Alan Winfield is Professor of Robot Ethics at the University of the West of England (UWE), Visiting Professor at the University of York, and Associate Fellow of the Cambridge Centre for the Future of Intelligence. Alan co-founded the Bristol Robotics Laboratory, where his research is focussed on the science, engineering and ethics of cognitive robotics. Alan is an advocate for robot ethics; he chairs the advisory board of the Responsible Technology Institute at the University of Oxford and has co-drafted new standards on ethical risk assessment and transparency. Robot Talk is a weekly podcast that explores the exciting world of robotics, artificial intelligence and autonomous machines. Robot Talk is a weekly podcast that explores the exciting world of robotics, artificial intelligence and autonomous machines.

This happened as generative and agentic systems became essential in key sectors worldwide. This feature highlights the major AI ethics and policy developments of 2025, and concludes with a forward-looking perspective on the ethical and policy challenges likely to shape 2026.

While much research in artificial intelligence (AI) has focused on scaling capabilities, the accelerating pace of development makes countervailing work on producing harmless, "aligned" systems increasingly urgent. Yet research on alignment has diverged along two largely parallel tracks: safety--centered on scaled intelligence, deceptive or scheming behaviors, and existential risk--and ethics--focused on present harms, the reproduction of social bias, and flaws in production pipelines. Although both communities warn of insufficient investment in alignment, they disagree on what alignment means or ought to mean. As a result, their efforts have evolved in relative isolation, shaped by distinct methodologies, institutional homes, and disciplinary genealogies. We present a large-scale, quantitative study showing the structural split between AI safety and AI ethics. Using a bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis of 6,442 papers from twelve major ML and NLP conferences (2020-2025), we find that over 80% of collaborations occur within either the safety or ethics communities, and cross-field connectivity is highly concentrated: roughly 5% of papers account for more than 85% of bridging links. Removing a small number of these brokers sharply increases segregation, indicating that cross-disciplinary exchange depends on a handful of actors rather than broad, distributed collaboration. These results show that the safety-ethics divide is not only conceptual but institutional, with implications for research agendas, policy, and venues. We argue that integrating technical safety work with normative ethics--via shared benchmarks, cross-institutional venues, and mixed-method methodologies--is essential for building AI systems that are both robust and just.

In the governance of emerging technologies, ethical guidance has often relied on so-called soft law instruments--codes of conduct, guidelines, or frameworks--designed to promote responsible behavior without imposing binding legal constraints. This is partly due to the difficulty of imposing harmonized regulations across the EU, especially in a global context characterized by strong reservations expressed by other international actors, e.g. the United States of America, with regard to the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) that "unduly burdens AI innovation" (Kratsios, Sacks, and Rubio 2025) . Another reason is related to the principle, upheld in several member states such as Germany, that protects scientific freedom by constitutional law. Nevertheless, the recent trajectory of technological regulation in the European Union shows that soft law can evolve into hard law: this has been the case, notably, with the adoption of the AI Act (European Commission 2022; Terpan 2015) .

This paper examines how international AI governance frameworks address gender issues and gender-based harms. The analysis covers binding regulations, such as the EU AI Act; soft law instruments, like the UNESCO Recommendations on AI Ethics; and global initiatives, such as the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI). These instruments reveal emerging trends, including the integration of gender concerns into broader human rights frameworks, a shift toward explicit gender-related provisions, and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and diversity. Yet, some critical gaps persist, including inconsistent treatment of gender across governance documents, limited engagement with intersectionality, and a lack of robust enforcement mechanisms. However, this paper argues that effective AI governance must be intersectional, enforceable, and inclusive. This is key to moving beyond tokenism toward meaningful equity and preventing reinforcement of existing inequalities. The study contributes to ethical AI debates by highlighting the importance of gender-sensitive governance in building a just technological future.

Ethical awareness is critical for robots operating in human environments, yet existing automated planning tools provide little support. Manually specifying ethical rules is labour-intensive and highly context-specific. We present Princi-ples2Plan, an interactive research prototype demonstrating how a human and a Large Language Model (LLM) can collaborate to produce context-sensitive ethical rules and guide automated planning. A domain expert provides the planning domain, problem details, and relevant high-level principles such as beneficence and privacy. The system generates op-erationalisable ethical rules consistent with these principles, which the user can review, prioritise, and supply to a planner to produce ethically-informed plans. To our knowledge, no prior system supports users in generating principle-grounded rules for classical planning contexts. Principles2Plan showcases the potential of human-LLM collaboration for making ethical automated planning more practical and feasible.

This chapter discusses the ethics of generative AI. It provides a technical primer to show how generative AI affords experiencing technology as if it were human, and this affordance provides a fruitful focus for the philosophical ethics of generative AI. It then shows how generative AI can both aggravate and alleviate familiar ethical concerns in AI ethics, including responsibility, privacy, bias and fairness, and forms of alienation and exploitation. Finally, the chapter examines ethical questions that arise specifically from generative AI's mimetic generativity, such as debates about authorship and credit, the emergence of as-if social relationships with machines, and new forms of influence, persuasion, and manipulation.

This paper critiques common patterns in machine ethics for Reinforcement Learning (RL) and argues for a virtue focused alternative. We highlight two recurring limitations in much of the current literature: (i) rule based (deontological) methods that encode duties as constraints or shields often struggle under ambiguity and nonstationarity and do not cultivate lasting habits, and (ii) many reward based approaches, especially single objective RL, implicitly compress diverse moral considerations into a single scalar signal, which can obscure trade offs and invite proxy gaming in practice. We instead treat ethics as policy level dispositions, that is, relatively stable habits that hold up when incentives, partners, or contexts change. This shifts evaluation beyond rule checks or scalar returns toward trait summaries, durability under interventions, and explicit reporting of moral trade offs. Our roadmap combines four components: (1) social learning in multi agent RL to acquire virtue like patterns from imperfect but normatively informed exemplars; (2) multi objective and constrained formulations that preserve value conflicts and incorporate risk aware criteria to guard against harm; (3) affinity based regularization toward updateable virtue priors that support trait like stability under distribution shift while allowing norms to evolve; and (4) operationalizing diverse ethical traditions as practical control signals, making explicit the value and cultural assumptions that shape ethical RL benchmarks.

Generative AI systems now mediate newsfeeds, search rankings, and creative content for hundreds of millions of users, positioning a handful of private firms as de-facto arbiters of truth. Drawing on a comparative-historical lens, this article juxtaposes the Galileo Affair, a touchstone of clerical knowledge control, with contemporary Big-Tech content moderation. We integrate Foucault's power/knowledge thesis, Weber's authority types (extended to a rational-technical and emerging agentic-technical modality), and Floridi's Dataism to analyze five recurrent dimensions: disciplinary power, authority modality, data pluralism, trust versus reliance, and resistance pathways. Primary sources (Inquisition records; platform transparency reports) and recent empirical studies on AI trust provide the evidentiary base. Findings show strong structural convergences: highly centralized gatekeeping, legitimacy claims couched in transcendent principles, and systematic exclusion of marginal voices. Divergences lie in temporal velocity, global scale, and the widening gap between public reliance and trust in AI systems. Ethical challenges cluster around algorithmic opacity, linguistic inequity, bias feedback loops, and synthetic misinformation. We propose a four-pillar governance blueprint: (1) a mandatory international model-registry with versioned policy logs, (2) representation quotas and regional observatories to de-center English-language hegemony, (3) mass critical-AI literacy initiatives, and (4) public-private support for community-led data trusts. Taken together, these measures aim to narrow the trust-reliance gap and prevent GenAI from hardcoding a twenty-first-century digital orthodoxy.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential for educational applications. However, their unscrutinized deployment poses risks to educational standards, underscoring the need for rigorous evaluation. We introduce EduEval, a comprehensive hierarchical benchmark for evaluating LLMs in Chinese K-12 education. This benchmark makes three key contributions: (1) Cognitive Framework: We propose the EduAbility Taxonomy, which unifies Bloom's Taxonomy and Webb's Depth of Knowledge to organize tasks across six cognitive dimensions including Memorization, Understanding, Application, Reasoning, Creativity, and Ethics. (2) Authenticity: Our benchmark integrates real exam questions, classroom conversation, student essays, and expert-designed prompts to reflect genuine educational challenges; (3) Scale: EduEval comprises 24 distinct task types with over 11,000 questions spanning primary to high school levels. We evaluate 14 leading LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings, revealing that while models perform well on factual tasks, they struggle with classroom dialogue classification and exhibit inconsistent results in creative content generation. Interestingly, several open source models outperform proprietary systems on complex educational reasoning. Few-shot prompting shows varying effectiveness across cognitive dimensions, suggesting that different educational objectives require tailored approaches. These findings provide targeted benchmarking metrics for developing LLMs specifically optimized for diverse Chinese educational tasks.