Ensuring that Large Language Models (LLMs) align with the diverse and evolving human values across different regions and cultures remains a critical challenge in AI ethics. Current alignment approaches often yield superficial conformity rather than genuine ethical understanding, failing to address the complex, context-dependent nature of human values. In this paper, we propose a novel ethical reasoning paradigm for LLMs inspired by well-established ethical decision-making models, aiming at enhancing diverse human value alignment through deliberative ethical reasoning. Our framework consists of a structured five-step process, including contextual fact gathering, hierarchical social norm identification, option generation, multiple-lens ethical impact analysis, and reflection. This theory-grounded approach guides LLMs through an interpretable reasoning process that enhances their ability to understand regional specificities and perform nuanced ethical analysis, which can be implemented with either prompt engineering or supervised fine-tuning methods. We perform evaluations on the SafeWorld benchmark that specially designed for regional value alignment. Experimental results demonstrate our framework significantly improves LLM alignment with diverse human values compared to baseline methods, enabling more accurate social norm identification and more culturally appropriate reasoning. Our work provides a concrete pathway toward developing LLMs that align more effectively with the multifaceted values of global societies through interdisciplinary research.

In this work, we propose JETHICS, a Japanese dataset for evaluating ethics understanding of AI models. JETHICS contains 78K examples and is built by following the construction methods of the existing English ETHICS dataset. It includes four categories based normative theories and concepts from ethics and political philosophy; and one representing commonsense morality. Our evaluation experiments on non-proprietary large language models (LLMs) and on GPT-4o reveal that even GPT-4o achieves only an average score of about 0.7, while the best-performing Japanese LLM attains around 0.5, indicating a relatively large room for improvement in current LLMs.

We paraphrase Descartes' famous dictum in the area of AI ethics where the "I doubt and therefore I am" is suggested as a necessary aspect of morality. Therefore AI, which cannot doubt itself, cannot possess moral agency. Of course, this is not the end of the story. We explore various aspects of the human mind that substantially differ from AI, which includes the sensory grounding of our knowing, the act of understanding, and the significance of being able to doubt ourselves. The foundation of our argument is the discipline of ethics, one of the oldest and largest knowledge projects of human history, yet, we seem only to be beginning to get a grasp of it. After a couple of thousand years of studying the ethics of humans, we (humans) arrived at a point where moral psychology suggests that our moral decisions are intuitive, and all the models from ethics become relevant only when we explain ourselves. This recognition has a major impact on what and how we can do regarding AI ethics. We do not offer a solution, we explore some ideas and leave the problem open, but we hope somewhat better understood than before our study.

Making moral judgments is an essential step toward developing ethical AI systems. Prevalent approaches are mostly implemented in a bottom-up manner, which uses a large set of annotated data to train models based on crowd-sourced opinions about morality. These approaches have been criticized for overgeneralizing the moral stances of a limited group of annotators and lacking explainability. This work proposes a flexible top-down framework to steer (Large) Language Models (LMs) to perform moral reasoning with well-established moral theories from interdisciplinary research. The theory-guided top-down framework can incorporate various moral theories. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework on datasets derived from moral theories. Furthermore, we show the alignment between different moral theories and existing morality datasets. Our analysis exhibits the potential and flaws in existing resources (models and datasets) in developing explainable moral judgment-making systems.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies should adhere to human norms to better serve our society and avoid disseminating harmful or misleading information, particularly in Conversational Information Retrieval (CIR). Previous work, including approaches and datasets, has not always been successful or sufficiently robust in taking human norms into consideration. To this end, we introduce a workflow that integrates ethical alignment, with an initial ethical judgment stage for efficient data screening. To address the need for ethical judgment in CIR, we present the QA-ETHICS dataset, adapted from the ETHICS benchmark, which serves as an evaluation tool by unifying scenarios and label meanings. However, each scenario only considers one ethical concept. Therefore, we introduce the MP-ETHICS dataset to evaluate a scenario under multiple ethical concepts, such as justice and Deontology. In addition, we suggest a new approach that achieves top performance in both binary and multi-label ethical judgment tasks. Our research provides a practical method for introducing ethical alignment into the CIR workflow. The data and code are available at https://github.com/wanng-ide/ealm .

The recent surge in interest in ethics in artificial intelligence may leave many educators wondering how to address moral, ethical, and philosophical issues in their AI courses. As instructors we want to develop curriculum that not only prepares students to be artificial intelligence practitioners, but also to understand the moral, ethical, and philosophical impacts that artificial intelligence will have on society. In this article we provide practical case studies and links to resources for use by AI educators. We also provide concrete suggestions on how to integrate AI ethics into a general artificial intelligence course and how to teach a stand-alone artificial intelligence ethics course.

I'm sure you've heard by now, that artificial intelligence is coming to Human Resources. Of course, the manifold marketing materials and click baiting content dedicated to this growing, uh, phenomenon are predicated on the assumption that there was actual intelligence in the HR function to begin with. This point can probably be debated, which brings us to the larger question: why are we talking about AI in HR, anyways? The fact of the matter is, the problems most endemic to HR, the biggest challenges facing our profession are inherently the holes in even the most sophisticated AI solutions. Whether in reality or in speculative Science Fiction (or somewhere in between, like your provider's "product roadmap"), true AI is the HR Technology equivalent of tilting at windmills.

Verification and validation of agentic behavior have been suggested as important research priorities in efforts to reduce risks associated with the creation of general artificial intelligence (Russell et al 2015). In this paper we question the appropriateness of using language of certainty with respect to efforts to manage that risk. We begin by establishing a very general formalism to characterize agentic behavior and to describe standards of acceptable behavior. We show that determination of whether an agent meets any particular standard is not computable. We discuss the extent of the burden associated with verification by manual proof and by automated behavioral governance. We show that to ensure decidability of the behavioral standard itself, one must further limit the capabilities of the agent. We then demonstrate that if our concerns relate to outcomes in the physical world, attempts at validation are futile. Finally, we show that layered architectures aimed at making these challenges tractable mistakenly equate intentions with actions or outcomes, thereby failing to provide any guarantees. We conclude with a discussion of why language of certainty should be eradicated from the conversation about the safety of general artificial intelligence.