Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 60 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

Moral judgments of AI become more deontological when human designers are made visible, and diverge from judgments of either the AI or standalone human actors.

2026-07-01 09:21 UTC pith:GKXYXZC6

load-bearing objection Moral judgments shift toward deontology when human programmers are made visible, but the four conditions vary in multiple ways that likely confound the claimed cause. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2604.24155 v3 pith:GKXYXZC6 submitted 2026-04-27 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

The Alignment Target Problem: Divergent Moral Judgments of Humans, AI Systems, and Their Designers

Benjamin Minhao Chen , Xinyu Xie This is my paper
classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC
keywords alignment target problemmoral judgmentsAI ethicsvalue alignmentdeontological reasoninghuman agencyrunaway mine trainagent-type value forks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper extends research on agent-type value forks by testing whether people judge AI the same as humans in the same situation and whether those judgments change once the human programmers behind the AI are highlighted. In an experiment using a runaway mine train scenario with 1,002 participants, judgments of a human repairman and an autonomous repair robot did not differ, but both the programmed robot and the engineers who programmed it elicited markedly more rule-based, deontological responses. A sympathetic reader would care because alignment research commonly treats human moral behavior as the target for AI, yet the results indicate that visible human agency activates different normative constraints, leaving open which set of judgments should serve as the benchmark.

Core claim

In the runaway mine train scenario, participants exhibited no significant difference in moral evaluations of a repairman versus a repair robot. Judgments shifted substantially toward deontological reasoning when the robot's actions were described as the product of human design by company engineers or when the engineers themselves were the subject of evaluation, indicating that rendering human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints and that evaluations of humans, AI systems, and designers do not necessarily converge.

What carries the argument

The alignment target problem: the question of which normative target (human actions, AI actions, or designer intentions) should guide artificial moral agents when moral judgments across these three diverge.

Load-bearing premise

The observed increase in deontological reasoning is produced by making human agency visible rather than by differences in scenario wording or how participants interpreted the four conditions.

What would settle it

A replication study that holds wording and framing constant across conditions and finds no increase in deontological judgments when human designers are mentioned would falsify the claim that visibility of agency drives the shift.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Alignment methods that benchmark AI directly against how humans would act may overlook the stricter standards applied once human design is salient.
  • High-stakes AI deployment may require reconciling plural moral targets rather than selecting a single human judgment standard.
  • Attributing AI decisions to human programmers can change the applicable moral rules from those used for unaided human or machine agents.
  • Value alignment efforts must address whether the target is the AI's observable behavior or the intentions of its designers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Transparency requirements that name the human designers of an AI system could unintentionally raise the ethical bar the system must clear.
  • The pattern may extend to other moral domains beyond trolley problems, such as medical or legal decision-making by AI.
  • Designers might face incentives to obscure their role in AI systems to avoid the stricter judgments observed here.
  • Cross-cultural replications could test whether the activation of human agency as a moral trigger is universal or culturally variable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in a survey experiment with 1,002 U.S. adults evaluating a runaway mine train scenario, moral judgments show no significant difference between a human repairman and a repair robot. Judgments shift substantially toward deontological reasoning when evaluating a repair robot programmed by company engineers or the engineers themselves. The authors argue that making human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints, implying that evaluations of humans, AI systems, and designers do not converge and thus create an 'alignment target problem' for choosing normative benchmarks in AI development.

Significance. If the central empirical result holds after design clarification, the work is significant for AI alignment research because it supplies direct survey evidence that moral evaluations are sensitive to the visibility of human origins in AI behavior. This challenges the assumption that human action serves as a single, unproblematic target and instead highlights the need to reconcile plural normative expectations. The large, U.S.-adult sample and use of a canonical moral dilemma are strengths that make the directional finding a useful starting point for further studies on value pluralism in artificial moral agents.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods] Methods section, condition descriptions: the four conditions (repairman; repair robot; repair robot programmed by company engineers; company engineers programming a repair robot) necessarily differ along multiple dimensions beyond visibility of human agency, including explicit references to 'programming' and the introduction of engineers as new actors. This is load-bearing for the claim that 'rendering human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints,' because the abstract and design description provide no evidence of pre-testing, matched wording, or controls to isolate agency visibility from confounds such as intentionality cues or collective vs. individual responsibility framing. Without such isolation the attribution of the deontological shift fails and the alignment target problem lacks its reported empirical basis.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: reports only directional findings and significance claims but omits effect sizes, exact question wording, p-values or confidence intervals, and any mention of data availability, which limits assessment of measurement validity.
  2. [Results] Results: ensure that all between-condition comparisons include the magnitude of differences and exact statistical tests rather than relying solely on 'substantially' or 'markedly.'

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on the manuscript. We address the single major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggested clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Methods section, condition descriptions: the four conditions (repairman; repair robot; repair robot programmed by company engineers; company engineers programming a repair robot) necessarily differ along multiple dimensions beyond visibility of human agency, including explicit references to 'programming' and the introduction of engineers as new actors. This is load-bearing for the claim that 'rendering human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints,' because the abstract and design description provide no evidence of pre-testing, matched wording, or controls to isolate agency visibility from confounds such as intentionality cues or collective vs. individual responsibility framing. Without such isolation the attribution of the deontological shift fails and the alignment target problem lacks its reported empirical basis.

    Authors: We agree that the four conditions vary along dimensions other than the intended salience of human agency, including explicit references to programming and the framing of engineers as additional actors. The current manuscript does not report pre-testing of wording or additional controls to isolate these factors from confounds such as intentionality cues or collective responsibility. This is a genuine limitation of the design. In the revised version we will (1) reproduce the full verbatim condition text in the Methods section, (2) add an explicit limitations paragraph in the Discussion that acknowledges these alternative explanations, and (3) qualify the causal language around the mechanism while preserving the descriptive finding that judgments shift when human design is made visible. We view the study as an initial demonstration rather than a fully isolated test of the mechanism. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical survey with direct measurement

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical survey experiment measuring participant moral judgments across four scenario conditions in a runaway mine train setup. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations are invoked as load-bearing steps in any chain. Participant responses are collected and compared directly to the described conditions without reduction to prior self-referential inputs or ansatzes. The central claim rests on observed differences in deontological vs. consequentialist judgments, which are falsifiable via the survey data itself rather than constructed by definition or citation chains.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the experimental manipulation isolating visibility of human agency and on the interpretation of responses as deontological versus consequentialist reasoning; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard assumptions of statistical hypothesis testing and survey response validity apply to the moral judgment data collected.
    The abstract reports 'no significant difference' and 'markedly more deontological' which presuppose these background statistical and measurement assumptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5829 in / 1220 out tokens · 36335 ms · 2026-07-01T09:21:38.686350+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The project of aligning machine behavior with human values raises a basic problem: whose moral expectations should guide AI decision-making? Much alignment research assumes that the appropriate benchmark is how humans themselves would act in a given situation. Studies of agent-type value forks challenge this assumption by showing that people do not always judge humans and AI systems identically.This paper extends that challenge by examining two further possibilities: first, that evaluations of AI behavior change when its human origins are made visible; and second, that people judge the humans who program AI systems differently from either the machines or the human actors they are compared against. An experiment with 1,002 U.S. adults measured moral judgments in a runaway mine train scenario, varying the subject of evaluation across four conditions: a repairman, a repair robot, a repair robot programmed by company engineers, and company engineers programming a repair robot. We find no significant difference in evaluations of the repairman and the robot. However, judgments shifted substantially when the robot's actions were described as the product of human design. Participants exhibited markedly more deontological, rule-based reasoning when evaluating either the programmed robot or the engineers who programmed it, suggesting that rendering human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints. These findings indicate that people may evaluate humans, AI systems acting in the same situation, and the humans who design them in meaningfully different ways. The fact that these evaluations do not necessarily converge gives rise to the alignment target problem: which normative target should guide the development of artificial moral agents in high-stakes domains, and whether these plural judgments can be reconciled within a coherent account of value alignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24155 by Benjamin Minhao Chen, Xinyu Xie.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experimental Materials and Conditions. Participants in all four conditions read a scenario description accompanied by an illustration view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Percentage of Participants’ Who Judged It Permissible to Redirect the Train onto a Siderail. This bar graph shows the proportion of view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Percentage of Participants Who Judged that the Train Should be Redirected onto a Siderail. This bar graph shows the proportion of view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean General Moral Foundation Scores by Condition. This line graph displays average scores on six Moral Foundations Theory view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean AI Moral Foundation Scores by Condition. This line graph displays average scores on six Moral Foundations Theory subscales view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean Purity Gap by Condition. This bar chart displays the mean difference between participants’ AI purity score and their general view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Michael Anderson. 2006. MedEthEx: A prototype medical ethics advisor. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI '06). AAAI Press

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (November 2018), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 2018

  3. [3]

    Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Azim Shariff, Iyad Rahwan, and Jean-François Bonnefon. 2020. Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 5 (February 2020), 2332–2337. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911517117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1911517117 2020

  4. [4]

    Bainbridge, Justin W

    Wilma A. Bainbridge, Justin W. Hart, Elizabeth S. Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2011. The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video- displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 1 (January 2011), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7 2011

  5. [5]

    William A. Bauer. 2020. Virtuous vs. utilitarian artificial moral agents. AI & Society 35, 1 (March 2020), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0871-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-018-0871-3 2020

  6. [6]

    Bigman and Kurt Gray

    Yochanan E. Bigman and Kurt Gray. 2018. People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition 181 (December 2018), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003 2018

  7. [7]

    Joe Brailsford, Frank Vetere, and Eduardo Velloso. 2024. Exploring the association between moral foundations and judgements of AI behaviour. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642712

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642712 2024

  8. [8]

    Selmer Bringsjord and Joshua Taylor

    S. Selmer Bringsjord and Joshua Taylor. 2012. Introducing divine-command robot ethics. In Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey (Eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 85–108

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Dario Cecchini, Michael Pflanzer, and Veljko Dubljević. 2024. Aligning artificial intelligence with moral intuitions: An intuitionist approach to the alignment problem. AI and Ethics (May 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00496-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00496-5 2024

  10. [10]

    Arunima Chakraborty and Nisigandha Bhuyan. 2024. Can artificial intelligence be a Kantian moral agent? On moral autonomy of AI system. AI and Ethics 4, 2 (May 2024), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00269-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00269-6 2024

  11. [11]

    Hongyan Chang and Reza Shokri. 2023. Bias propagation in federated learning. arXiv:2309.02160. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.02160

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Xiaocong Chen, Chaoran Huang, Lina Yao, Xianzhi Wang, Wei Liu, and Wenjie Zhang. 2020. Knowledge-guided deep reinforcement learning for interactive recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN '20, July 2020). IEEE, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN48605.2020.9207010

    work page doi:10.1109/ijcnn48605.2020.9207010 2020

  13. [13]

    Yueying Chu and Peng Liu. 2023. Machines and humans in sacrificial moral dilemmas: Required similarly but judged differently? Cognition 239 (October 2023), 105575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105575

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105575 2023

  14. [14]

    Martin Cunneen, Martin Mullins, Finbarr Murphy, and Seán Gaines. 2019. Artificial driving intelligence and moral agency: Examining the decision ontology of unavoidable road traffic accidents through the prism of the trolley dilemma. Applied Artificial Intelligence 33, 3 (February 2019), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2018.1560124

    work page doi:10.1080/08839514.2018.1560124 2019

  15. [15]

    Fiery Cushman. 2013. Action, outcome, and value: A dual-system framework for morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review 17, 3 (August 2013), 273– 16

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313495594

    work page doi:10.1177/1088868313495594

  17. [17]

    John Danaher and Henrik Skaug Sætra. 2022. Technology and moral change: The transformation of truth and trust. Ethics and Information Technology 24, 3 (September 2022), 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09661-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-022-09661-y 2022

  18. [18]

    Zackary Okun Dunivin. 2024. Scalable qualitative coding with LLMs: Chain-of-thought reasoning matches human performance in some hermeneutic tasks. arXiv:2401.15170. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15170

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Shuaishuai Fang. 2024. Moral relevance approach for AI ethics. Philosophies 9, 2 (March 2024), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9020042

    work page doi:10.3390/philosophies9020042 2024

  20. [20]

    Paul Formosa and Malcolm Ryan. 2021. Making moral machines: why we need artificial moral agents. AI Soc. 36, 3 (September 2021), 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01089-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-020-01089-6 2021

  21. [21]

    Johannes Fürnkranz, Eyke Hüllermeier, Weiwei Cheng, and Sang-Hyeun Park. 2012. Preference-based reinforcement learning: a formal framework and a policy iteration algorithm. Mach. Learn. 89, 1–2 (October 2012), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-012-5313-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10994-012-5313-8 2012

  22. [22]

    Iason Gabriel. 2020. Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds Mach. 30, 3 (September 2020), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 2020

  23. [23]

    Fabrizio Gilardi, Meysam Alizadeh, and Maël Kubli. 2023. ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 120, 30 (July 2023), e2305016120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2305016120

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2305016120 2023

  24. [24]

    Ella Glikson and Anita Williams Woolley. 2020. Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14, 2 (July 2020), 627–

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057

    work page doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0057 2018

  26. [26]

    Russell, and Anca Dragan

    Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Smitha Milli, Pieter Abbeel, Stuart J. Russell, and Anca Dragan. 2017. Inverse reward design. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 30 (2017). arXiv:1711.02827. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.02827

    work page arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Jonathan Haidt, Fredrik Bjorklund, and Scott Murphy. 2000. Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    Tae Wan Kim, John Hooker, and Thomas Donaldson. 2021. Taking principles seriously: A hybrid approach to value alignment in artificial intelligence. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 70 (February 2021), 871–890. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12481

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.1.12481 2021

  29. [29]

    Markus Kneer and Juri Viehoff. 2025. The hard problem of AI alignment: Value forks in moral judgment. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2671–2681. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732174

    work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732174 2025

  30. [30]

    Michael Laakasuo. 2023. Moral Uncanny Valley revisited – how human expectations of robot morality based on robot appearance moderate the perceived morality of robot decisions in high conflict moral dilemmas. Front. Psychol. 14, (November 2023), 1270371. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1270371

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1270371 2023

  31. [31]

    Travis LaCroix and Alexandra Sasha Luccioni. 2025. Metaethical perspectives on ‘benchmarking’ AI ethics. AI Ethics 5, 4 (August 2025), 4029–4047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00703-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00703-x 2025

  32. [32]

    Jan Leike, David Krueger, Tom Everitt, Miljan Martic, Vishal Maini, and Shane Legg. 2018. Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction. arXiv:1811.07871. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07871

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Robert James M. Boyles. 2024. Can’t Bottom-up Artificial Moral Agents Make Moral Judgements? Filos. Sociol. 35, 1 (February 2024). https://doi.org/10.6001/fil-soc.2024.35.1.3

    work page doi:10.6001/fil-soc.2024.35.1.3 2024

  34. [34]

    Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Thomas Arnold, John Voiklis, and Corey Cusimano

    Bertram F. Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Thomas Arnold, John Voiklis, and Corey Cusimano. 2015. Sacrifice One For the Good of Many?: People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, March 02,

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696458

    ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696458

    work page doi:10.1145/2696454.2696458

  36. [36]

    Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Corey Cusimano, John Voiklis, Takanori Komatsu, Stuti Thapa, and Salomi Aladia

    Bertram F. Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Corey Cusimano, John Voiklis, Takanori Komatsu, Stuti Thapa, and Salomi Aladia. 2025. People’s judgments of humans and robots in a classic moral dilemma. Cognition 254, (January 2025), 105958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105958

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105958 2025

  37. [37]

    Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Voiklis

    Bertram F. Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Voiklis. 2016. Which robot am I thinking about? The impact of action and appearance on people’s evaluations of a moral robot. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), March 2016. IEEE, Christchurch, New Zealand, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451743

    work page doi:10.1109/hri.2016.7451743 2016

  38. [38]

    Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Wenjie Wu, Jac Ka Lok Leung, Thomas Kin Fung Chiu, and Samuel Kai Wah Chu. 2024. Design and validation of the AI literacy questionnaire: The affective, behavioural, cognitive and ethical approach. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 55, 3 (May 2024), 1082–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13411

    work page doi:10.1111/bjet.13411 2024

  39. [39]

    Chengxuan Qian, Shuo Xing, Shawn Li, Yue Zhao, and Zhengzhong Tu. 2025. DecAlign: Hierarchical cross-modal alignment for decoupled multimodal representation learning. arXiv:2503.11892. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11892

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Shiramizu, Anthony J

    Victor Kenji M. Shiramizu, Anthony J. Lee, Daria Altenburg, David R. Feinberg, and Benedict C. Jones. 2022. The role of valence, dominance, and pitch in perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) conversational agents’ voices. Sci. Rep. 12, 1 (December 2022), 22479. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27124-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-27124-8 2022

  41. [41]

    Joar Skalse, Nikolaus H. R. Howe, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, and David Krueger. 2025. Defining and characterizing reward hacking. arXiv:2209.13085. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13085

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Tai, Lillian R

    Robert H. Tai, Lillian R. Bentley, Xin Xia, Jason M. Sitt, Sarah C. Fankhauser, Ana M. Chicas-Mosier, and Barnas G. Monteith. 2024. An Examination of the Use of Large Language Models to Aid Analysis of Textual Data. Int. J. Qual. Methods 23, (January 2024), 16094069241231168. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241231168

    work page doi:10.1177/16094069241231168 2024

  43. [43]

    The Future of Coding

    Nga Than, Leanne Fan, Tina Law, Laura K. Nelson, and Leslie McCall. 2025. Updating “The Future of Coding”: Qualitative Coding with Generative Large Language Models. Sociol. Methods Res. 54, 3 (August 2025), 849–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241251339188

    work page doi:10.1177/00491241251339188 2025

  44. [44]

    Suzanne Tolmeijer, Markus Kneer, Cristina Sarasua, Markus Christen, and Abraham Bernstein. 2021. Implementations in machine ethics: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 53, 6 (November 2021), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419633

    work page doi:10.1145/3419633 2021

  45. [45]

    Human Values

    Alexey Turchin. 2019. AI Alignment Problem: “Human Values” Idea is Built Upon Many Assumptions. PhilPapers (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Dan Card and Noah A. Smith. 2020. On Consequentialism and Fairness. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 3 (2020), 34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00034

    work page doi:10.3389/frai.2020.00034 2020

  47. [47]

    Peter Vamplew, Richard Dazeley, Cameron Foale, Sally Firmin, and Jane Mummery. 2018. Human-aligned artificial intelligence is a multiobjective problem. Ethics Inf. Technol. 20, 1 (March 2018), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9440-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9440-6 2018

  48. [48]

    Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen. 2009. Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374049.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374049.001.0001 2009

  49. [49]

    Norbert Wiener. 1960. Some moral and technical consequences of automation. Science 131, 3410 (May 1960), 1355–1358

    work page 1960

  50. [50]

    Bernard Williams. 2006. Problems of the self: philosophical papers 1956 - 1972 (Transferred to digital print ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge

    work page 2006

  51. [51]

    Michael Walzer. 1973. Political action: The problem of dirty hands. Philos. Public Aff. 2, 2 (1973), 160–180

    work page 1973

  52. [52]

    Yueh-Hua Wu and Shou-De Lin. 2018. A low-cost ethics shaping approach for designing reinforcement learning agents. arXiv:1712.04172. Retrieved from 17 https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.04172

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Jingling Zhang, Jane Conway, and César A. Hidalgo. 2023. Why people judge humans differently from machines: The role of perceived agency and experience. arXiv:2210.10081. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.10081

    work page arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Yuyan Zhang, Jiahua Wu, Feng Yu, and Liying Xu. 2023. Moral Judgments of Human vs. AI Agents in Moral Dilemmas. Behav. Sci. 13, 2 (February 2023), 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020181

    work page doi:10.3390/bs13020181 2023

  55. [55]

    Malle, S

    Bertram F. Malle, S. T. Magar, and Matthias Scheutz. 2019. AI in the sky: How people morally evaluate human and machine decisions in a lethal strike dilemma. In Robotics and Well-Being, Markus Coeckelbergh, Janina Loh, Michael Funk, Johanna Seibt, and Marco Nørskov (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 111–133

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Yixiao Zhang and Jiang Lan. 2025. The Practical Problems of Value Alignment and the Chinese Approach. Ideological and Theoretical Education 5, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.16075/j.cnki.cn31-1220/g4.2025.05.003

    work page doi:10.16075/j.cnki.cn31-1220/g4.2025.05.003 2025

  57. [57]

    Imbens and Donald B

    Guido W. Imbens and Donald B. Rubin. 2015. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    doi: 10.1037/pspp0000470

    Mohammad Atari, Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, Sena Koleva, Sean T. Stevens, and Morteza Dehghani. 2023. Morality Beyond the WEIRD: How the Nomological Network of Morality Varies Across Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 125, 5 (2023), 1179–1224. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000470

    work page doi:10.1037/pspp0000470 2023

  59. [59]

    Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham. 2007. When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research 20, 1 (2007), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z 2007

  60. [60]

    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

    Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Haidt, Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva, and Peter H. Ditto. 2011. Mapping the Moral Domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101, 2 (2011), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847 18 APPENDICES A.1 Overview of Moral Foundations Theory Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) proposes that human moral judgment is not g...

    work page doi:10.1037/a0021847 2011