TEACHING AI ETHICS

Leon Furze
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

Teaching AI Ethics: Practical strategies for

discussing AI ethics in K-12 and tertiary
education
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

This text is disseminated via the Open Education Resource (OER) LibreTexts Project ([Link] and like the hundreds
of other texts available within this powerful platform, it is freely available for reading, printing and "consuming." Most, but not all,
pages in the library have licenses that may allow individuals to make changes, save, and print this book. Carefully
consult the applicable license(s) before pursuing such effects.
Instructors can adopt existing LibreTexts texts or Remix them to quickly build course-specific resources to meet the needs of their
students. Unlike traditional textbooks, LibreTexts’ web based origins allow powerful integration of advanced features and new
technologies to support learning.

The LibreTexts mission is to unite students, faculty and scholars in a cooperative effort to develop an easy-to-use online platform
for the construction, customization, and dissemination of OER content to reduce the burdens of unreasonable textbook costs to our
students and society. The LibreTexts project is a multi-institutional collaborative venture to develop the next generation of open-
access texts to improve postsecondary education at all levels of higher learning by developing an Open Access Resource
environment. The project currently consists of 14 independently operating and interconnected libraries that are constantly being
optimized by students, faculty, and outside experts to supplant conventional paper-based books. These free textbook alternatives are
organized within a central environment that is both vertically (from advance to basic level) and horizontally (across different fields)
integrated.
The LibreTexts libraries are Powered by NICE CXOne and are supported by the Department of Education Open Textbook Pilot
Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1246120,
1525057, and 1413739.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation nor the US Department of Education.
Have questions or comments? For information about adoptions or adaptions contact info@[Link]. More information on our
activities can be found via Facebook ([Link] Twitter ([Link] or our blog
([Link]
This text was compiled on 06/01/2024
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Licensing

1: Teaching AI Ethics- Original Post

1.1: Beginner
1.2: Intermediate
1.3: Advanced
1.4: Ethical Perspectives, Approaches, and Frameworks
1.5: Conclusion

2: Teaching AI Ethics- Bias and Discrimination

2.1: Algorithmic Bias
2.2: Discrimination by Default
2.3: Case Study- Predictive Policing in the US
2.4: Teaching AI Ethics

3: Teaching AI Ethics- Environment

3.1: Extractive AI
3.2: The Hidden Costs of the Cloud
3.3: Case Study- The Carbon Cost of Training Large Language Models
3.4: Teaching AI Ethics

4: Teaching AI Ethics- Truth and Academic Integrity

4.1: Synthetic Mirages
4.2: Academic Integrity in the Age of AI
4.3: AI and Truth
4.4: Case Study- Language Models and the Spread of Fake News
4.5: Teaching AI Ethics

5: Teaching AI Ethics- Copyright

5.1: Copyright and Image Generation
5.2: What’s the big deal?
5.3: Writing, Film, and Music
5.4: Case Study- Zarya of the Dawn
5.5: Teaching AI Ethics

6: Teaching AI Ethics- Privacy

6.1: Where does all that Data come from?
6.2: Protecting Personal Privacy
6.3: Case Study- AI Defamation
6.4: Teaching AI Ethics

1 [Link]
7: Teaching AI Ethics- Datafication
7.1: Case Study- The Datafication of Education
7.2: Where does all the Data go?
7.3: Teaching AI Ethics

8: Teaching AI Ethics- Affect Recognition

8.1: What is Affect Recognition?
8.2: Case Study- Microsoft’s Decision to Remove Emotion Recognition Services
8.3: Affect in Education
8.4: Teaching AI Ethics

9: Teaching AI Ethics- Human Labour

9.1: Case Study- OpenAI’s Data Labelling
9.2: Anatomy of an AI System
9.3: Teaching AI Ethics

10: Teaching AI Ethics- Power

10.1: Understanding Hegemony
10.2: Connecting the Dots- Bias, Environment, Human Labour and Datafication
10.3: What about Pauses and Open Letters?
10.4: What can be done about it?

Index
Glossary

Detailed Licensing

2 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

Licensing
A detailed breakdown of this resource's licensing can be found in Back Matter/Detailed Licensing.

1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

1: Teaching AI Ethics- Original Post

As we head into the start of Term 1 it’s already looking like Artificial Intelligence is going to be one of the most talked about issues
in the classroom. Much of the narrative around models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT has centred on students using it to cheat on
assignments. But I’ve already been working with schools this year who are much more interested in the potential of these
technologies to help, rather than hinder in education.
Earlier this week I wrote a post with some Practical Strategies for ChatGPT in Education. It’s proven to be one of the most popular
posts I’ve written on this blog, showing that there’s an appetite from teachers wanting to learn how to work with the AI. I also
wrote a “Back to Basics” post for those who had never heard of ChatGPT, or wanted some grounding in AI and Large Language
Models before diving in.
And yet, as much as I enjoy working with the technology, it has many flaws. I think it’s our responsibility to discuss the ethical
considerations of AI with our students. AI ethics goes beyond the well-documented “algorithmic bias” that results in language
models like ChatGPT producing racist and sexist output. In this article, I will explore nine ethical considerations ranging from
“beginner” to “intermediate” and “advanced” levels.
I’ve levelled the concerns for two reasons. Firstly, the levels reflect how easy it is to access information and resources on the
particular ethical concern, and how likely the concepts are to already fit within your curriculum. For example, “environmental
impact” is a beginner-level concern as it has been explored thoroughly in the media, and the climate crisis is already part of many
curricula. Secondly, as you move through the levels you and your students will be required to understand and apply increasingly
complex concepts and terminology. “Affect recognition” in the advanced level, for instance, requires some knowledge of facial
recognition and the psychology of human emotions.
For each level I’ve also included a few examples of how and where you could teach students about these issues. Right now, there is
no “AI curriculum” for schools. There is no single subject area devoted to Artificial Intelligence. In fact, AI already influences
most aspects of our lives, so it is fitting that we should teach AI ethics across all of our subject areas. The links embedded
throughout this post are there to use as resources, and for going further down the rabbit hole.
1.1: Beginner
1.2: Intermediate
1.3: Advanced
1.4: Ethical Perspectives, Approaches, and Frameworks
1.5: Conclusion

1: Teaching AI Ethics- Original Post is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

1.1: Beginner
Bias
Artificial Intelligence comes in many forms, but all require data. ChatGPT, for example, is a large language model that is trained on
a huge dataset which includes the “common crawl“; a text-based database of over 12 years’ worth of web pages. These datasets
give the models tremendous capabilities, but they are also inherently biased. Indiscriminately “scraping” the internet lets in the bad
along with the good, meaning that the dataset can contain racist, sexist, ableist, and otherwise discriminatory language.
Unfortunately, AI large language models hold up a mirror to internet society, and the reflection isn’t pretty. Like other societies, the
online community underrepresents marginalised groups, and overrepresents others. The prevalence of racism and bigotry on
sources like Reddit and Twitter can bleed through the datasets and be reproduced in the output.
Bias can also come from the methods of training and reinforcement used when developing the AI systems. For example, police in
the US have used systems for “predictive policing” which use algorithms to predict people likely to commit crimes. These
algorithms disproportionately target poor, Black, and Latinx communities, reinforcing existing systemic biases.
Teaching points
“Garbage in, garbage out” is a common phrase in computing. Unfortunately, much of the data that goes into AI models is
biased, resulting in discriminatory output.
Datasets can exclude minority groups or marginalised people.
AI algorithms can perpetuate systemic biases, for example by targeting communities who already suffer under biased judicial
systems.
Subject examples
Humanities (Legal studies): What legal precedents exist for protecting marginalised groups from discrimination? Is a biased
algorithm legal?
English and Literature: How have certain groups been silenced or oppressed throughout history? What is the implication of this
“gap” in the written record of the internet when it is used as data to train an AI?
Mathematics: What is an algorithm? How do algorithms and probability link to policing and other societal functions?

Environmental impact
The technology industry as a whole has an enormous impact on the environment. Most devices from smartphones to laptops
incorporate metals like lithium and rare earth minerals which are in short supply and costly to extract. The mining and refining of
these products adds to the environmental impact of developing the technologies that AI is built from. These costs include soil
erosion, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
AI computing is increasingly carried out in “the cloud”. Cloud services sound like an ethereal and temporary arrangement, but the
name actually hides the physical reality of the technology. Cloud computing relies on huge data centres and infrastructure, all of
which consumes energy and produces waste.
Although many of the major companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Meta have pledged to make their data centres carbon
neutral, in reality this often means engaging in carbon-trading or offsetting schemes rather than actually reducing the amount of
waste or environmental damage. This “greenwashing” is heavily criticised by those who would rather see an actual reduction in
emissions.
Teaching points
The infrastructure behind AI – including the devices it runs on – has a huge impact on the environment through processes like
mining and industry.
Cloud computing still requires enormous amounts of energy.
AI companies have been accused of “greenwashing” when they commit to reducing their carbon footprint, but do not actively
reduce their impact on the environment.
Subject examples

1.1.1 [Link]
 Humanities (Geography): What is the impact of the climate crisis on different global populations? Which parts of society are
responsible for the most emissions due to AI technologies?
Science: Why does computing use so much energy and produce so much waste heat? What is the impact on the environment?
Design and Technology: How might we design more sustainable systems for the manufacturing of AI technologies?

The cloud isn’t as fluffy as it sounds. Via Midjourney. Prompt in alt text.

Academic integrity and “truth”

Academic integrity – or using AI language models to cheat – has been by far the biggest potential issue of AI covered recently in
the media. There have been widespread fears that students will use language models like ChatGPT to write essays, answer
questions, and cheat on assignments. These fears seem particularly strong in secondary and tertiary education, where many
assignments are provided in written form.
It is also still unclear to what extent using an AI constitutes “cheating”. It is not, strictly speaking, plagiarism as the output of the
model is not copied from another source. Rather, the output is an original creation which is generated “probabilistically“. Knowing
where to draw the line raises ethical questions about academic integrity and honesty. This has already led some universities to
permit the technologies as long as they are credited. In fact, this article was written with the assistance of ChatGPT. All of the
words you’re reading are mine (I happen to enjoy writing), but I used the AI to help organise the structure and to fill some of my
knowledge gaps in different subject areas. I’ll explain the process in full in my next post.
As well as cheating, there are concerns that AI will be used to produce massive amounts of “fake news” or deliberately harmful
media. This may be unintentional – one of the biggest current flaws of most language models is that they can generate very
convincing lies. Or, people may use these technologies maliciously to spread political misinformation or otherwise cause harm.
Teaching points
Academic integrity is an important part of any education system. Think about the rules and regulations that exist, and why they
are in place.
AI models produce original output that cannot be detected by plagiarism detectors (and “AI detectors” are currently hit and
miss).
AI can be used to produce “fake news” or deliberately misleading information.
Subject examples
English: If an AI can write an essay, what is the point of writing essays? how do essays help us to build knowledge and not just
demonstrate it?
Religion: What are the ethical and moral implications of academic integrity?
Humanities (Legal studies): Is using an AI to write an essay cheating? Australia has laws against contract cheating (getting
another person to produce an essay on your behalf). Is using an AI a form of contract cheating and therefore illegal?

1.1: Beginner is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1.1.2 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

1.2: Intermediate
Copyright and intellectual property
Closely related to truth and integrity are ideas of intellectual property and the legal concerns of copyright. Copyright issues have
been particularly prevalent in AI image generation. AI image generators like Stable Diffusion, DALL-E 2, and Midjourney are
trained on images “scraped” from the internet. These images are then broken down and run through the AI algorithms, so that they
can later be reconstructed.
This has resulted in artists’ “styles” being used in AI image generation without their permission. Many artists believe that this
infringes their intellectual property rights, and is an ethical issue. An often-used counterargument is that all art is based on other
artists’ work, and therefore the machine is simply replicating those processes. Class action lawsuits have already been filed against
some AI image generators on behalf of artists.
Large language models like ChatGPT also incorporate huge amounts of other writers’ work. Where writing is publicly available –
such as out of copyright books or CC journalism and articles – it can be incorporated into the dataset. Even when writing is
protected by copyright it can become part of the datasets. Prompting a language model to write something in the style of another
author could be viewed in the same way as an image generator adopting another artist’s style.
There are also question marks over who owns the copyright to materials produced by AIs such as image generators and language
models.
Teaching points
AI language models and image generators may breach copyright by appropriating others’ work.
These models give users the ability to write and produce art in the style of other authors and artists without the original creator’s
permission.
Laws around these technologies are still murky, but there are developments happening all the time.
Subject examples
Visual Arts: Is it art? If a user can generate an image in the style of another artist with just a few prompt words, does the digital
output count as “real art”?
Performing Arts: Some AI models can produce music and lyrics as well as visual art. Is it possible to create a complete AI
performing artist? If we can, does it mean we should?
English: Does producing a piece of writing in the style of another author infringe their intellectual property rights?

I call this one “Melbourne skyline in the style of picasso and van gogh –ar 3:2 –q 2 –v 4” but is it art? And is it legal? Via
Midjourney.

1.2.1 [Link]
Privacy and security
Privacy is a major concern in the development and use of AI systems. As these technologies become more sophisticated and
integrated into our lives, there are increasing concerns about the collection and use of personal data, data breaches, and the lack of
transparency in AI decision-making.
One of the most prominent examples of these issues can be found in the use of facial recognition technology. This technology,
which is used in a variety of applications such as security, surveillance, and marketing, has been criticised for its potential to violate
individuals’ privacy and civil rights. For example, facial recognition systems have been known to have higher error rates for people
with darker skin tones, and have been used to target and monitor marginalised communities as discussed earlier in “bias”.
Another example of privacy concerns with AI systems is targeted advertising. AI-powered algorithms are used to analyse data on
individuals’ online activities in order to deliver targeted ads. Whilst this may seem harmless, it raises concerns about data privacy,
data breaches, and the use of personal data for commercial gain.
Teaching points:
AI systems raise concerns about the collection and use of personal data, data breaches, and the lack of transparency in decision-
making.
Facial recognition technology has been criticized for its potential to violate individuals’ privacy and civil rights, and for its
higher error rates for people with darker skin tones.
Targeted advertising raises concerns about data privacy and the use of personal data for commercial gain.
Subject examples:
Humanities (Legal Studies): What is the impact of AI on data protection laws such as GDPR and the protection of personal
data?
Mathematics: How can we analyse the data sets used by AI systems for potential biases and privacy issues?
Health and Physical Education: What are the privacy concerns surrounding personal health data and its use in AI-powered
healthcare technologies?

Every click and like goes towards powering AI surveillance. Image via Midjourney. Prompt in alt text.

Data collection and “datafication”

The phrase “data is the new oil” crops up everywhere when you start researching AI. As I wrote about earlier in “bias”, Artificial
Intelligence is powered by huge amounts of data. The oil analogy suggests both data as fuel, but also the costly, dangerous, and
extractive process of data-mining. In the constant quest for more and more data, the companies that develop AI systems sometimes
revert to unethical practices.
“Datafication” is a term used for turning all parts of our life into a data point to be fed into an AI algorithm. As per the privacy
discussion above, this should raise some serious concerns. From location data to health data, shopping habits, likes, clicks, and
views, almost every interaction we have with technology is fed into an algorithm somewhere.

1.2.2 [Link]
As we become commodities, we open ourselves up to exploitation. One major ethical concern with “datafication” is that fact that
the users become the products, and that the free-labour of the users is used to generate capital for the platform owners.
“Big Data” also contributes to many of the issues we have described so far, including bias and discrimination. Any data collected
by the devices we wear and use or the platforms we subscribe to ultimately becomes part of the algorithm’s “world view”.
Unfortunately, because not everyone in the world has access to these technologies, that worldview is by definition missing some
very important data.
Teaching points
Data is the new oil, both in the sense of being fuel, and in that it is costly and damaging to extract.
“Datafication” is the process of turning every aspect of our lives into data.
Users become products, and user data becomes capital.
Big Data doesn’t include marginalised groups, and therefore doesn’t truly represent society.
Subject examples
Humanities (History): What is the historical and societal context of data collection and the impact of datafication on different
communities?
Design and Technology (Digital Technology): How can we design and develop ethical data collection practices and data privacy
measures for AI systems?
English: Based on recent media, how might we critically analyse datafication and its implications on privacy and data
protection?

1.2: Intermediate is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1.2.3 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

1.3: Advanced
Affect recognition
Affect recognition means interpreting a person’s emotions through their facial expressions, body language, speech patterns and
actions. It’s a controversial practice that has been widely criticised for poor research methodologies and inconsistent results.
Despite these controversies, affect recognition is an industry worth billions of dollars. It is also an industry that has already made
its way into education. A system named 4 Little Trees, developed in Hong Kong, claimed to be able to monitor children’s facial
expressions and to assign labels for emotions such as ‘happy’, ‘sad’, and ‘angry’. The system also claimed to be able to identify
motivation and to predict grades.
Affect recognition is problematic on a number of levels. As well as the aforementioned question mark over its accuracy, many
people question whether emotions should be “datafied” at all. There are privacy concerns with affect recognition being built into
surveillance technology, including in schools. And, similar to the issues with bias discussed earlier, affect recognition technology
can perpetuate discrimination. In one example, an algorithm trained to identify possible “terrorist behaviour” resulted in racial
profiling.
Teaching points
Affect recognition is the detection of emotions through facial expression, actions, tone of voice, and other data.
The science is unreliable, but the industry is worth billions.
There are many ethical concerns including surveillance, privacy, and discrimination.

Human labour
The ethical concern of AI and human labour is a two sided coin. On the one hand there are always fears that machine automation
will replace jobs, even in white collar industries like law and finance. On the other is the fact that current AI systems actually rely
on a tremendous amount of dangerous, low-paid human labour.
The “robots taking our jobs” argument goes back a long way. In the 16th Century, Queen Elizabeth I rejected an application for a
patent on a stocking making machine, for fears it would put too many stocking-makers out of work. In more recent years, old fears
of AI replacing human “knowledge work” have been reignited by ever-more powerful models like GPT-3. And though most
commentators are quick to claim that AI will never replace teachers, some have made predictions that some or all parts of the job
could be automated by as early as 2027.
Hidden beneath the rhetoric of the jobs AI will destroy, however, is an unseen narrative of the jobs it currently requires to function.
It is useful for the companies behind AI technology that the public views it as something mysterious and almost magical. Current
advances like ChatGPT and Midjourney seem to be able to produce countless outputs in text and image with little input. But there
is human labour powering the magic.
A recent article by Time magazine explored the harsh conditions of the Kenyan workers employed by OpenAI to label
inappropriate data for its language model. Working for less than $2 an hour, these labourers were partly responsible for training an
AI algorithm to identify harsh language, graphic, sexual, and violence phrases, and other “toxic” text. Workers were required to
read and label huge amounts of this data, with some reporting the experience as deeply traumatic.
Teaching points
AI could replace jobs, even in traditionally “white collar” industries.
There are low-paid, risky jobs currently used to train AI models.
AI might replace some jobs, but we also need to be mindful of the human labour cost that goes into its production along the
way.
Subject examples
Humanities (History): What is the history of the “robots taking our jobs” argument and how has it evolved over time?
Humanities (Economics): What is the potential impact of AI on employment and the labour market?
Science (Psychology): What is the psychological of low-paid labour on workers and the potential for trauma?

1.3.1 [Link]
 The human costs of AI labour are more than just job cuts.
Image via Midjourney. Prompt in alt text.

Power and hegemony

This final ethical concern brings us full circle back to “bias”, but with a more nuanced perspective. Because the data AI models are
built on is “frozen in time”, it represents a static world view which encodes existing power and hierarchies in society. The
reinforcement of the hegemony can further oppress and marginalise already disadvantaged people.
Think of AI as a self-perpetuating cycle. The datasets encode a certain power structure into the model – often the dominance of a
heterosexual, white, Western, male perspective due to the volume of content on the internet from that lens. This is then reflected in
the output, which may be used to train future models by generating “synthetic data”. Although efforts are underway to make “fair”
synthetic data, it has still be found to reproduce biases.
AI also reinforces global hegemonies both in political and corporate terms. Countries and organisations need access to wealth,
energy, and resources to successfully train and scale up AI models. This means that powerful AI is increasingly concentrated in the
hands of those who already have the most. Actions like those outlined above in “human labour” further entrench the divide
between the wealthy countries who produce AI and the poorer countries who bear the brunt of the human and environmental costs.
Teaching points
AI has a worldview which includes encoded biases and perspectives.
The replication of these biases reinforces existing hegemonies and power structures.
AI concentrates wealth in the hands of the already wealthy.
Subject examples
Humanities (Geography): Geography: Explore the global distribution of wealth, energy, and resources in relation to AI
development and how it impacts different countries and regions.
Mathematics: Explore the statistical analysis of AI-generated data, including the detection and measurement of biases and the
impact on decision making.
English and Literature: How is language examined representation in AI-generated text and speech. How can a Marxist critical
perspective illuminate some of the problems of AI and power?

1.3: Advanced is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1.3.2 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

1.4: Ethical Perspectives, Approaches, and Frameworks

In discussing these ethical issues with students, it can be helpful to bear in mind some existing ethical perspectives, frameworks,
and approaches. In this section I’ll explore some general ethics as well as some frameworks for ethical and “Responsible” AI
produced by companies like Google and Microsoft.
Apply these frameworks and perspectives to your discussions with students, for example by providing them with the examples and
asking them to produce their own ethical frameworks.
Ethical guidelines
Here are several examples of guiding principles used in AI ethics or “responsible AI”. There are many more available, some of
which I will link in the resources section of this post.
EU High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence
1. Human agency and oversight
2. Technical robustness and safety
3. Privacy and data governance
4. Transparency
5. Diversity, non-discrimination and fairness
6. Social and environmental wellbeing
7. Accountability
Google
1. Be socially beneficial
2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias
3. Be built and tested for safety
4. Be accountable to people
5. Incorporate privacy design principles
6. Uphold high standards of scientific excellence
7. Be made available for uses that accord with these principles.
[Link] Australian Ethics Principles
1. Human-centred values
2. Fairness
3. Privacy protection and security
4. Reliability and safety
5. Transparency and explainability
6. Contestability
7. Accountability
There are some key overlapping areas been these guidelines, and some which are unique. In teaching AI ethics, explore many
different examples and discuss with students which are more appropriate, and why.
“Ethics washing”
One final point to note is that just because organisations develop AI Ethics or Responsible AI principles, doesn’t mean they follow
them. Just like the “greenwashing” of environmental concerns discussed earlier, many AI companies have been accused of paying
lip-service to ethical concerns.
AI Ethics principles are often non-binding and cannot be enforced by law. To do that, we need laws and regulations imposed by
states and countries.

1.4.1 [Link]
 “this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine”.
Can Responsible AI wash away the sins of big tech? Image via Midjourney. Prompt in alt text.

1.4: Ethical Perspectives, Approaches, and Frameworks is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
LibreTexts.

1.4.2 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

1.5: Conclusion
We are at a watershed moment in terms of Artificial Intelligence like ChatGPT. Although the technology has existed for years, the
release of OpenAI’s chatbot has thrust it into the limelight, raising awareness for both teachers and students.
Beyond the narrative of cheating and dramatic claims of the end of industrial-era education, AI offers real opportunities to
personalise learning and help with differentiation, diversity, and inclusion. But there is a shadow side to AI which cannot be
ignored.
The ethical concerns of AI are complex – I haven’t even scratched the surface in this article, but hopefully I have provided enough
for teachers to start exploring down their own rabbit holes. I’ll end with a few final suggestions for teaching AI ethics, and
resources and further reading. If you’ve enjoyed this article, please share it.
Teaching AI Ethics: Suggested Activity
This activity comes via ChatGPT with some back-and-forth to refine the idea. I’ll explore the method behind creating resources
like this in more detail in a future post. For now, here are the prompts and the activity:
Prompt: Suggest a teaching idea for these ethical issues. Do not align to a particular subject area. Build out robust and
interesting lesson activity ideas which can be applied to any of the 9 areas. Do not align activities with the 9 areas. Use
contemporary teaching practices, and a mix of discussion, research, student centred, and explicit instruction. Produce a title
for the activity (use markdown to format headings), one or two learning intentions, and the description of the activity. Limit
activity to a maximum of 50 minutes.

1.5: Conclusion is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1.5.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

2: Teaching AI Ethics- Bias and Discrimination

This is the first post in a series exploring the nine areas of AI ethics outlined in this original post. Each post will go into detail on
the ethical concern as well as providing practical ways to discuss these issues in a variety of subject areas.
UPDATE: Here’s a pre-post-script to this post which raises an important point about bias in image generation. It comes from a DM
conversation and subsequent comment on the post on LinkedIn:
Excellent comment via Lori Mazor on the image with this post – I’m bringing it out of our DM conversation because it’s an
important point, especially in the context of this topic.
Lori highlighted the ‘white male’ bias of the image. I’d noticed the “whiteness” of the image, but not critically thought about the
“maleness”. What’s interesting is that the prompt doesn’t contain any reference to people at all, male or female:
/imagine prompt: digital collage, glitch art, post-structuralist, wealth, pained, hegemony, power, tech post feature image, header
image –ar 2:1 –q 2 –v 4
Lori’s message has me wondering which words in the prompt have conjured the white male face. I’m going to guess that
unfortunately it’s the combination of “wealth” and “power”.
My intent by using only abstract concepts in the prompt was to generate something random and broadly in-keeping with the theme
(you’ll notice that the following posts in this series have a similar aesthetic). Some images contain female figures – I’m going to go
back and explore which words have most likely drawn this out of the image gen.
On with the article!
As term one rapidly unfolds, the Artificial Intelligence boom kick-started in late 2022 by ChatGPT shows no sign of letting m qup.
Since the start of term, we have seen the release of Microsoft’s new Bing Chat, and OpenAI has updated its terms and conditions to
permit use by anyone over 13.
While AI can undoubtedly be a valuable tool in education, it’s important for educators to understand the ethical concerns that
surround its use. We must ensure that we are using these technologies in ways that are responsible, just, and fair. The original
Teaching AI Ethics post has proved hugely popular, but many educators from primary to tertiary have asked for more details on
each of the nine areas. In this post, I’ll explore the first and most widely-known issue: bias and discrimination.
2.1: Algorithmic Bias
2.2: Discrimination by Default
2.3: Case Study- Predictive Policing in the US
2.4: Teaching AI Ethics

1
2: Teaching AI Ethics- Bias and Discrimination is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
LibreTexts.

2
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

2.1: Algorithmic Bias

One of the most pressing ethical concerns of AI is algorithmic bias. Algorithmic bias occurs when the data used to train AI systems
reflects the biases and prejudices of society, resulting in discriminatory outputs.
ChatGPT is a prime example of an AI system that can suffer from algorithmic bias. It is a large language model that is trained on a
massive dataset, including the “common crawl” which contains over 12 years’ worth of web pages. While these datasets give the
models tremendous capabilities, they are inherently biased. Indiscriminately scraping the internet for data means that the dataset
can contain racist, sexist, ableist, and otherwise discriminatory language. As a result, ChatGPT can produce outputs that perpetuate
these biases and prejudices.
Moreover, AI models can reflect the biases and prejudices of society as a whole. Just like any other society, the online community
underrepresents marginalised groups and overrepresents others. For instance, the prevalence of racism and bigotry on sources like
Reddit and Twitter can bleed through the datasets and be reproduced in the output of AI models.
Algorithmic bias can also occur during the methods of training and reinforcement used when developing AI systems. For example,
predictive policing systems used by law enforcement agencies in the US disproportionately target poor, Black, and Latinx
communities, reinforcing existing systemic biases.

2.1: Algorithmic Bias is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

2.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

2.2: Discrimination by Default

These biases and harmful outputs don’t just happen on occasion. It seems that Large Language Models like OpenAI’s GPT are
almost unavoidably biased. The tremendous volume of discriminatory, gendered, racist, and ableist language in the dataset means
that models have a tendency to discriminate by default.
There are some organisations and communities trying to counteract this seemingly inevitable tendency. BLOOM, for example, is a
model trained by BigScience through a “crowdsourced” dataset which had ethical guardrails in place from its inception, including
avoiding potential biased datasets. This dataset is called ROOTS 1.61 terabytes of text including 46 languages.
Unfortunately, although BLOOM may be less biased than GPT, the jury is out on whether the bias has been removed entirely.
BLOOM is also significantly less powerful than a model like GPT or Google’s LaMDA, and so it is less likely that people will use
it as the basis for their own software.

2.2: Discrimination by Default is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

2.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

2.3: Case Study- Predictive Policing in the US

Predictive policing is the use of data analysis, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) to predict where crimes are most
likely to occur and who is most likely to commit them.
It is used by law enforcement agencies to allocate resources and personnel, identify potential criminal suspects, and prevent crime
before it happens. However, there are concerns about the potential for bias and discrimination in predictive policing algorithms, as
well as questions about the legality and ethics of using AI to predict criminal behaviour.
Critics also argue that predictive policing can reinforce existing biases and inequalities in the criminal justice system, leading to
unjust and discriminatory outcomes.
This is because the datasets often include biases which are a product of systemic racism, including police mugshot databases with
an inordinate amount of black people and people of colour.
In August 2016, a coalition of 17 organisations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), issued a statement
expressing concern about predictive policing tools used by law enforcement in the United States. The statement highlighted the
technology’s racial biases, lack of transparency, and other flaws that lead to injustice, particularly for people of color.
The statement called for transparency about predictive policing systems, evaluation of their short- and long-term effects,
monitoring of their racial impact, and the use of data-driven approaches to address police misconduct. The statement also
emphasised the importance of community needs and the potential of social services interventions to address problems for at-risk
individuals and communities before crimes occur.
Facial recognition technology poses special risks of disparate impact for historically marginalised communities, such as black
individuals who are more likely to be stopped by police officers and are overrepresented in law enforcement databases. Recent
studies demonstrate that these technical inaccuracies are systemic and biased against people with darker skin.
Companies have announced actions to improve the accuracy of their facial recognition algorithms and diversity of their training
datasets, but the scope and effectiveness of such efforts vary across vendors.
There remains an ethical question of if or when it is appropriate to use facial recognition to address legitimate security concerns,
regardless of its accuracy. Guardrails are needed to ensure more equitable use of enhanced surveillance technologies, including
facial recognition.

2.3: Case Study- Predictive Policing in the US is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

2.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

2.4: Teaching AI Ethics

Each of these posts will expand on the original and offer a few suggestions of how and where AI ethics could be incorporated into
your curriculum. Every suggestion comes with a resource or further reading, which may be an article, blog post, video, or academic
article.
Legal studies: What legal precedents exist for protecting marginalised groups from discrimination? Is a biased algorithm legal?
English and Literature: How have certain groups been silenced or oppressed throughout history? What is the implication of this
“gap” in the written record of the internet when it is used as data to train an AI?
Mathematics: What is an algorithm? How do algorithms and probability link to policing and other societal functions?
Social Studies: How does systemic bias and discrimination affect different groups in society? How can AI perpetuate or
challenge these biases?
Computer Science: How can AI models be designed to avoid algorithmic bias and discrimination? What ethical considerations
should be taken into account when designing AI systems?
Philosophy: What ethical theories can be applied to the use of AI in society? How can we balance the benefits and risks of AI,
particularly when it comes to bias and discrimination?
Science: How can data collection and analysis be used to address bias and discrimination in AI systems? What role do scientists
and researchers play in ensuring ethical use of AI?
Business and Economics: How does bias and discrimination in AI affect the market and business outcomes? What economic
incentives exist for companies to ensure ethical AI practices?
Media Studies: How do media representations of different groups contribute to bias and discrimination in AI? How can media
literacy be used to address these issues?
Psychology: How does bias and discrimination affect individuals and society? How can we design AI systems that take into
account psychological factors such as implicit bias?
Health and PE: How might AI be used in healthcare and what are the potential ethical implications? How might AI discriminate
against people in the healthcare system?

2.4: Teaching AI Ethics is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

2.4.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

3: Teaching AI Ethics- Environment

The original post Teaching AI Ethics provided an overview of nine areas of ethical concern with AI. Although I primarily work
with generative AI like text and image generation, many of these can be applied to other types of AI from facial recognition to
predictive algorithms.
The environmental concerns of artificial intelligence are less reported on than algorithmic bias, but just as important. In this post
I’ll explore the impact of AI technologies on the environment and what AI developers are doing – or not doing – to mitigate those
risks.
3.1: Extractive AI
3.2: The Hidden Costs of the Cloud
3.3: Case Study- The Carbon Cost of Training Large Language Models
3.4: Teaching AI Ethics

3: Teaching AI Ethics- Environment is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

3.1: Extractive AI
Kate Crawford – researcher, author, and leading AI scholar – refers to Artificial Intelligence as an “extractive” technology. In her
book Atlas of AI she compares the AI industry to mining, drawing comparisons between oil and precious metal extraction.
The use of rare earth minerals and metals in the manufacturing of electronic components is a crucial aspect of the development of
AI. These materials are used in the production of components such as batteries, memory chips, and processors. Lithium, for
example, is a key component in the production of batteries used in devices such as smartphones, laptops, and electric cars.
Similarly, cobalt is a vital component of rechargeable batteries used in many portable electronics and electric vehicles, while
copper is essential for wiring and other electrical components.
However, the extraction and refining of these materials are resource-intensive processes that have significant environmental
impacts. The mining of rare earth minerals and metals can result in soil erosion, deforestation, and water pollution. It can also lead
to the displacement of local communities and the destruction of their habitats. The production of electronic components also
generates a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change.
The demand for these materials is expected to increase dramatically as AI technologies continue to develop and become more
widespread. This increase in demand will only exacerbate the environmental impact of their extraction and use. It is therefore
essential to find sustainable solutions that reduce the environmental impact of these processes.
In Atlas, Crawford also discusses the human impact of this “extractive” technology – something which I will discuss more in a later
post in this series.

3.1: Extractive AI is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

3.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

3.2: The Hidden Costs of the Cloud

Cloud computing relies on massive data centres and infrastructure that consume a significant amount of energy and produce waste.
These data centres require constant cooling, lighting, and other support systems to ensure the optimal performance of servers and
other hardware. The construction and operation of data centres also require huge amounts of energy, water, and other resources,
leading to carbon emissions and other forms of environmental damage.
One of the most significant environmental impacts of cloud computing is its contribution to climate change. The energy
consumption of data centres is massive, and as more and more computing moves to the cloud, this demand will only increase.
According to one estimate, the carbon footprint of the IT industry is 1.8% to 3.9% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.
Many companies have pledged to make their data centres carbon-neutral or powered by renewable energy sources, but critics argue
that these efforts are not enough. Offsetting carbon emissions or engaging in carbon trading does not address the underlying
problem of energy consumption and waste production.

3.2: The Hidden Costs of the Cloud is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

3.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

3.3: Case Study- The Carbon Cost of Training Large Language Models
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful artificial intelligence systems that can generate natural language texts for various
applications, such as content generation, summarisation, and code generation. This type of AI has been thrust into the limelight by
OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and they have many applications. Unfortunately, training these models requires a huge amount of
computational resources and energy, which has a significant environmental impact.
According to a study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, training a single LLM can emit as much carbon as
five cars in their lifetimes. The study estimated the energy consumption and carbon footprint of four popular LLMs: Transformer,
ELMo, BERT, and GPT-2. The results showed that the most energy-intensive model was Transformer, which consumed 656,347
kWh of electricity and emitted 626,155kg of CO2 equivalent. This is equivalent to “nearly five times the lifetime emissions of the
average American car”.
Organisations like Microsoft, OpenAI, and Google are investigating ways to reduce this impact, including:
Choosing more efficient models or algorithms that require less energy or data to train
Using pre-trained models or transfer learning techniques that leverage existing knowledge
Reducing the frequency or duration of training sessions
Using renewable energy sources or carbon offsets to power the training process
Implementing best practices for data collection and processing
Adopting ethical principles and guidelines for developing and deploying LLMs

3.3: Case Study- The Carbon Cost of Training Large Language Models is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed,
and/or curated by LibreTexts.

3.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

3.4: Teaching AI Ethics

Legal Studies: What laws and regulations exist to govern the use of AI in environmental contexts? How can they be improved
to better protect the environment?
Environmental Science: How can AI be used to address environmental challenges such as climate change, pollution, and
deforestation? What ethical considerations should be taken into account when designing AI systems for environmental
applications?
Mathematics: How can algorithms and machine learning be used to model and predict the impact of human activities on the
environment? What are the potential ethical concerns associated with these models?
Social Studies: How does environmental degradation disproportionately affect different communities, particularly marginalised
and vulnerable groups? How can AI be used to address these inequities, and what are the ethical implications of doing so?
Engineering: How can engineering principles be used to design environmentally sustainable AI systems? What role can
engineers play in ensuring that AI is used in an ethical and environmentally responsible manner?
Business and Economics: How can AI be used to promote sustainable business practices and reduce the environmental impact
of industries such as agriculture, transportation, and manufacturing? What are the economic incentives for companies to adopt
eco-friendly AI?
Health and PE: How can AI be used to address public health issues related to the environment, such as air and water pollution?
What are the potential ethical concerns associated with using AI in public health contexts?
English and Literature: How can we use literary criticism like ecocriticism to analyse representations of AI in literature and
popular culture? What are the potential ethical concerns associated with these representations?

3.4: Teaching AI Ethics is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

3.4.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

4: Teaching AI Ethics- Truth and Academic Integrity

The concept of “truth” is a significant ethical issue related to AI systems like ChatGPT. Since its launch in November, there have
been two main concerns: first, the likelihood of AI models generating false or fabricated content, and second, the potential for
individuals to exploit them for dishonest purposes, including academic cheating and intentional dissemination of false information.
In this post, I’ll explore both the AI tendency to fabricate information, and the various ways which humans might misuse the
technology.
4.1: Synthetic Mirages
4.2: Academic Integrity in the Age of AI
4.3: AI and Truth
4.4: Case Study- Language Models and the Spread of Fake News
4.5: Teaching AI Ethics

4: Teaching AI Ethics- Truth and Academic Integrity is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

4.1: Synthetic Mirages

The first of these concerns – called “hallucinating” or confabulating – is a result of many different factors, including:
1. Training data limitations: The models are trained on large datasets containing text from various sources, which may include
inaccuracies, biases, or outdated information.
2. Inability to verify facts: AI language models lack the ability to fact-check or verify information. They rely on patterns and
associations found in their training data and may generate false information if the data contains inaccuracies.
3. Ambiguity in prompts: If a user provides a vague prompt, the AI model might generate responses that are not accurate. The
model tries to infer the user’s intent based on the given input, but it might fail to do so correctly.
4. Over-optimising for fluency: AI models like GPT-4 are designed to generate human-like text, which can sometimes lead to
them prioritising fluency over accuracy. As a result, the model may produce text that sounds plausible but is a hallucination.
5. Lack of a ground truth: AI language models don’t possess a deep, grounded understanding of the world like humans do. They
work based on statistical patterns in data, which can sometimes lead to generating information that doesn’t make sense or is
incorrect.
In addition to perpetuating biases and discrimination, AI hallucinations pose a genuine risk of causing harm. The convincingly
fabricated information produced by these models can infiltrate media, academic research, and educational materials. An inattentive
user might unintentionally incorporate this false content into various contexts, creating further issues.

4.1: Synthetic Mirages is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

4.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

4.2: Academic Integrity in the Age of AI

AI has become a potential threat to academic integrity, as tools like ChatGPT make it easier for students to access and use
generated content for cheating purposes. The ease of generating human-like content could tempt students to bypass the hard work
of research and writing.
Since ChatGPT’s launch in November, there has been a surge of media speculation about AI-fuelled academic dishonesty.
Journalists and educators have raised concerns over the increasing difficulty of identifying AI-generated content and the possibility
of it slipping through detection tools.
As we continue to develop and rely on AI systems, the responsibility falls on educators, institutions, and AI developers to create a
culture that emphasises the importance of truth and the ethical use of technology. This may involve updating academic policies,
providing training on AI ethics, or developing more effective tools to detect AI-generated content.

4.2: Academic Integrity in the Age of AI is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

4.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

4.3: AI and Truth

‘Understanding Information Disorder‘ by First Draft News CC-BY 4.0.
Misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information are false or misleading pieces of information that spread through social
media, news outlets, or word of mouth, often causing confusion and harm.
AI has become an accomplice in the viral spread of these types of information. Deepfakes – AI-manipulated videos and images –
can deceive users with startling accuracy, making it harder to distinguish between fact and fiction. Platforms like TikTok have
become incredibly problematic for the spread of misinformation, with algorithms powered by AI creating “filter bubbles” that
expose users only to information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, further amplifying false narratives.

4.3: AI and Truth is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

4.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

4.4: Case Study- Language Models and the Spread of Fake News
Research conducted by Georgetown University, OpenAI, and Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) highlights the dangers of large
language models (LLMs) and the potential for them to manipulate public viewpoints.
LLMs are trained on vast amounts of textual data and can generate meaningful text similar to humans. They are commonly used for
tasks such as content creation, language translation, and text summarisation, due to their ability to generate good-quality text at
scale.
The concern is that LLMs can be used to produce fake news and impersonate real individuals or organisations. The researchers
used the ABC model of disinformation to examine how LLMs can be misused. The model breaks down the various aspects that
contribute to the escalation of false information. ‘A’ refers to ‘Actor,’ which can be a group of individuals who create and broadcast
disinformation. ‘B’ stands for ‘Behaviour,’ which refers to the strategies used to spread propaganda. Lastly, ‘C’ stands for
‘Content’ which is untrue information.
The research found that LLMs can be used to promote a hoax agenda and negatively influence people. Since LLMs can generate
large amounts of text quickly, they can overflow the internet with false information, making it difficult for people to differentiate
between what is true and what is wrong. Even the scale of the campaigns can be amplified with minimal costs, making
manipulation harder to detect.
The researchers recommend that careful attention should be paid to the type and source of news to avoid misuse, and users and
developers should ethically use the model. While LLMs are not inherently malicious, they have the potential to be wrongly used for
manipulation and disinformation.

4.4: Case Study- Language Models and the Spread of Fake News is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by LibreTexts.

4.4.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

4.5: Teaching AI Ethics

History: How might the use of AI impact historical research? How can we ensure academic integrity and prevent the spread of
fake historical information?
English: What role does AI play in the creation and dissemination of fake news, and how can we teach students to identify and
combat it? How can we promote academic integrity in digital writing and communication?
Mathematics: How can AI be used to detect errors in data analysis, and what ethical considerations must be taken into account?
Computer Science: How can AI be used to detect plagiarism and in programming and computer science projects, and how can
we design ethical AI systems to support academic integrity?
Science: How can AI be used to detect and prevent scientific misconduct and academic dishonesty, or what could go wrong?
Media Studies: How can we teach students to critically evaluate and fact-check fake news, and how can we promote academic
integrity in digital media and communication?
Visual Arts: Is AI art actually art, or is it plagiarism? How can we promote integrity in digital art creation and distribution?

4.5: Teaching AI Ethics is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

4.5.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

5: Teaching AI Ethics- Copyright

This is the first in the ‘intermediate’ level of posts for Teaching AI Ethics. At this level, the concepts start to become more complex.
This might be because the information is harder to access, or because the ideas become more philosophically complex.
Copyright is a hugely contentious aspect of the current wave of Artificial Intelligence, particularly in the field of AI image
generation. As AI continues to advance and both artists and laypeople produce creative works, questions are cropping up about
who owns the copyright to those works. With AI it’s possible to create “original” art, music, and literature, but the line between
what human-generated and AI-generated is increasingly blurred. This post explores some of these ethical concerns surrounding
copyright and AI.
5.1: Copyright and Image Generation
5.2: What’s the big deal?
5.3: Writing, Film, and Music
5.4: Case Study- Zarya of the Dawn
5.5: Teaching AI Ethics

5: Teaching AI Ethics- Copyright is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

5.1: Copyright and Image Generation

I’m starting with image generation because it has been the most public and most contentious aspect of AI and copyright. For a
quick scan of how problematic the area is, you only have to do a quick search of whether AI artists can copyright their work. Here
are some of the results:
No, you can’t copyright images made by A.I., says the U.S. Copyright Office
U.S. Copyright Office Says AI-Generated Images Do Not Qualify For Copyright Protection
AI-generated art can be copyrighted, say US officials – with a catch
AI-created images lose U.S. copyrights in test for new technology
AI art tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney targeted with copyright lawsuit
In some cases, it’s an outright “no”. In others, it seems but be a “no, but…”. And in the final example, it’s a hard no with a side of
litigation, as companies like Stability AI (behind Stable Diffusion) and Midjourney find themselves on the receiving end of
lawsuits.

5.1: Copyright and Image Generation is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

5.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

5.2: What’s the big deal?

So why is AI image generation so contentious?
The primary reason is based on how these models are trained. In order to build an AI image generator, the developer must use
millions or even billions images. Stable Diffusion, for example, was trained on around 2.3 billion images. Many of these images
have been “scraped” from the internet without the consent of the original creators.
This leads to problems with attribution, and with the potential for these AI image generators to reproduce art in another artist’s
style. I’m sure you’ve seen posts already with AI generated art in the style of Van Gogh or Rembrandt. However, it also applies to
living artists and photographers whose work has been scraped from sites like artstation and Flikr.
There’s the additional problem of whether the current copyright laws extend to work created “by a machine”. Although AI images
are generated by a human controlling the input via the prompt, it has been argued that the actual image is created by the AI, and not
the human. This throws a legal roadblock in the way of copyrighting AI art.
US law states that intellectual property can be copyrighted only if it was the product of human creativity, and the USCO only
acknowledges work authored by humans at present. Machines and generative AI algorithms, therefore, cannot be authors, and their
outputs are not copyrightable.
[Link]

Jason Allen’s Théâtre D’opéra Spatial won first place in the Colorado State Fair, until the artist revealed it was generated in
Midjourney and declined the prize. Since then, the artist has not been able to get copyright status for the work.

5.2: What’s the big deal? is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

5.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

5.3: Writing, Film, and Music

Although the bulk of the conversation around AI and copyright has centred on the visual arts, the conversation has also arisen in
text generation, film, and music.
The same human authorship requirement for copyright protection under the current US law means that an AI-generated writing is
likely either a public domain work immediately upon creation or a derivative work of the materials the AI tool was exposed to
during training – the text found in the dataset.
The ownership of the rights in such a derivative would depend on various issues, including the dataset for training the AI tool (of
which there are many variations, depending on the model used), its components, and the similarity between any particular work in
the training set and the AI work.
We’re yet to see many real discussions around copyright in film and music, but with AI generated film technologies just around the
corner, we surely will. AI can already synthesise realistic versions of existing artist’s voices, like the example below which went
viral last week:

5.3: Writing, Film, and Music is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

5.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

5.4: Case Study- Zarya of the Dawn

In February 2023, the US Copyright Office revoked copyright protection for images created using the AI-powered Midjourney
image generator for the comic book “Zarya of the Dawn” and issued a new copyright registration covering only the text of the work
and the arrangement of images and text. The justification for this decision was incomplete information in the original copyright
registration, which failed to disclose that the images were created by an AI model. The Copyright Office argued that the images in
the work generated by Midjourney were not the product of human authorship and thus not copyrightable. Despite Kashtanova’s
claim that she had “guided” the structure and content of each image, the Copyright Office argued that Midjourney, not Kashtanova,
originated the “traditional elements of authorship” in the images.
Kashtanova’s attorney argued that every aspect of the work was authored by Kashtanova, with Midjourney serving merely as an
assistive tool. However, this argument was rejected by the Copyright Office, which provided additional analogies to explain why
Kashtanova was not the creator of the images, including the idea of hiring a human to create images using descriptions and
performing a text-based image search on the internet.
Kashtanova reacted to the letter by framing it as an overall win for AI-augmented artists. The ruling protects the comic book’s story
and the image arrangement, which “covers a lot of uses for the people in the AI art community.” However, she expressed
disappointment that the Copyright Office did not agree to recognise her copyright of the individual images.
Kashtanova believes the output of a Generative AI model depends directly on the creative input of the artist and is not random:
individual images produced by Midjourney are a direct expression of her creativity and thus copyrightable.
The decision means that AI-generated imagery, without human-authored elements, cannot currently be copyrighted in the United
States. The Copyright Office’s ruling on the matter will likely hold unless it’s challenged in court, revised by law, or re-examined in
the future. The decision may eventually be reconsidered as the result of a cultural shift in how society perceives AI-generated art,
allowing for a new interpretation by different members of the US Copyright Office in the future. AI-powered artwork is still a
novel and poorly understood technology, but it is rapidly becoming a feature of digital art.
Cover of Zarya of the Dawn. Image via [Link]

5.4: Case Study- Zarya of the Dawn is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

5.4.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

5.5: Teaching AI Ethics

1. Legal Studies: What is the current legal stance on AI copyright in your country?
2. English and Literature: How does the use of AI to generate content challenge traditional notions of authorship and creativity,
and what are the ethical implications of this challenge?
3. Computer Science: What ethical considerations should be taken into account when designing AI systems for copyright
enforcement?
4. Philosophy: What ethical theories can be applied to the use of AI in copyright enforcement, and how do these theories inform
debates over the balance between copyright protection and free expression?
5. Business and Economics: How does the use of AI affect the market for creative works, and what ethical issues arise from these
effects?
6. Media Studies: What implications might AI have on the creation and copyrighting of film?
7. Visual Arts: How does the use of AI in creating art raise questions about copyright and intellectual property rights? What
ethical considerations arise when using AI to produce artwork?
8. Music: Is it possible to copyright an artist’s voice?

5.5: Teaching AI Ethics is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

5.5.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

6: Teaching AI Ethics- Privacy

There are growing concerns about the impact of Artificial Intelligence technologies on our privacy. AI systems are often “black
boxes“, making it hard to understand how they arrive at their decisions and raising questions about transparency.
The use of personal data in AI training data and the potential for data breaches and cyber-attacks also pose significant privacy risks
to individuals and organisations. As I discussed in the first post in this series, AI systems can perpetuate biases and have
unintended consequences that violate individual privacy rights. In this blog post, I’ll explore these ethical concerns around privacy
and AI and present a few questions to explore this area across a range of subjects.
6.1: Where does all that Data come from?
6.2: Protecting Personal Privacy
6.3: Case Study- AI Defamation
6.4: Teaching AI Ethics

6: Teaching AI Ethics- Privacy is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

6.1: Where does all that Data come from?

Developers of large language models, such as ChatGPT, often scrape their training data indiscriminately from the web without
paying any attention to individual rights. These models are trained on vast swathes of internet data, and often include personal
information that has been collected without consent or used in violation of privacy laws. This has raised concerns about the ethical
implications of developing AI models that rely on data collected without regard for individual privacy rights.
The lack of transparency and accountability around the collection and use of personal data in AI development has been a
longstanding issue. The vast amount of data required to train these models means that personal information is often collected
without explicit consent or knowledge of the individuals affected. Critics argue that developers of large language models prioritise
the creation of powerful algorithms over individual privacy rights, and that the industry is not sufficiently regulated.
These concerns have landed OpenAI in trouble with European regulators, particularly under the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) laws. The Italian regulator recently issued a temporary emergency decision demanding that OpenAI stop using
the personal information of millions of Italians included in its training data, citing a lack of legal justification for using people’s
personal information in ChatGPT. The GDPR rules protect the data of over 400 million people across Europe and apply to personal
data that is freely available online. The decision by the Italian regulator highlights the growing concerns around the development of
large AI models and the use of personal information in training data.
In the US, the federal privacy commission is also investigating OpenAI following a claim made against the company that it has
been unlawfully using personal and private data.

6.1: Where does all that Data come from? is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

6.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

6.2: Protecting Personal Privacy

As I covered in the first post in this series, AI systems have the potential to perpetuate and amplify biases in data, leading to
discrimination against certain groups or individuals. This is a serious concern when it comes to privacy, as these biases can lead to
the exclusion or mistreatment of individuals based on their personal characteristics. It can lead to members of the public being
surveilled based on skin colour, place of residence, or other factors which are part of the data used when training the models. These
concerns extend into many areas of the AI industry including facial and affect recognition, which I’ll talk about in a later post.
The storage of personal data in AI training data is also a significant privacy concern. In the creation of these models, personal data
has been collected without explicit consent or knowledge of the individuals affected, and there may be inadequate protections in
place to ensure that this data is used ethically and responsibly. Data breaches and cyber attacks also a huge risk for AI systems.
Several weeks ago, OpenAI experienced a breach due to a bug in one of their code libraries which revealed the first and last names
and email addresses of ChatGPT Plus subscribers, along with financial details.

6.2: Protecting Personal Privacy is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

6.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

6.3: Case Study- AI Defamation

As covered in my article on truth and academic integrity, Artificial intelligence has the potential to generate false information,
leading to serious privacy concerns. In a recent case in Hepburn Shire, Australia, OpenAI once again faces the possibility of legal
action for defamation. ChatGPT incorrectly described regional mayor Brian Hood as a guilty party in a foreign bribery scandal.
The mayor was actually a whistle-blower who had reported the bribe payments.
ChatGPT’s errors arose from its indiscriminate data-scraping, as well as the inability of these models to distinguish between true
and false claims. As a result, it generated convincing but incorrect information. Although OpenAI, the company that created
ChatGPT, has taken some steps to protect people’s privacy, such as removing personal information from training data, such actions
may not be sufficient to prevent the spread of false information.
This case highlights the legal challenges associated with suing AI companies for defamation, particularly given the issue of
jurisdiction. Although the legal implications of AI technologies like ChatGPT are still uncharted, the case demonstrates the need
for more cooperative efforts between AI developers, social media companies, and government agencies to mitigate the risk of
generating misleading information.
When personal user data – even publicly available data, like the original news story about Brian Hood’s involvement in the bribery
case – is combined with a language model’s capacity for generating falsehoods, we have a recipe for damaging output.

6.3: Case Study- AI Defamation is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

6.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

6.4: Teaching AI Ethics

Legal Studies: How do GDPR laws protect user privacy when it comes to AI? What legal consequences can organisations face
for non-compliance or data breaches?
English and Literature: How has literature portrayed Artificial Intelligence and our concerns about these technologies? What
can we learn from these portrayals about public sentiment towards privacy concerns?
Mathematics: How do encryption algorithms protect personal data? What is the role of probability in securing data privacy and
preventing data breaches?
Computer Science: What methods can be implemented to ensure data privacy and security in AI systems? How can
anonymisation techniques help in protecting user privacy?
Philosophy: How can we balance the benefits of AI and the need for privacy? What ethical theories can be applied to address
privacy concerns in AI development and usage?
Science: How can scientific research contribute to the development of more secure AI systems? What role do scientists and
researchers play in addressing privacy concerns in AI?
Business and Economics: How do privacy concerns and regulatory compliance affect the market and business outcomes? What
economic incentives exist for companies to invest in privacy and data protection technologies for AI?
Health and PE: How can AI be used in healthcare while maintaining patient privacy? What are the potential ethical implications
of privacy breaches in the healthcare system?

6.4: Teaching AI Ethics is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

6.4.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

7: Teaching AI Ethics- Datafication

“Datafication” is a term used to describe how all aspects of our lives are being turned into datapoints. Whether through the
collection of our likes, shares, and ratings on social media and streaming apps, or through the harvesting of physical data from
devices like smartphones and smartwatches, datafication is what powers artificial intelligence. In the words of British data scientist
Clive Humby, “Data is the new oil”.
Datafication has become a defining characteristic of our modern world, as technology advances enable the collection, storage, and
analysis of vast amounts of data from nearly every aspect of our lives. While this process has led to numerous benefits such as
improved efficiency of services, better decision-making, and increased personalisation of products and services, it also raises
significant ethical concerns. In this post, I’ll go into the ethical implications of datafication, exploring the impact on privacy,
surveillance, and potential misuse of data, as well as examining the responsibility of organisations and individuals in ensuring
ethical data collection practices.
7.1: Case Study- The Datafication of Education
7.2: Where does all the Data go?
7.3: Teaching AI Ethics

7: Teaching AI Ethics- Datafication is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

7.1: Case Study- The Datafication of Education

Datafication sounds like a complex term – or perhaps something in the realm of conspiracy theorists – but it’s alarmingly simple
for companies and developers to collect data about many aspects of our lives. With the rise of 1:1 devices in schools and the
increased prevalence of students carrying their own phones, it becomes even easier. In fact, some educational apps collect an
incredible amount of data on students.
A study by Atlas VPN found that 98% of iOS educational apps gather user data, with each app on average collecting information
from over 8 data segments. This can include names, emails, phone numbers, location, payment information, and search history,
among others. Duolingo, a popular language learning app, topped the list by collecting user data across 19 segments. Other notable
data-hungry apps include Busuu, another language learning app, and Google Classroom, a learning platform, both of which collect
data from 17 segments.
The study analysed the App Store privacy labels of 50 popular iOS apps in the education category, ranking them based on the
number of personal user information segments collected. However, it should be noted that some apps collect data that cannot be
linked back to a user’s identity, and these data segments were not included in the total count. The primary purposes for collecting
data were app functionality (86%), analytics (80%), personalisation (56%), and developer’s advertising or marketing (54%).
However, 24% of the apps also used collected data for third-party advertising, passing user information on to other organisations.
It’s worth noting of course that Atlas VPN has its own agenda for the research: Virtual Private Networks are used to circumvent
data gathering for all kinds of purposes, and Atlas VPN uses its research to support the sales of its own products. Nevertheless,
there’s still a huge quantity of personal and identifying data being gathered by these apps.

7.1: Case Study- The Datafication of Education is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
LibreTexts.

7.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

7.2: Where does all the Data go?

To understand why these companies collect so much data, we can return to machine learning and artificial intelligence. Companies
gather large amounts of information for various reasons, including for less-than-wholesome purposes. AI plays a significant role in
many of these processes. Here are some reasons for extensive data collection that may raise ethical concerns, along with the role of
AI in each:
1. Targeted Advertising: One of the primary reasons companies collect user information is to deliver targeted ads that cater to
individual interests, increasing the likelihood of engagement and conversion. AI algorithms analyse the collected data to predict
the most effective ads for each user, maximising the return on investment for advertisers. However, this practice can lead to
intrusive and privacy-invading ad experiences, as well as the potential for manipulation and exploitation of user data.
2. Competitive Research and Development: Data collection provides valuable insights for companies to develop new products,
features, and services that cater to user needs and preferences. AI can analyse the data to identify gaps in the market or predict
future trends, helping companies stay competitive and innovative. However, this practice can lead to aggressive competition, IP
theft, or unethical business practices aimed at undermining competitors.
3. Surveillance and Profiling: Companies may use collected data to create detailed user profiles for various purposes, including
targeted advertising, risk assessment, or even political manipulation. AI can process and analyse vast amounts of data,
identifying patterns and trends that allow for the creation of comprehensive user profiles. This practice raises significant privacy
concerns and can lead to discrimination, manipulation, and other unethical uses of personal information.
4. Third-Party Data Sharing: In some cases, companies may share collected user data with third parties, such as data brokers,
advertisers, or other business partners, without users’ explicit consent. AI can help to identify valuable data points or user
segments for monetisation, which might result in increased sharing of personal information. This practice raises concerns about
data privacy and the potential misuse of personal data by third parties.
5. Unfair Competitive Advantages: Companies with access to vast amounts of user data may leverage AI to gain unfair
competitive advantages, such as predicting and influencing user behaviour, dominating market segments, or exploiting network
effects to create monopolies. This can stifle innovation, reduce consumer choices, and lead to market imbalances.

7.2: Where does all the Data go? is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

7.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

7.3: Teaching AI Ethics

History: How does datafication impact the way we study and interpret historical events? How can we ensure the validity of
data-driven historical research and avoid misrepresentations of the past?
English: How does datafication influence the way literature is analysed and interpreted? What are the ethical implications of
using data-driven methods to study literary works and promote academic integrity?
Mathematics: How has datafication transformed the study of mathematics and careers in maths? How can we ensure ethical
data collection and analysis in mathematical research?
Environmental Science: How does datafication impact the study of environmental systems and the interactions between humans
and the environment? What are the ethical considerations in using data-driven methods to analyse environmental issues and
promote sustainable solutions?
Visual Arts: How does datafication influence the creation, interpretation, and distribution of visual art? What are the ethical
implications of using data-driven methods in artistic practice, and how can we promote integrity in digital art creation and
distribution?
Geography: How does datafication impact the study of geographical patterns and processes? What are the ethical considerations
in using data-driven methods to analyse and interpret geographical information?

7.3: Teaching AI Ethics is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

7.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

8: Teaching AI Ethics- Affect Recognition

As artificial intelligence continues to develop and influence different aspects of our lives, its role in education is becoming
increasingly important. One particularly controversial implementation of AI is affect or emotion recognition, which claims to
interpret human emotions and mental states by analysing facial expressions, body language, and speech patterns. Advocates for
affect recognition argue that incorporating it into education can transform how students learn, enabling personalised and adaptive
teaching methods that cater to each individual’s emotions and cognitive state. However, the reliability and ethical implications of
this technology make it well worth further investigation.
This blog post introduces the ‘advanced’ level of AI ethics. At this level, it becomes more difficult to find information regarding
these ethical concerns for a few reasons. Firstly, these issues are often complex and intertwined with concerns outside of the field
of AI or education – for instance, affect recognition has its roots in psychology. Secondly, these issues are particularly contentious
because of the vested interests in AI technologies and the companies that develop them. The next post on human labour, for
example, will discuss a highly problematic issue which is potentially very damaging to AI developers’ reputations.
In this blog post, I’ll explore the concept of affect recognition, its theoretical underpinnings, and the debate surrounding its
effectiveness. I’ll also go into the ethical considerations of affect recognition in education and its broader impact on students,
teachers, and society. For me, this is absolutely one of the worst potential applications of AI in education, for reasons which I hope
will become apparent.
8.1: What is Affect Recognition?
8.2: Case Study- Microsoft’s Decision to Remove Emotion Recognition Services
8.3: Affect in Education
8.4: Teaching AI Ethics

8: Teaching AI Ethics- Affect Recognition is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

8.1: What is Affect Recognition?

Affect recognition, also known as emotion recognition, is a subfield of AI that aims to identify and interpret human emotions and
mental states by analysing various cues, such as facial expressions, body language, and speech patterns. By leveraging machine
learning algorithms and computer vision techniques, affect recognition systems attempt to classify emotions into categories such as
happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust.
The origins of affect recognition can be traced back to the early studies on facial expressions and emotions conducted by
psychologist Paul Ekman in the 1960s. Ekman’s work, which included research among the people of Papua New Guinea, led to the
development of the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) and the theory that certain facial expressions are universally linked to
specific emotions. This notion has been the foundation for much of the affect recognition research that has since taken place.
Several technologies and developers have already attempted to incorporate affect recognition. Some examples include:
1. Affectiva: Affectiva is a software company that has developed an emotion recognition platform using computer vision and deep
learning algorithms to analyse facial expressions in real-time, with applications in marketing, automotive, and gaming
industries. They are also concerned with “behaviour analytics”. Affectiva’s partners include BMW, Boeing, and Lockheed
Martin.
2. Emotient: Acquired by Apple in 2016, Emotient’s technology used machine learning to analyse facial expressions in images
and videos, for advertising purposes.
3. Beyond Verbal: This company focuses on emotion recognition through vocal intonations, focusing on customer service
interactions, telemedicine, and voice assistants. Though Beyond Verbal has a Wikipedia entry, the listed website link is dead,
and it is unclear whether or not the company still exists.
The controversy surrounding affect recognition primarily stems from the reliability and validity of the underlying theory. Critics
argue that emotions are not universally expressed through facial expressions, as cultural and individual differences can heavily
influence the way emotions are displayed. Recent studies have challenged the idea that specific facial expressions can be reliably
linked to distinct emotions, suggesting that context plays a crucial role in interpreting emotional cues.
Another concern is the potential for bias in affect recognition algorithms, as they may not account for variations in facial structure,
skin tone, neurodiversity, or cultural background. These biases can lead to misinterpretation and misclassification of emotions,
raising ethical questions about the fair application of this technology.
Join the list

8.1: What is Affect Recognition? is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

8.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

8.2: Case Study- Microsoft’s Decision to Remove Emotion Recognition Services

Given the problematic nature of emotion recognition research, and as part of its responsible AI development and deployment,
Microsoft decided to remove certain features from their Azure Face service, including capabilities that infer emotional states,
gender, age, smile, facial hair, hair, and makeup.
In a 2022 blog post, Microsoft acknowledged the need for AI systems to be trustworthy and appropriate solutions to the problems
they are designed to solve. In the case of emotion recognition, the company highlighted several concerns that influenced their
decision to remove these capabilities:
1. Lack of scientific consensus: Experts both inside and outside the company pointed out the absence of a universally accepted
definition of “emotions.” This lack of consensus makes it challenging to develop reliable and accurate emotion recognition
systems.
2. Generalisation challenges: Emotion recognition technology faces difficulties in generalising its inferences across diverse use
cases, regions, and demographics. This could result in misinterpretations or biases, further questioning the technology’s efficacy
and ethical implications.
3. Heightened privacy concerns: The use of AI to analyse facial expressions and infer emotional states raises significant privacy
concerns. Microsoft recognised the need to prioritise user privacy and address these concerns in the development and
deployment of their AI systems.
Microsoft’s decision to remove emotion recognition services from their Azure Face platform demonstrates some of the biggest
concerns with affect recognition technologies. Deploying technologies which do not have a solid theoretical underpinning and
which may seriously impact people’s lives is clearly unethical. However, despite moves like this from big companies like Microsoft
and IBM, the lure of emotion recognition continues developers to produce products for education.

8.2: Case Study- Microsoft’s Decision to Remove Emotion Recognition Services is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

8.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

8.3: Affect in Education

Before a few activities that could support these discussions in the classroom, I thought I’d include some examples of how affect
and emotion recognition is being pursued in education. These examples offer a glimpse into both the research and the commercial
application of emotion recognition technologies.
1. BrainCo: BrainCo has developed a headband called Focus1, which uses electroencephalography (EEG) technology to monitor
students’ brainwaves and assess their attention levels in real-time. The company claims that this technology can help educators
identify when students are losing focus and adjust their teaching methods accordingly.
2. Carnegie Mellon University’s ArticuLab: The ArticuLab at Carnegie Mellon University has conducted several research projects
on affect recognition, including the development of an AI-powered virtual tutor called Alex. Alex is designed to recognise and
respond to students’ emotions, such as frustration or confusion, using natural language processing and facial expression
analysis.
3. The Affective Computing Group at MIT Media Lab: The Affective Computing Group has been conducting research on emotion
recognition and its potential applications in various fields, including education. One of their projects, Teddy, is a “cutting edge
data collection platform” in the form of a virtual teddybear chatbot.

8.3: Affect in Education is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

8.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

8.4: Teaching AI Ethics

The posts in the beginner and intermediate series included questions, resources, and prompts for a variety of subject areas. Since
the areas discussed in the “advanced” level of these posts are much harder to find resources, I’m going to offer instead some
suggestions for classroom discussion activities that could get students thinking about these issues. These discussion activities could
be used in any discipline and from K-12 to tertiary.
Activity 1: AI Ethics Debate
Objective: Encourage critical thinking and discussion about the ethical implications of affect recognition.
Instructions:
1. Divide students into small groups, and assign each group a specific subject area (e.g., history, literature, environmental science,
etc.).
2. In their groups, students will research and discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of implementing affect recognition
technology in their assigned subject area.
3. Each group will prepare a short presentation outlining their findings and their stance on the ethical implications of using affect
recognition in their subject area.
4. After all groups have presented, hold a class-wide debate to discuss the different perspectives and explore potential solutions to
the ethical challenges posed by affect recognition technology.
Activity 2: AI Ethics Case Study Analysis
Objective: Develop students’ ability to analyse real-world examples of affect recognition technology in various disciplines and
evaluate their ethical implications.
Instructions:
1. Provide students with several case studies that highlight the use of affect recognition technology in different subject areas (e.g.,
education, marketing, healthcare, etc.). You could use some of the links throughout this post as examples.
2. In pairs or small groups, students will analyse their assigned case study, focusing on the following aspects: a. The purpose and
application of affect recognition technology. b. The potential benefits and drawbacks of the technology in the specific context.
c. The ethical considerations involved in implementing the technology.
3. Students will present their analysis to the class, and the class will discuss each case study, comparing and contrasting the ethical
implications across the different subject areas.
Activity 3: Designing an Ethical Affect Recognition System
Objective: Encourage students to think creatively about designing affect recognition systems that address ethical concerns.
Instructions:
1. Divide students into small groups and provide them with a subject area or specific context in which affect recognition
technology might be applied (e.g., education, mental health, customer service, etc.).
2. Ask each group to imagine they are designing an affect recognition system for their assigned context. Their task is to create a
system that addresses the ethical concerns related to affect recognition, such as privacy, accuracy, and bias.
3. Students should consider the following aspects in their designs: a. Data collection and privacy protection methods. b.
Techniques for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of emotion detection. c. Strategies for addressing potential biases in the
technology.
4. Each group will present their design to the class, and the class will discuss the various approaches to addressing the ethical
implications of affect recognition technology across the different contexts.
5. As a class, address the following question: Is it possible to develop a truly ethical affect recognition system?

8.4: Teaching AI Ethics is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

8.4.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

9: Teaching AI Ethics- Human Labour

When people think of Artificial Intelligence, the image that often springs to mind is that of sentient machines or shiny metallic
robots, a depiction heavily influenced by popular culture. This narrative, along with language around “magical” or “mythical” AI,
tends to overshadow actual pressing ethical issues associated with AI development and usage. This post will explore the
exploitation of human labour in AI development, including low paid workers used for categorising and labelling data, and the
impact of the AI infrastructure on human workers.
In the ongoing arms race towards creating autonomous AI systems, multinational technology corporations are relying on a lot of
‘ghost work.’ This term, coined by anthropologist Mary L. Gray and computational social scientist Siddharth Suri, refers to labour
carried out by a “global underclass” of precarious workers. Occupying roles such as content moderators, data labellers, and
delivery drivers, these workers often come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and perform critical tasks for the tech
industry at low wages and under suboptimal working conditions.
The way AI functions currently leans heavily on methodologies like statistical machine learning and deep learning through
artificial neural networks. Such methods necessitate vast quantities of data. To obtain this data economically, platforms like
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk have emerged, enabling ‘crowd work’ which involves breaking down large tasks into smaller units that
can be handled by numerous workers.
The emergence of such platforms and data-labelling companies, however, has resulted in workers being treated like parts in a
machine, rather than individuals with rights and needs. These workers are often subjected to constant surveillance and repetitive
tasks and face punitive measures for any deviation from assigned tasks. The mental and physical toll can be considerable,
especially for content moderators who are continuously exposed to traumatic content without adequate support systems in place.
This situation shines a light on a key issue in AI ethics: the exploitation of labour in the AI industry. It’s a stark reminder that the
journey towards creating autonomous AI systems is not as ‘autonomous’ as it appears. It’s built on the labour of often exploited
workers who, ironically, contribute to the development of AI systems that might eventually replace them.
Transnational worker organising efforts, research collaborations with workers, and public accessibility of research findings are
some avenues that have been explored to address these challenges. An essential aspect of this conversation is the role of solidarity
between high-income tech workers and their lower-income counterparts. There’s potential here for those with more influence
within corporations to advocate for their colleagues who have less.
9.1: Case Study- OpenAI’s Data Labelling
9.2: Anatomy of an AI System
9.3: Teaching AI Ethics

9: Teaching AI Ethics- Human Labour is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

9.1: Case Study- OpenAI’s Data Labelling

OpenAI, the company responsible for the enormously popular AI Large Language Model ChatGPT, has made great strides in the
past 12 months with many forms of Artificial Intelligence. However, some of these achievements have raised significant ethical
concerns regarding the exploitation of human labour and the handling of harmful content. This case study explores the findings of
an excellent piece of investigative journalism published earlier this year in Time magazine.
Read the article: OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour
GPT-3 was designed to demonstrate exceptional linguistic abilities, stringing together sentences in a strikingly human-like manner.
It was trained on hundreds of billions of words scraped from the internet, a vast corpus of human language that I’ve written about
in other posts. This method endowed GPT-3 with impressive language-processing skills but also became its largest setback, as it
incorporated the internet’s toxicity and bias into its output.
To tackle these challenges, OpenAI aimed to construct an AI-powered safety mechanism, akin to the systems deployed by social
media companies like Facebook to detect and remove hate speech and other forms of toxic language. The premise was
straightforward: feed an AI with labelled examples of violence, hate speech, and abuse, and this tool could learn to identify and
eliminate these forms of toxicity.
In November 2021, OpenAI began the process of creating this safety system. They sent tens of thousands of snippets of text to an
outsourcing firm in Kenya, Sama. The text was pulled from various internet sources, including extremely harmful content
describing graphic situations of abuse, murder, and self-harm. Sama, a San Francisco-based company, employs workers in Kenya,
Uganda, and India to label data for Silicon Valley clients like Google, Meta, and Microsoft. While it brands itself as an “ethical AI”
company and boasts of lifting over 50,000 people out of poverty, there are concerning elements surrounding its operations.
Sama’s data labellers, who were contracted to work on behalf of OpenAI, earned a take-home wage of approximately $1.32 to $2
per hour depending on seniority and performance. This rate was for work that involved labouring over harmful, potentially
traumatising content. To learn about the full extent of the trauma on these workers, you should read the original article at Time
magazine.
The case of OpenAI’s development of GPT-3 and its associated safety mechanism serves as an instructive example of the ethical
challenges that permeate the AI industry. As technology companies continue to pursue advancements in AI, it is critical to
scrutinise the labour practices that underlie these developments and to ensure that the quest for “ethical AI” does not overlook the
wellbeing and fair treatment of the human workforce powering it

9.1: Case Study- OpenAI’s Data Labelling is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

9.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

9.2: Anatomy of an AI System

“Anatomy of an AI System” is a large-scale map and long-form essay produced by Kate Crawford, a senior principal researcher at
Microsoft Research, and Vladan Joler, Professor at the Academy of Arts at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia. The project,
initially published in 2018, aims to illustrate the complex network of resources, labour, and data required to create and operate a
single AI system, in this case, the Amazon Echo.
The essay and map unravel the lifespan of an AI system, from resource extraction to its eventual disposal. They highlight the
environmental, labour, and data implications involved in the making of these technologies. This includes the vast infrastructure
needed to train AI, the material and human costs, and the vast data collection involved in its operation.
A few key themes explored in the “Anatomy of an AI System” include:
1. Material resources: The project outlines the extraction of Earth’s minerals used in the manufacturing of devices, as well as the
environmental implications of these processes.
2. Labour: It highlights the often invisible human labour, such as precarious ‘ghost work,’ involved in the creation, maintenance,
and disposal of AI systems.
3. Data: The study also underscores the extensive amount of personal data that AI devices collect from users, which further trains
and enhances the AI.
The main conclusion of Crawford and Joler’s work is to emphasise that AI systems aren’t intangible or magical but are deeply
rooted in Earth’s geology and underwritten by human labour and ingenuity. Through their project, they argue that we must critically
examine the full lifecycle of AI systems to fully understand their social and ethical implications.

9.2: Anatomy of an AI System is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

9.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

9.3: Teaching AI Ethics

Each of these ‘advanced level’ AI Ethics posts comes with lesson activities that can be used to introduce students to these complex
issues. In this post, I’m using three Project Zero thinking routines to explore the problem of human labour.
1. Circle of Viewpoints Thinking Routine In this activity, students assume different roles or perspectives in the context of AI
ethics and labour exploitation. For example, they might adopt the viewpoint of a tech CEO, a data labeller, an AI ethicist, a
delivery driver, a consumer of AI products, and a policy maker. Each student, from their character’s viewpoint, discusses their
perspective on the issue, its impacts, and possible solutions. This can help students understand the complexity of the issue and
appreciate the diverse range of stakeholders involved. Afterward, a group discussion can be held where students share insights
they gained from their assumed roles.
2. Zoom In Routine for Unseen Labour For this activity, present students with images that indirectly represent the impact of AI
on human labour, such as a Google search results page, an Amazon product page, or a snapshot of an AI chatbot interaction. Do
not initially disclose the connection between these images and the concept of unseen labour in AI. Ask students what they see
and note down their observations. Then, provide a little more context – tell them these products/services are powered by AI.
Ask them again what they see and how their understanding has changed. Finally, introduce the concept of unseen labour in AI
and explain how each image involves the contribution of countless unseen workers. Discuss how these workers’ efforts and
challenges are typically obscured in the final product.
3. Compass Points Routine on Proposed AI Regulations For this activity, propose a hypothetical regulation or policy that aims
to improve the working conditions of people in the AI industry, such as mandatory mental health provisions for content
moderators or minimum wage stipulations for data labellers. Use the Compass Points routine to explore this proposal from
different angles:
E (Excited): What would be the positive outcomes of this policy? Who would benefit and how?
W (Worried): What concerns might arise from implementing this policy? Could there be unintended negative
consequences?
N (Need to Know): What additional information do we need to fully understand the potential impact of this policy?
S (Stance): After discussing the above points, what are our individual viewpoints towards this policy?
After students have discussed each point, hold a class discussion about the complexities of creating fair working conditions in the
AI industry and how they might be navigated.

9.3: Teaching AI Ethics is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

9.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

10: Teaching AI Ethics- Power

This post on Power has been a long time coming. It is, in my opinion, the most complex of the ethical issues I’ve discussed in this
series.
Unlike the previous posts, which dealt with a single ethical issue each, the issue of power is really a combination of factors. In this
post, I’ll explore how the ethical concerns I’ve discussed throughout this series coalesce to reinforce and perpetuate societal power
structures, and how AI might contribute to an uneven distribution of wealth, freedom, and power.
10.1: Understanding Hegemony
10.2: Connecting the Dots- Bias, Environment, Human Labour and Datafication
10.3: What about Pauses and Open Letters?
10.4: What can be done about it?

10: Teaching AI Ethics- Power is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

10.1: Understanding Hegemony

Hegemony, a term popularised by Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, refers to the dominance of one group over others
in society. Hegemony often manifests through the perpetuation of cultural norms, beliefs, and values that serve the interests of the
dominant group in a society. It establishes a status quo that seems ‘natural’ or ‘inevitable,’ but in reality, it’s an intricately designed
system that advantages some while disadvantaging others.
Hegemonic structures are interwoven into the fabric of society, influencing all aspects of life, including politics, economy, and
social norms. They are perpetuated by a subtle and often unrecognised form of coercion that leads people to accept, adopt, and even
perpetuate dominant ideologies, even when these may work against their best interests.
When we look at AI through the lens of hegemony, we can start to see how these powerful technologies can be deployed to
maintain and reinforce hegemonic structures. From perpetuating bias, exacerbating environmental inequities, and manipulating
‘truth,’ to encroaching on privacy, commodifying data, and influencing human labour markets — AI can, and often does, contribute
to these systemic disparities.

10.1: Understanding Hegemony is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

10.1.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

10.2: Connecting the Dots- Bias, Environment, Human Labour and Datafication
The issue of power and control in AI runs deep. In the first post in this series, I spoke about bias and discrimination. Because of the
way AI models are constructed, they are often biased towards a particular “worldview”, or disenfranchise already marginalised
communities. Take, for example, the structure of a Large Language Model like GPT. The huge dataset contains billions of pages
scraped from the web, but the vast majority of the text is in the English language. That content is further biased by the way the data
is “crawled” and absorbed into the models. In the words of Emily Bender, Timnit Gebru, and the other authors of the now-famous
“Stochastic Parrots” article:
In all cases, the voices of people most likely to hew to a hegemonic viewpoint are also more likely to be retained. In the case of US
and UK English, this means that white supremacist and misogynistic, ageist, etc. views are overrepresented in the training data, not
only exceeding their prevalence in the general population but also setting up models trained on these datasets to further amplify
biases and harms.
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Other research has demonstrated that the biases in Artificial Intelligence can particularly discriminate against young, non-white
males; that predictive policing algorithms and AI used in the courts can unfairly target black people; and that even attempting to
filter or remove bias can inadvertently compound the issue. Companies like OpenAI have been found to use low-paid human labour
in countries like Kenya to manually classify and filter toxic and discriminatory data, in yet another example of a powerful, Western
company profiting from the labour of poorer communities.
What all this means, is that powerful AI across a range of applications from language models to facial recognition and the systems
we use to collect data in education can not only reflect but actually reinforce harmful stereotypes and biases.
Even the infrastructure of these systems entrenches existing societal inequalities. When I wrote about the environmental impact of
Artificial Intelligence I focused on the carbon footprint of training models and the extractive mining processes needed to produce
and power the hardware AI is built from. But, as Bender, Gebru, and their colleagues also pointed out, the environmental impact of
AI particularly affects countries already suffering the effects of the climate crisis:
These models are being developed at a time when unprecedented environmental changes are being witnessed around the world…It
is past time for researchers to prioritize energy efficiency and cost to reduce negative environmental impact and inequitable access
to resources — both of which disproportionately affect people who are already in marginalized positions.
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Again, I want to stress the interconnectedness of these problems.
AI systems built on large datasets – whether of text, image, population data, or other – can entrench systemic biases. Those systems
are built from technologies which contribute to global environmental issues that disproportionately affect poorer countries and
already marginalised communities.
And to bring it back to our field – education – the manner in which all of that data is collected and processed, or the datafication of
students, compounds these issues further. In a recent blog post Radhika Gorur, Joyeeta Dey, Moira V. Faul and Nelli Piattoeva
comment on the dilemma of “decolonising” data in education. Though the article is about EdTech, the discussion applies to the
field of AI as the engine which will drive many of the education technologies already present in classrooms across the world.
The authors argue that we urgently need to scrutinise the philosophies and principles underpinning these education technologies
and consider how to promote the ethical use of data, especially in the global south. The collection of data on students, and by
extension the use of AI in applications offering “personalised learning“, overlooks the diverse cultural, spiritual, and
epistemological realities of different communities.
The article raises critical questions about whether international comparative assessments are suitable for all nations, and why we
should challenge the ubiquity and apparent inevitability of EdTech.

10.2: Connecting the Dots- Bias, Environment, Human Labour and Datafication is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

10.2.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

10.3: What about Pauses and Open Letters?

If you’ve been keeping track of the media coverage around Artificial Intelligence you will have no doubt seen the open letter
calling for a pause to AI development, and the subsequent outcry from various fathers, godfathers, grandfathers, brothers, and
uncles of AI like Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio. Even OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman practically begged the US senate to
regulate his industry, alongside “AI critic” (and [Link] several very successful AI companies) Gary Marcus. Marcus and
Altman have even offered to help lead those efforts.
It would be easy to look at these examples of alarm from respected industry experts and wonder if we haven’t just ushered in the
end of the world. On the other hand, if you dig around a little, it starts to seem like the apocalyptic hype serves some of these
individuals and companies pretty well.
First of all, the “pause” was broadly condemned as both an unsustainable and unrealistic option, and as a self-interested attempt by
some to slow down the pace of development to allow their own companies to catch up. It was shot down as a publicity stunt, and
largely ignored in the industry. Geoffrey Hinton’s claims have also been called into question. His former Google colleagues, most
notably co-author of the stochastic parrots article mentioned earlier, Timnit Gebru, have criticised his failure to support them when
they were fired (or left willingly, depending on who you ask) Google’s ethics team.
Both the pause and the prophecies of doom from experts such as Hinton have been labelled a distraction from the real issues of AI
which could be dealt with right now. Foremost amongst these issues is the distribution of power and the marginalisation of at-risk
groups.
For our students, there are many reasons why we should be concerned about AI, and most of those reasons are much more down-
to-earth than “because it will destroy the world”. As power and wealth continues to be centralised in the hands of leading
companies, we need to question the impact AI will have on the workforce and the future lives of our students. Although AI could
bring productivity gains, it remains to be seen whether those benefits will be passed down to workers or used to make the rich
richer.
Much like social media and “influencer” work – often attractive to young people who use the platforms – Artificial Intelligence is
also built on a lot of “free labour”. Just as Facebook and Twitter profit from users contributing hours of unpaid time and their
creative and intellectual property, AI is built on data that was never paid for, and trained for free by every person using the
platforms.
Rather than subscribing to the end of the world narrative, we need to talk to students about their rights and responsibilities as they
grow and get ready to leave school; otherwise, they’re at risk of becoming just more unpaid workers in the powerful AI machine.

10.3: What about Pauses and Open Letters? is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

10.3.1 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

10.4: What can be done about it?

I want to end this post – and this series – on a hopeful note. There’s no denying that Generative AI and related technologies have
the potential to positively impact the education system. The same could easily be said about any technology, from writing tools to
word processors, PCs to smartphones. The issue – as with all of these technologies – is not whether they can improve learning, but
how they are used.
If all we use AI for is efficiency, then we’re heading towards EdTech v2.0. Over the past couple of decades we’ve seen wave after
wave of technology that promised enormous gains to learning, but delivered very little. We’ve heard the phrase “this will
revolutionise education” again and again, and in general the education system – and its flaws – has proven to be extremely robust.
We are now starting to see the potential negative impact of AI technologies, including from datafication, predictive profiling, and
the potential for generative AI to perpetuate bias.
So, to counteract the entrenchment of existing power structures, and the centralising of wealth in the hands of the already wealthy,
seems like a huge challenge and not something that can be tackled by educators.
But Artificial Intelligence isn’t EdTech. It’s not an app or a piece of equipment, or even a single system. It is a complex
infrastructure that will ultimately be woven through all of the technologies we already use, and those on the horizon. And
importantly, it’s not quite fully established in education yet, which gives us an opportunity for critique. This series of posts aimed to
support that critique by engaging students and educators across different curriculum areas in meaningful discussions about AI and
the future of education.
Here are five final practical ideas for Teaching AI Ethics:
1. Develop Clear Policy: As a school leader, it’s important to acknowledge the ethical complexities of AI and develop a
comprehensive policy that strives to mitigate these issues. Here’s how you can approach it:
Start with an open discussion among staff, students, and community to understand their concerns about AI. Use these
discussions to identify key issues that your policy should address.
Clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in adhering to the policy.
Define what AI tools are acceptable within your institution and under what circumstances. This can include specifics about
data collection, use, and storage.
Regularly review and update the policy as new AI technologies and ethical challenges arise.
2. Data Privacy Activity: Understanding the nuances of privacy policies can be challenging, even for adults. Here’s a practical
way to involve students:
Organise a workshop where students dissect the privacy policies of common AI platforms they use. Guide them to
understand how their data is collected, used, and protected.
As a follow-up activity, students could create ‘ideal’ privacy policies for an AI product, incorporating the most ethically
robust components of the policies they’ve studied.
3. Understanding the Human Labour Behind AI: Many AI models rely heavily on human input and labour, often from
individuals in developing countries who are paid low wages to do time-consuming and sometimes distressing work. This often-
invisible labour is used in training these models and cleaning up their outputs. Here’s a possible approach to incorporate this
issue into the curriculum:
Initiate a study and discussion on the topic of “free labour” in AI. This should include research on the lives and working
conditions of the data annotators whose work powers many AI models, with a specific focus on the exploitative labour
practices mentioned in the aforementioned article.
In conjunction with this, students could research and discuss the notion of “data colonialism” and how the data of
individuals is used (often without their knowledge or consent) to train AI models, benefiting companies but often not the
individuals themselves.
To make this issue more tangible, students could examine the data they generate in their own lives and discuss how it might
be used to train AI models. This could involve looking at their own digital footprints, understanding what kind of data they
generate, and discussing how this data could be used in AI training.

10.4.1 [Link]
 Lastly, encourage students to come up with ideas for regulations or systems that could make the process more equitable,
such as ways to provide transparency about how data is used, or methods to share the revenue generated from this data with
the people who produced it.
4. Interrogating AI Platforms: Understanding AI ethics policies can help students and educators make informed decisions about
which platforms to use and how to use them ethically.
Assign students to research the Responsible AI and Ethical AI policies of various AI platforms and services.
Ask them to present a report on their findings, discussing what these policies mean, how they could be improved, and the
potential implications for users.
Incorporate these findings into a larger discussion on AI ethics in the classroom, allowing students to understand the real-
world implications of these policies.
5. AI for Good Project: Deliberately focusing on the potential positive applications of AI can raise important ethical questions
about current uses of the technology.
Ask students to design an AI solution for a societal problem they care about. This could be a local issue (e.g., reducing
traffic in their town) or a global one (e.g., predicting natural disasters).
As part of the project, students should also conduct an Ethical Impact Assessment. This assessment should detail potential
ethical issues related to data privacy, bias, and societal impact, and propose strategies to mitigate these issues.
Through this project, students will not only gain practical experience in AI but also learn about the ethical considerations
that are crucial to responsible AI development and use.

10.4: What can be done about it? is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

10.4.2 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

Index
D
dire
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

Glossary
Sample Word 1 | Sample Definition 1
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

Detailed Licensing
Overview
Title: Teaching AI Ethics: Practical Strategies for Discussing AI Ethics in K-12 and Tertiary Education
Webpages: 62
Applicable Restrictions: Noncommercial
All licenses found:
CC BY-NC 4.0: 98.4% (61 pages)
Undeclared: 1.6% (1 page)

By Page
Teaching AI Ethics: Practical Strategies for Discussing AI 4.4: Case Study- Language Models and the Spread of
Ethics in K-12 and Tertiary Education - CC BY-NC 4.0 Fake News - CC BY-NC 4.0
Front Matter - CC BY-NC 4.0 4.5: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
TitlePage - CC BY-NC 4.0 5: Teaching AI Ethics- Copyright - CC BY-NC 4.0
InfoPage - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.1: Copyright and Image Generation - CC BY-NC 4.0
Table of Contents - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.2: What’s the big deal? - CC BY-NC 4.0
Licensing - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.3: Writing, Film, and Music - CC BY-NC 4.0
1: Teaching AI Ethics- Original Post - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.4: Case Study- Zarya of the Dawn - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.1: Beginner - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.5: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.2: Intermediate - CC BY-NC 4.0 6: Teaching AI Ethics- Privacy - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.3: Advanced - CC BY-NC 4.0 6.1: Where does all that Data come from? - CC BY-
1.4: Ethical Perspectives, Approaches, and NC 4.0
Frameworks - CC BY-NC 4.0 6.2: Protecting Personal Privacy - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.5: Conclusion - CC BY-NC 4.0 6.3: Case Study- AI Defamation - CC BY-NC 4.0
2: Teaching AI Ethics- Bias and Discrimination - CC BY- 6.4: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
NC 4.0 7: Teaching AI Ethics- Datafication - CC BY-NC 4.0
2.1: Algorithmic Bias - CC BY-NC 4.0 7.1: Case Study- The Datafication of Education - CC
2.2: Discrimination by Default - CC BY-NC 4.0 BY-NC 4.0
2.3: Case Study- Predictive Policing in the US - CC 7.2: Where does all the Data go? - CC BY-NC 4.0
BY-NC 4.0 7.3: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
2.4: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0 8: Teaching AI Ethics- Affect Recognition - CC BY-NC
3: Teaching AI Ethics- Environment - CC BY-NC 4.0 4.0
3.1: Extractive AI - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.1: What is Affect Recognition? - CC BY-NC 4.0
3.2: The Hidden Costs of the Cloud - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.2: Case Study- Microsoft’s Decision to Remove
3.3: Case Study- The Carbon Cost of Training Large Emotion Recognition Services - CC BY-NC 4.0
Language Models - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.3: Affect in Education - CC BY-NC 4.0
3.4: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.4: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
4: Teaching AI Ethics- Truth and Academic Integrity - 9: Teaching AI Ethics- Human Labour - CC BY-NC 4.0
CC BY-NC 4.0 9.1: Case Study- OpenAI’s Data Labelling - CC BY-
4.1: Synthetic Mirages - CC BY-NC 4.0 NC 4.0
4.2: Academic Integrity in the Age of AI - CC BY-NC 9.2: Anatomy of an AI System - CC BY-NC 4.0
4.0 9.3: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
4.3: AI and Truth - CC BY-NC 4.0 10: Teaching AI Ethics- Power - CC BY-NC 4.0
10.1: Understanding Hegemony - CC BY-NC 4.0

1 [Link]
 10.2: Connecting the Dots- Bias, Environment, Index - CC BY-NC 4.0
Human Labour and Datafication - CC BY-NC 4.0 Glossary - CC BY-NC 4.0
10.3: What about Pauses and Open Letters? - CC BY- Detailed Licensing - CC BY-NC 4.0
NC 4.0 Detailed Licensing - Undeclared
10.4: What can be done about it? - CC BY-NC 4.0
Back Matter - CC BY-NC 4.0

2 [Link]
 This site expires on 30 Jun 2024. To extend it, please contact your account representative.

Detailed Licensing
Overview
Title: Teaching AI Ethics: Practical Strategies for Discussing AI Ethics in K-12 and Tertiary Education
Webpages: 62
Applicable Restrictions: Noncommercial
All licenses found:
CC BY-NC 4.0: 98.4% (61 pages)
Undeclared: 1.6% (1 page)

By Page
Teaching AI Ethics: Practical Strategies for Discussing AI 4.4: Case Study- Language Models and the Spread of
Ethics in K-12 and Tertiary Education - CC BY-NC 4.0 Fake News - CC BY-NC 4.0
Front Matter - CC BY-NC 4.0 4.5: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
TitlePage - CC BY-NC 4.0 5: Teaching AI Ethics- Copyright - CC BY-NC 4.0
InfoPage - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.1: Copyright and Image Generation - CC BY-NC 4.0
Table of Contents - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.2: What’s the big deal? - CC BY-NC 4.0
Licensing - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.3: Writing, Film, and Music - CC BY-NC 4.0
1: Teaching AI Ethics- Original Post - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.4: Case Study- Zarya of the Dawn - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.1: Beginner - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.5: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.2: Intermediate - CC BY-NC 4.0 6: Teaching AI Ethics- Privacy - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.3: Advanced - CC BY-NC 4.0 6.1: Where does all that Data come from? - CC BY-
1.4: Ethical Perspectives, Approaches, and NC 4.0
Frameworks - CC BY-NC 4.0 6.2: Protecting Personal Privacy - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.5: Conclusion - CC BY-NC 4.0 6.3: Case Study- AI Defamation - CC BY-NC 4.0
2: Teaching AI Ethics- Bias and Discrimination - CC BY- 6.4: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
NC 4.0 7: Teaching AI Ethics- Datafication - CC BY-NC 4.0
2.1: Algorithmic Bias - CC BY-NC 4.0 7.1: Case Study- The Datafication of Education - CC
2.2: Discrimination by Default - CC BY-NC 4.0 BY-NC 4.0
2.3: Case Study- Predictive Policing in the US - CC 7.2: Where does all the Data go? - CC BY-NC 4.0
BY-NC 4.0 7.3: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
2.4: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0 8: Teaching AI Ethics- Affect Recognition - CC BY-NC
3: Teaching AI Ethics- Environment - CC BY-NC 4.0 4.0
3.1: Extractive AI - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.1: What is Affect Recognition? - CC BY-NC 4.0
3.2: The Hidden Costs of the Cloud - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.2: Case Study- Microsoft’s Decision to Remove
3.3: Case Study- The Carbon Cost of Training Large Emotion Recognition Services - CC BY-NC 4.0
Language Models - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.3: Affect in Education - CC BY-NC 4.0
3.4: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.4: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
4: Teaching AI Ethics- Truth and Academic Integrity - 9: Teaching AI Ethics- Human Labour - CC BY-NC 4.0
CC BY-NC 4.0 9.1: Case Study- OpenAI’s Data Labelling - CC BY-
4.1: Synthetic Mirages - CC BY-NC 4.0 NC 4.0
4.2: Academic Integrity in the Age of AI - CC BY-NC 9.2: Anatomy of an AI System - CC BY-NC 4.0
4.0 9.3: Teaching AI Ethics - CC BY-NC 4.0
4.3: AI and Truth - CC BY-NC 4.0 10: Teaching AI Ethics- Power - CC BY-NC 4.0
10.1: Understanding Hegemony - CC BY-NC 4.0

1 [Link]
 10.2: Connecting the Dots- Bias, Environment, Index - CC BY-NC 4.0
Human Labour and Datafication - CC BY-NC 4.0 Glossary - CC BY-NC 4.0
10.3: What about Pauses and Open Letters? - CC BY- Detailed Licensing - CC BY-NC 4.0
NC 4.0 Detailed Licensing - Undeclared
10.4: What can be done about it? - CC BY-NC 4.0
Back Matter - CC BY-NC 4.0

2 [Link]