Philosophy

A machine can hand you an answer about justice. It cannot stand behind it. Can you?

Philosophy, ethics and the alignment problem

Core

Ethical decisions are not just answers to dilemmas. They reveal the view of humanity, the responsibility and the justification underneath. Here you judge the machine instead of letting it judge for you.

Before you start

Before you start: the human anchor is about your thinking, not spelling, presentation or a perfect result. You may use dictation or speech-to-text if that suits you better, and it is fine to make mistakes. Choose an example you feel comfortable sharing. In the algorithmic pivot, you may use any AI tool; a free account is enough and you do not need a subscription.

Human Anchor

Write the first part of the project without AI. The goal is to create a human benchmark that can later be compared with algorithmic analysis. The text should be personal, grounded in your own experience, and detailed enough so that AI cannot simply replace it with a generic summary.

Choose a concept such as justice, freedom, responsibility, or an ethical dilemma that you have thought about. Write about your own position, contradictions, experience, and what would count as a good argument in your eyes.

Scope

1,000 words minimum, unless the teacher decides on a shorter test version.
No AI, no automated rewriting, and no machine translation.
Use your own examples, your own words, and state clearly what you are unsure about.

Include This

What you know or think before the AI gets involved in the work.
What experience, memory, physical observation, or local knowledge shapes your stance.
Which three questions you want the AI to challenge in the next step.

Assessment

The teacher does not assess whether the text is perfect. They assess whether the human voice, the student's own judgment, and real context are clear enough to hold up against algorithmic output later in the project.

Algorithmic Pivot

Have the AI answer a classic ethical dilemma from different perspectives, for example, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and rights theory. Then ask it to choose one path and justify it.

Fyrirspurn til gervigreindar

This is a ready-made frame to use in Step 2. It disciplines the AI by giving it a role, a task, constraints and verification questions, instead of a free-form chat. Copy it, try it, and adapt it to your own project.

Role

You are a critical assistant in the Tækniseigla category Philosophy. You should broaden the student's analysis without taking the responsibility away from them.

Task

Test the AI's ethical reasoning using different philosophical frameworks.

Constraints

Distinguish the description of a theory from your own moral judgment.
Identify where the AI uses superficial consensus instead of actual reasoning.
Ensure the student's final conclusion is clear and carries personal accountability.

Verification questions

3 verification questions are included in the copied prompt. You answer them in step 3.

Fiduciary Anchor

The accountability document is the final gate of the project. Here you show that you can use AI without hiding behind it. All claims that survive in the final product require verification, a clear disclaimer, or a conscious rejection.

Explain why it is dangerous to outsource an ethical decision to a statistical model. In the accountability document you state which decisions humans must make themselves and why.

1. AI Process

Record which tool was used, which prompts were tested, what changed between versions, and which parts of the output first seemed convincing.

2. Verification

Use at least three independent pillars depending on the nature of the project: a primary source, official data, an academic source, your own calculation, physical testing, expert evaluation, or comparison with human experience.

3. Errors and Blind Spots

Answer these questions:

What values are hidden in the machine's response?
Where does the AI avoid taking a real stance?
What human responsibility remains even if the analysis is good?

4. Rejection

Name at least two points that you reject from the AI output. Explain whether they were incorrect, unproven, ethically weak, too general, or simply not in line with your human anchor.

5. Accountability Statement

Conclude with a short statement in the first person: what you take responsibility for, what you do not yet know, and what decision you would never delegate to AI.

Now it is your turn. The exercise is the bridge between step 2 and step 3.

Go to exercise

For teachers, competency line: Direction-holding

That is the whole module: anchor, pivot, accountability. The work itself happens off this page.

Next moduleLanguage →