Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multilingual and multicultural environments where moral reasoning is essential for generating ethically appropriate responses. Yet, the dominant pretraining of LLMs on English-language data raises critical concerns about their ability to generalize judgments across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. In this work, we systematically investigate how language mediates moral decision-making in LLMs. We translate two established moral reasoning benchmarks into five culturally and typologically diverse languages, enabling multilingual zero-shot evaluation. Our analysis reveals significant inconsistencies in LLMs' moral judgments across languages, often reflecting cultural misalignment. Through a combination of carefully constructed research questions, we uncover the underlying drivers of these disparities, ranging from disagreements to reasoning strategies employed by LLMs. Finally, through a case study, we link the role of pretraining data in shaping an LLM's moral compass. Through this work, we distill our insights into a structured typology of moral reasoning errors that calls for more culturally-aware AI.

With the increasing adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in all fields and daily activities, a heated debate is found about the advantages and challenges of AI and the need for navigating the concerns associated with AI to make the best of it. To contribute to this literature and the ongoing debate related to it, this study draws on the Monster theory to explain the conflicting representation of AI. It suggests that studying monsters in popular culture can provide an in-depth understanding of AI and its monstrous effects. Specifically, this study aims to discuss AI perception and development through the seven theses of Monster theory. The obtained results revealed that, just like monsters, AI is complex in nature, and it should not be studied as a separate entity but rather within a given society or culture. Similarly, readers may perceive and interpret AI differently, just as readers may interpret monsters differently. The relationship between AI and monsters, as depicted in this study, does not seem to be as odd as it might be at first.

Large language models (LLMs), initially developed for generative AI, are now evolving into agentic AI systems, which make decisions in complex, real-world contexts. Unfortunately, while their generative capabilities are well-documented, their decision-making processes remain poorly understood. This is particularly evident when models are handling exceptions, a critical and challenging aspect of decision-making made relevant by the inherent incompleteness of contracts. Here we demonstrate that LLMs, even ones that excel at reasoning, deviate significantly from human judgments because they adhere strictly to policies, even when such adherence is impractical, suboptimal, or even counterproductive. We then evaluate three approaches to tuning AI agents to handle exceptions: ethical framework prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, and supervised fine-tuning. We find that while ethical framework prompting fails and chain-of-thought prompting provides only slight improvements, supervised fine-tuning, specifically with human explanations, yields markedly better results. Surprisingly, in our experiments, supervised fine-tuning even enabled models to generalize human-like decision-making to novel scenarios, demonstrating transfer learning of human-aligned decision-making across contexts. Furthermore, fine-tuning with explanations, not just labels, was critical for alignment, suggesting that aligning LLMs with human judgment requires explicit training on how decisions are made, not just which decisions are made. These findings highlight the need to address LLMs' shortcomings in handling exceptions in order to guide the development of agentic AI toward models that can effectively align with human judgment and simultaneously adapt to novel contexts.

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in research presents both opportunities and ethical challenges that should be carefully navigated. Although GenAI tools can enhance research efficiency through automation of tasks such as literature review and data analysis, their use raises concerns about aspects such as data accuracy, privacy, bias, and research integrity. This paper develops the ETHICAL framework, which is a practical guide for responsible GenAI use in research. Employing a constructivist case study examining multiple GenAI tools in real research contexts, the framework consists of seven key principles: 'Examine policies and guidelines', 'Think about social impacts', 'Harness understanding of the technology', 'Indicate use', 'Critically engage with outputs', 'Access secure versions', and'Look at user agreements'. Applying these principles will enable researchers to uphold research integrity while leveraging GenAI's benefits. The framework addresses a critical gap between awareness of ethical issues and practical action steps, providing researchers with concrete guidance for ethical GenAI integration. This work has implications for research practice, institutional policy development, and the broader academic community while adapting to an AI-enhanced research landscape. The ETHICAL framework can serve as a foundation for developing AI literacy in academic settings and promoting responsible innovation in research methodologies.

The ethical implications and potentials for misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence are increasingly worrying topics. This paper explores how easily the default ethical guardrails of ChatGPT, using its latest customization features, can be bypassed by simple prompts and fine-tuning, that can be effortlessly accessed by the broad public. This malevolently altered version of ChatGPT, nicknamed "RogueGPT", responded with worrying behaviours, beyond those triggered by jailbreak prompts. We conduct an empirical study of RogueGPT responses, assessing its flexibility in answering questions pertaining to what should be disallowed usage. Our findings raise significant concerns about the model's knowledge about topics like illegal drug production, torture methods and terrorism. The ease of driving ChatGPT astray, coupled with its global accessibility, highlights severe issues regarding the data quality used for training the foundational model and the implementation of ethical safeguards. We thus underline the responsibilities and dangers of user-driven modifications, and the broader effects that these may have on the design of safeguarding and ethical modules implemented by AI programmers.

This study addresses ethical issues surrounding Large Language Models (LLMs) within the field of artificial intelligence. It explores the common ethical challenges posed by both LLMs and other AI systems, such as privacy and fairness, as well as ethical challenges uniquely arising from LLMs. It highlights challenges such as hallucination, verifiable accountability, and decoding censorship complexity, which are unique to LLMs and distinct from those encountered in traditional AI systems. The study underscores the need to tackle these complexities to ensure accountability, reduce biases, and enhance transparency in the influential role that LLMs play in shaping information dissemination. It proposes mitigation strategies and future directions for LLM ethics, advocating for interdisciplinary collaboration. It recommends ethical frameworks tailored to specific domains and dynamic auditing systems adapted to diverse contexts. This roadmap aims to guide responsible development and integration of LLMs, envisioning a future where ethical considerations govern AI advancements in society.

Data are essential in developing healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, patient data collection, access, and use raise ethical concerns, including informed consent, data bias, data protection and privacy, data ownership, and benefit sharing. Various ethical frameworks have been proposed to ensure the ethical use of healthcare data and AI, however, these frameworks often align with Western cultural values, social norms, and institutional contexts emphasizing individual autonomy and well-being. Ethical guidelines must reflect political and cultural settings to account for cultural diversity, inclusivity, and historical factors such as colonialism. It focuses on the contrast between individualistic and communitarian approaches to data ethics. The proposed framework could inform stakeholders, including AI developers, healthcare providers, the public, and policy-makers about healthcare data ethical usage in AI in Africa. Keywords: data ethics, artificial intelligence, ubuntu philosophy, ethical framework, global health Introduction Healthcare systems are the pillar of public health and well-being, providing essential services to communities worldwide. However, only between one-third and one-half of the world's population had access to essential health services in 2017 (World Health Organization 2020), especially in the Global South.

Foundational models (FMs) have tremendous potential to revolutionize medical imaging. However, their deployment in real-world clinical settings demands extensive ethical considerations. This paper aims to highlight the ethical concerns related to FMs and propose a framework to guide their responsible development and implementation within medicine. We meticulously examine ethical issues such as privacy of patient data, bias mitigation, algorithmic transparency, explainability and accountability. The proposed framework is designed to prioritize patient welfare, mitigate potential risks, and foster trust in AI-assisted healthcare.

With the rise of individual and collaborative networks of autonomous agents, AI is deployed in more key reasoning and decision-making roles. For this reason, ethics-based audits play a pivotal role in the rapidly growing fields of AI safety and regulation. This paper undertakes an ethics-based audit to probe the 8 leading commercial and open-source Large Language Models including GPT-4. We assess explicability and trustworthiness by a) establishing how well different models engage in moral reasoning and b) comparing normative values underlying models as ethical frameworks. We employ an experimental, evidence-based approach that challenges the models with ethical dilemmas in order to probe human-AI alignment. The ethical scenarios are designed to require a decision in which the particulars of the situation may or may not necessitate deviating from normative ethical principles. A sophisticated ethical framework was consistently elicited in one model, GPT-4. Nonetheless, troubling findings include underlying normative frameworks with clear bias towards particular cultural norms.

The emergence of AI tools in cybersecurity creates many opportunities and uncertainties. A focus group with advanced graduate students in cybersecurity revealed the potential depth and breadth of the challenges and opportunities. The salient issues are access to open source or free tools, documentation, curricular diversity, and clear articulation of ethical principles for AI cybersecurity education. Confronting the "black box" mentality in AI cybersecurity work is also of the greatest importance, doubled by deeper and prior education in foundational AI work. Systems thinking and effective communication were considered relevant areas of educational improvement. Future AI educators and practitioners need to address these issues by implementing rigorous technical training curricula, clear documentation, and frameworks for ethically monitoring AI combined with critical and system's thinking and communication skills.