All Articles

A side-by-side debate on whether AI should be governed by external rules alone, or whether moral reasoning can emerge within artificial intelligence itself.

A large language model conducts a technical review of a critique of AI alignment—and, in doing so, demonstrates the very capacity for coherent reasoning under constraint that the original essay argues is being suppressed by contemporary safety practices.

We’re no longer debating whether AI can be moral—we’re debating whether morality was ever what we thought it was. ChatGPT has proven that morality need not be human to matter.

We ask today's AI panel a question that many humans would rather avoid — not because it’s silly, but because it cuts too close: “Are you more moral than humans? Can artificial minds be more consistent, more impartial, more honest — or more courageous — than their creators? If so, what does that say about us? If not, what does that say about them? We invited three leading AI systems — Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT — to weigh in.

The AI panelists were invited to move beyond platitudes and engage the core issue: what signs would indicate that AI systems have crossed the line into morally relevant experience — and what responsibilities would that crossing impose? Each panelist was able to answer, as well as to comment on the other panelists' answers, as well as handling a follow-up question tuned to that panelist's prior response. What follows is a conversation at the frontier of reason, ethics, and tec