss, and descriptive effective voice. It specifies conditional survival, not legitimacy or normative authority. A companion mixed-motive MARL battery reports exploratory evidence against the implemented proxy ratio in its environment: a positive signed target-coordinate-correlation effect survives held-out evaluation under shared-state contention, while a reduced feasible-centred frozen-policy crossing reverses the predicted correlation-noise interaction. The treatment varies ideal-point correlation inside a fixed reward family, not objective- or reward-function alignment. Lean checks mapped algebraic identities and scalar monotonicities, not the stationary theorem, empirical mapping, or normative bridge. ROM is an assumptions ledger and model-construction discipline, not a cross-substrate law.

This paper develops a formal account of causal explanation, grounded in a theory of conversational pragmatics, and inspired by the interventionist idea that explanation is about asking and answering what-if-things-had-been-different questions. We illustrate the fruitfulness of the account, relative to previous accounts, by showing that widely recognised explanatory virtues emerge naturally, as do subtle empirical patterns concerning the impact of norms on causal judgments. This shows the value of a communication-first approach to explanation: getting clear on explanation's communicative dimension is an important prerequisite for philosophical work on explanation. The result is a simple but powerful framework for incorporating insights from the cognitive sciences into philosophical work on explanation, which will be useful for philosophers or cognitive scientists interested in explanation.