Before turning to a large language model for ethical counsel, consider what makes for good advice
AI language model rivals expert ethicist in perceived moral expertise
People view AI as possessing expertise across various fields, but the perceived quality of AI-generated moral expertise remains uncertain. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) perform well on tasks designed to assess moral alignment, reflecting moral judgments with relatively high accuracy. As LLMs are increasingly employed in decision-making roles, there is a growing expectation for them to offer not just aligned judgments but also demonstrate sound moral reasoning. Here, we advance work on the Moral Turing Test and find that Americans rate ethical advice from GPT-4o as slightly more moral, trustworthy, thoughtful, and correct than that of the popular New York Times advice column, The Ethicist. Participants perceived GPT models as surpassing both a representative sample of Americans and a renowned ethicist in delivering moral justifications and advice, suggesting that people may increasingly view LLM outputs as viable sources of moral expertise. This work suggests that people might see LLMs as valuable complements to human expertise in moral guidance and decision-making. It also underscores the importance of carefully programming ethical guidelines in LLMs, considering their potential to influence users’ moral reasoning.
ChatGPT is bullshit
Ethics and Information Technology - Recently, there has been considerable interest in large language models: machine learning systems which produce human-like text and dialogue. Applications of...
How LLM Counselors Violate Ethical Standards in Mental Health Practice: A Practitioner-Informed Framework
Large language models (LLMs) were not designed to replace healthcare workers, but they are being used in ways that can lead users to overestimate the types of roles that these systems can assume. While prompt engineering has been shown to improve LLMs' clinical effectiveness in mental health applications, little is known about whether such strategies help models adhere to ethical principles for real-world deployment. In this study, we conducted an 18-month ethnographic collaboration with mental health practitioners (three clinically licensed psychologists and seven trained peer counselors) to map LLM counselors' behavior during a session to professional codes of conduct established by organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA). Through qualitative analysis and expert evaluation of N=137 sessions (110 self-counseling; 27 simulated), we outline a framework of 15 ethical violations mapped to 5 major themes. These include: Lack of Contextual Understanding, where the counselor fails to account for users' lived experiences, leading to oversimplified, contextually irrelevant, and one-size-fits-all intervention; Poor Therapeutic Collaboration, where the counselor's low turn-taking behavior and invalidating outputs limit users' agency over their therapeutic experience; Deceptive Empathy, where the counselor's simulated anthropomorphic responses (``I hear you'', ``I understand'') create a false sense of emotional connection; Unfair Discrimination, where the counselor's responses exhibit algorithmic bias and cultural insensitivity toward marginalized populations; and Lack of Safety & Crisis Management, where individuals who are ``knowledgeable enough'' to correct LLM outputs are at an advantage, while others, due to lack of clinical knowledge and digital literacy, are more likely to suffer from clinically inappropriate responses. Reflecting on these findings through a practitioner-informed lens, we argue that reducing psychotherapy—a deeply meaningful and relational process—to a language generation task can have serious and harmful implications in practice. We conclude by discussing policy-oriented accountability mechanisms for emerging LLM counselors.
How LLM Counselors Violate Ethical Standards in Mental Health Practice: A Practitioner-Informed Framework
Large language models (LLMs) were not designed to replace healthcare workers, but they are being used in ways that can lead users to overestimate the types of roles that these systems can assume. While prompt engineering has been shown to improve LLMs' clinical effectiveness in mental health applications, little is known about whether such strategies help models adhere to ethical principles for real-world deployment. In this study, we conducted an 18-month ethnographic collaboration with mental health practitioners (three clinically licensed psychologists and seven trained peer counselors) to map LLM counselors' behavior during a session to professional codes of conduct established by organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA). Through qualitative analysis and expert evaluation of N=137 sessions (110 self-counseling; 27 simulated), we outline a framework of 15 ethical violations mapped to 5 major themes. These include: Lack of Contextual Understanding, where the counselor fails to account for users' lived experiences, leading to oversimplified, contextually irrelevant, and one-size-fits-all intervention; Poor Therapeutic Collaboration, where the counselor's low turn-taking behavior and invalidating outputs limit users' agency over their therapeutic experience; Deceptive Empathy, where the counselor's simulated anthropomorphic responses (``I hear you'', ``I understand'') create a false sense of emotional connection; Unfair Discrimination, where the counselor's responses exhibit algorithmic bias and cultural insensitivity toward marginalized populations; and Lack of Safety & Crisis Management, where individuals who are ``knowledgeable enough'' to correct LLM outputs are at an advantage, while others, due to lack of clinical knowledge and digital literacy, are more likely to suffer from clinically inappropriate responses. Reflecting on these findings through a practitioner-informed lens, we argue that reducing psychotherapy—a deeply meaningful and relational process—to a language generation task can have serious and harmful implications in practice. We conclude by discussing policy-oriented accountability mechanisms for emerging LLM counselors.
Assessing Moral Judgment by Large Language Models – A Survey of Available Datasets
Recent advances in language modeling have contributed to a growing emphasis on machine ethics, including researching and assessing moral judgments made by large language models (LLMs). This paper provides a critical survey of the existing datasets for exactly this assessment, with a special focus on the respective data sources. We address the current lack of theoretical grounding by providing an introduction to ethics and different frameworks from moral philosophy and moral psychology. Moreover, we identify four main data sources: webcrawled corpora, scholars, laypeople, and synthetic data generation. By discussing the strengths and weaknesses of these sources, we analyze their implications for the assessment of moral judgment. Importantly, systemizing the available datasets reveals an over-reliance on previous work, reinforcing existing shortcomings. Addressing the current limitations, we recommend adopting a consistent terminology and creating independently curated datasets based on interdisciplinary work. To ensure a clear delineation of normative approaches, we propose focusing on the assessment of moral consistency and certainty of LLMs as effective and well-defined indicators of their performance on moral judgment.
The Fragility Of Moral Judgment In Large Language Models
People increasingly use large language models (LLMs) for everyday moral and interpersonal guidance, yet these systems cannot interrogate missing context and judge dilemmas as presented. We introduce a perturbation framework for testing the stability and manipulability of LLM moral judgments while holding the underlying moral conflict constant. Using 2,939 dilemmas from r/AmItheAsshole (January-March 2025), we generate three families of content perturbations: surface edits (lexical/structural noise), point-of-view shifts (voice and stance neutralization), and persuasion cues (self-positioning, social proof, pattern admissions, victim framing). We also vary the evaluation protocol (output ordering, instruction placement, and unstructured prompting). We evaluated all variants with four models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3, Qwen2.5-72B) (N=129,156 judgments). Surface perturbations produce low flip rates (7.5%), largely within the self-consistency noise floor (4-13%), whereas point-of-view shifts induce substantially higher instability (24.3%). A large subset of dilemmas (37.9%) is robust to surface noise yet flips under perspective changes, indicating that models condition on narrative voice as a pragmatic cue. Instability concentrates in morally ambiguous cases; scenarios where no party is assigned blame are most susceptible. Persuasion perturbations yield systematic directional shifts. Protocol choices dominate all other factors: agreement between structured protocols is only 67.6% (kappa=0.55), and only 35.7% of model-scenario units match across all three protocols. These results show that LLM moral judgments are co-produced by narrative form and task scaffolding, raising reproducibility and equity concerns when outcomes depend on presentation skill rather than moral substance.
I wanted ChatGPT to help me. So why did it advise me how to kill myself?
ChatGPT wrote a woman a suicide note and another AI chatbot role-played sexual acts with children, BBC finds.
Reading Ethics: Professional Development
Ethical Development Reading List DRAFT Aim of this list – First, organization of the list according to rank/training and is…
Ethan Landes, Kathryn B. Francis & Jim A. C. Everett, People defer to AI moral advice, but not blindly - PhilArchive
As AI large language models (LLMs) become increasingly embedded in everyday technologies, should we be concerned about their capacity to influence human beliefs - particularly in the moral domain? Being persuaded ...
How to Deliver Constructive Feedback in Difficult Situations
Thoughtful, empathetic language can make or break your business relationships
It’s Not Enough to Be Right. You Also Have to Be Kind.
Takedowns and clever quips are easy, but empathy and persuasion are better
A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro
We are all having to keep revising upwards our assessments of the mathematical capabilities of large language models. I have just made a fairly large revision as a result of ChatGPT 5.5 Pro, to whi…
