When Pope Leo XIV presented his first encyclical on artificial intelligence at the Vatican on Monday, he invited Christopher Olah, cofounder of Anthropic, to speak. The move signaled an unprecedented alliance between the Catholic church and Silicon Valley. But to understand how this partnership came about, we need to go back to Anthropic's founding. Anthropic launched in 2021 after a group of OpenAI researchers, including Dario and Daniela Amodei, left to form a rival lab. They did so with a clear conviction: Artificial intelligence models were becoming too powerful to be developed exclusively according to the logic of competition and speed.

A.1 Detailed Re-alignment Task Formulation and Training Setup In Figure A1, we show the procedure for converting the data samples in the alignment datasets into training data of AEM (negative samples used in AIL are generated similarly). In DP-inferred chain-of-edits (CoEs), we use a few special tokens to mark the editing operations (with their position and content). Then our decipher module will translate these special tokens into natural language. As the final step, we add a special token [SEP] between Context + Source and the ground truth Chain-of-Edits (CoEs) and Target, as a boundary signal similar to the settings in text-to-text training. During inference, we input a certain Context + Source, and the LM trained by SECONDTHOUGHTS can generate CoEs and the corresponding Target.

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.

Game Theory: Is legal doping in sport a good idea? As the Winter Games celebrate the Olympic motto, Faster, Higher, Stronger -- Together, a new competition is openly allowing the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Samantha Johnson looks at the Enhanced Games and how doping, once sport's red line, is now being marketed as innovation. AFCON: To walk or not to walk?

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.