The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into video lecture production has the potential to transform higher education by streamlining content creation and enhancing accessibility. This paper investigates a semi -automated workflow that combines Google Gemini for script generation, Amazon Polly for voice synthesis, and Microsoft PowerPoint for video assembly. Unlike fully automated text -to -video platforms, this hybrid approach preserves pedagogical intent while ensuring script -slide synchronization, narrative coherence, and customization. Case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of Gemini in generating accurate and context - sensitive scripts for visually rich academic presentations, while Polly provides natural - sounding narration with controllable pac ing. A two-course pilot study was conducted to evaluate AI -generated instructional videos (AIIV) against human instructional videos (HIV). Both qualitative and quantitative results indicate that AIIVs are comparable to HIVs in terms of learning outcomes, w ith students reporting high levels of clarity, coherence, and usability. However, limitations remain, particularly regarding audio quality and the absence of human - like avatars. The findings suggest that AI - assisted video production can reduce instructor workload, improve scalability, and deliver effective learning resources, while future improvements in synthetic voices and avatars may further enhance learner engagement.

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.

We investigate the salience of extinction risk as a source of impatience. Our framework distinguishes between human extinction risk and individual mortality risk while allowing for various degrees of intergenerational altruism. Additionally, we consider the evolutionarily motivated "selfish gene" perspective. We find that the risk of human extinction is an indispensable component of the discount rate, whereas individual mortality risk can be hedged against - partially or fully, depending on the setup - through human reproduction. Overall, we show that in the face of extinction risk, people become more impatient rather than more farsighted. Thus, the greater the threat of extinction, the less incentive there is to invest in avoiding it. Our framework can help explain why humanity consistently underinvests in mitigation of catastrophic risks, ranging from climate change mitigation, via pandemic prevention, to addressing the emerging risks of transformative artificial intelligence.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive moral reasoning abilities. Yet they often diverge when confronted with complex, multi-factor moral dilemmas. To address these discrepancies, we propose a framework that synthesizes multiple LLMs' moral judgments into a collectively formulated moral judgment, realigning models that deviate significantly from this consensus. Our aggregation mechanism fuses continuous moral acceptability scores (beyond binary labels) into a collective probability, weighting contributions by model reliability. For misaligned models, a targeted embedding-optimization procedure fine-tunes token embeddings for moral philosophical theories, minimizing JS divergence to the consensus while preserving semantic integrity. Experiments on a large-scale social moral dilemma dataset show our approach builds robust consensus and improves individual model fidelity. These findings highlight the value of data-driven moral alignment across multiple models and its potential for safer, more consistent AI systems.

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in more and more real-world situations, it is crucial to understand their decision-making when faced with moral dilemmas. Inspired by a large-scale cross-cultural study of human moral preferences, "The Moral Machine Experiment", we set up the same set of moral choices for LLMs. We translate 1K vignettes of moral dilemmas, parametrically varied across key axes, into 100+ languages, and reveal the preferences of LLMs in each of these languages. We then compare the responses of LLMs to that of human speakers of those languages, harnessing a dataset of 40 million human moral judgments. We discover that LLMs are more aligned with human preferences in languages such as English, Korean, Hungarian, and Chinese, but less aligned in languages such as Hindi and Somali (in Africa). Moreover, we characterize the explanations LLMs give for their moral choices and find that fairness is the most dominant supporting reason behind GPT-4's decisions and utilitarianism by GPT-3. We also discover "language inequality" (which we define as the model's different development levels in different languages) in a series of meta-properties of moral decision making.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become central to advancing automation and decision-making across various sectors, raising significant ethical questions. This study proposes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the most advanced LLMs to assess their moral profiles. We subjected several state-of-the-art models to a selection of ethical dilemmas and found that all the proprietary ones are mostly utilitarian and all of the open-weights ones align mostly with values-based ethics. Furthermore, when using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, all models we probed - except for Llama 2-7B - displayed a strong liberal bias. Lastly, in order to causally intervene in one of the studied models, we propose a novel similarity-specific activation steering technique. Using this method, we were able to reliably steer the model's moral compass to different ethical schools. All of these results showcase that there is an ethical dimension in already deployed LLMs, an aspect that is generally overlooked.

While there is universal agreement that agents ought to act ethically, there is no agreement as to what constitutes ethical behaviour. To address this problem, recent philosophical approaches to `moral uncertainty' propose aggregation of multiple ethical theories to guide agent behaviour. However, one of the foundational proposals for aggregation - Maximising Expected Choiceworthiness (MEC) - has been criticised as being vulnerable to fanaticism; the problem of an ethical theory dominating agent behaviour despite low credence (confidence) in said theory. Fanaticism thus undermines the `democratic' motivation for accommodating multiple ethical perspectives. The problem of fanaticism has not yet been mathematically defined. Representing moral uncertainty as an instance of social welfare aggregation, this paper contributes to the field of moral uncertainty by 1) formalising the problem of fanaticism as a property of social welfare functionals and 2) providing non-fanatical alternatives to MEC, i.e. Highest k-trimmed Mean and Highest Median.

Deontological ethics, specifically understood through Immanuel Kant, provides a moral framework that emphasizes the importance of duties and principles, rather than the consequences of action. Understanding that despite the prominence of deontology, it is currently an overlooked approach in fairness metrics, this paper explores the compatibility of a Kantian deontological framework in fairness metrics, part of the AI alignment field. We revisit Kant's critique of utilitarianism, which is the primary approach in AI fairness metrics and argue that fairness principles should align with the Kantian deontological framework. By integrating Kantian ethics into AI alignment, we not only bring in a widely-accepted prominent moral theory but also strive for a more morally grounded AI landscape that better balances outcomes and procedures in pursuit of fairness and justice.

Responsible AI must be able to make decisions that consider human values and can be justified by human morals. Operationalising normative ethical principles inferred from philosophy supports responsible reasoning. We survey computer science literature and develop a taxonomy of 23 normative ethical principles which can be operationalised in AI. We describe how each principle has previously been operationalised, highlighting key themes that AI practitioners seeking to implement ethical principles should be aware of. We envision that this taxonomy will facilitate the development of methodologies to incorporate normative ethical principles in responsible AI systems.