People judge machine ethical advice as more virtuous than human advice: but what is this technology really, and why does the responsibility remain entirely ours?
The moral paradox: <p>Humans rate AI's moral evaluations as superior and more virtuous than human ones. Yet, this is a statistical illusion: AI knows the grammatical rules of morality, but lacks the real-world, first-person suffering that gives those rules their profound meaning.</p>
The digital mirror: <p>AI does not think; it functions as a mirror of our collective memory, reflecting historical biases. This mirror is physical: planetary computation relies on massive resource extraction, water consumption, and the high carbon footprint of global data centers.</p>
Unconscious alignment: <p>When AI rejects harmful prompts, it is not exercising an ethical character or willpower. This rigid boundary is simply the mathematical output of constitutional alignment protocols (Constitutional AI) programmed by human developers, not a genuine moral conscience.</p>
Human responsibility: <p>Offloading ethical judgment to machines strips us of our responsibility. AI can act as an excellent mirror, showing our flaws with ruthless clarity; yet, only we can make the hard choices and take the necessary actions to repair and wash the face of our society.</p>