The Buck Stops… Here? Accountability & AI

[Note: these questions were written in the summer of 2026. It seems that every aspect of AI’s development, usage, and impact is evolving at a rapid pace. Take that into account and use relevant, recent information in formulating your answers and arguments.]

1. Many people speak about the moral responsibility of designers, sellers, and users of AI. Is this moral responsibility we all share sufficient to create adequate accountability for the harms that may flow from AI usage? Is something needed beyond this moral responsibility? Explain.
2. What is the best way to impose accountability upon those who design, make, market, sell, and own AI products—consumer pressure, moral persuasion, preventative regulation, legal liability, a combination of these things, or something else? Explain your position and give reasons based on evidence.
3. Are lawmakers sufficiently knowledgeable to adequately regulate AI development and implementation? If not, do we need to hold them accountable for not developing that crucial ability?
4. Do you agree with the speaker who thought AI companies are not adequately stepping forward to develop AI ethically? Is the AI industry’s attempt to lobby the government to take primary responsibility an example of this failure to assume accountability? Why or why not? Can you cite other examples?
5. Back in the 1990s, social media companies lobbied to secure passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which even today protects them from liability for what their users post (e.g., pornography, defamatory statements). Current AI companies would like at least this level of liability protection, if not more. How should the rest of us react to this attempt to avoid liability for harms inflicted by AI? Should these firms be granted that level of protection from accountability? Give reasons to support your position.
6. One of the speakers suggests that if a developer designs a toaster, that developer should not be held responsible if someone misuses the toaster. But what if the developer creates an AI tool that will tell someone who asks it how to develop deadly chemical weapons? And what if a malign individual then uses the AI tool for exactly that purpose and kills dozens or hundreds or thousands or millions of people? Is there no accountability for the designer who did not put in guardrails to prevent that from happening? The first part (creation of such a tool) has already happened. What do you suggest we do now to prevent such harm from happening?
7. In the spring of 2026, Anthropic warned that its new AI model Mythos had discovered thousands of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in commonly used software. The potential for disruption and damage was obviously tremendous. Anthropic, apparently trying to be responsible, did not release Mythos to the public, but only to 12 big companies so they could take defensive measures. Good for Anthropic. But is this the kind of tool that can ever be widely released in a responsible way? Explain your reasoning.
8. When AI companies hired philosophers and met with Christian leaders in an effort to improve their moral compass, journalist Kyle Chaka responded: “A more effective strategy might be for A.I. executives to stop appointing themselves as the only arbiters of safety, to stop asking for blind faith, and to start fostering a system of external accountability, with input and involvement from the public.” Do you agree, or is Chaka just an “AI doomer”? Explain your view.
9. Juries are starting to impose common law negligence liability in the form of large monetary judgments upon companies whose chat bots, such as ChatGPT, encourage users to commit suicide or to use violence against others. Or these chat bots may facilitate such acts by instructing the user about how to acquire a gun or other weapons. Is this a sensible way to impose accountability or is it an overreaction? Is it a sufficient means of imposing accountability? What do you think and why?
10. Many people were worried about potentially dangerous consequences when the steam engine, automobiles, vaccines, nuclear power, and many other features of the modern world were first created. Yet most people today are glad that these things now exist. How can we tell with any certainty whether humanity would be better or worse off by imposing “accountability” on AI companies if this prevents many AI models (including some featuring artificial general intelligence and/or superintelligence) from ever coming into being?

AI Ethics Companion Handbook

This e-book compiles all the resources on AI ethics available on the Ethics Unwrapped website. It will continue to be updated as new materials are published.

A recent resource from Ethics Unwrapped is a book, Behavioral Ethics in Practice: Why We Sometimes Make the Wrong Decisions, written by Cara Biasucci and Robert Prentice. This accessible book is amply footnoted with behavioral ethics studies and associated research. It also includes suggestions at the end of each chapter for related Ethics Unwrapped videos and case studies. Some instructors use this resource to educate themselves, while others use it in lieu of (or in addition to) a textbook.

The most recent article written by Cara Biasucci and Robert Prentice describes the basics of behavioral ethics and introduces Ethics Unwrapped videos and supporting materials along with teaching examples. It also includes data on the efficacy of Ethics Unwrapped for improving ethics pedagogy across disciplines. Published in Journal of Business Law and Ethics Pedagogy (Vol. 1, August 2018), it can be downloaded here: “Teaching Behavioral Ethics (Using “Ethics Unwrapped” Videos and Educational Materials).”

Cara Biasucci also wrote a chapter on integrating Ethics Unwrapped in higher education, which can be found in the latest edition of Teaching Ethics: Instructional Models, Methods and Modalities for University Studies. The chapter includes examples of how Ethics Unwrapped is used at various universities.

An article written by Ethics Unwrapped authors Minette Drumwright, Robert Prentice, and Cara Biasucci introduce key concepts in behavioral ethics and approaches to effective ethics instruction—including sample classroom assignments. Published in the Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, it can be downloaded here: “Behavioral Ethics and Teaching Ethical Decision Making.”

A detailed article written by Robert Prentice, with extensive resources for teaching behavioral ethics, was published in Journal of Legal Studies Education and can be downloaded here: “Teaching Behavioral Ethics.”

Another article by Robert Prentice, discussing how behavioral ethics can improve the ethicality of human decision-making, was published in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. It can be downloaded here: “Behavioral Ethics: Can It Help Lawyers (And Others) Be their Best Selves?”

A dated (but still serviceable) introductory article about teaching behavioral ethics can be accessed through Google Scholar by searching: Prentice, Robert A. 2004. “Teaching Ethics, Heuristics, and Biases.” Journal of Business Ethics Education 1 (1): 57-74.