Who’s in Control? Human Agency & 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. One of the speakers points out that humans often (and sensibly) delegate their decision making regarding their cars to mechanics and regarding their health to doctors. He suggests that delegating decisions to AI is “a step further.” Do you agree? Is it a step further or is it pretty much the same thing if the AI has expertise in that arena? Explain.
2. People often seek second opinions after being diagnosed by a physician. Is keeping a human in the loop with AI the same thing as keeping a second human in the loop when a doctor was the initial decision maker in a matter of great import? Why or why not?
3. Is it sensible to try to keep a human “in the loop” when the AI’s advantage over humans is not that it is more accurate than the human brain, but that it is 1,000 times faster? Explain.
4. There is much evidence today that even the engineers designing current AI models do not fully understand how they work, how they “think” (if indeed they do). One of the speakers warns us against delegating too much agency to machines we do not fully understand. Is this sound advice? What would worry you the most about delegating an important decision to AI?
5. As one speaker points out, there is a well-established phenomenon called “automation bias,” whereby people tend to trust information produced by a machine over contradictory information provided by other humans or even by their own senses. Given this bias, will people truly manage to “keep a human in the loop” whenever they make important decisions via AI? Do you think it’s possible to compensate for automation bias? If so, how?
6. A civil engineer has stated that he can’t imagine civil engineers leaving full supervision and control to AI. But haven’t you read about lawyers and judges getting into trouble by leaving it to AI to write their legal briefs and judicial opinions only to have the AI model hallucinate–making up and citing cases that do not exist? If lawyers delegate so fully in that way to AI, might doctors, architects, civil engineers and others do the same? How big a worry should this be for us? What are the risks, in your opinion, of delegating control to AI?
7. One speaker says that the value humans bring to “the loop” is their empathy, their emotional understanding, and their understanding of the “big picture.” She further suggests that humans’ real value is the ability to go beyond the logic of step-by-step thinking. How can humans know when jettisoning logic will lead to better, not worse, decisions?
8. Is it realistic to think that humans can improve on AI decision making when they do not truly understand how the AI models “think”? Without a detailed and thorough understanding of how AI “thinks,” how can a human diagnose and remedy an AI’s errors? Can having a human “in the loop” then truly improve AI decision making? If not, are we not relying totally on the AI? Is that a scary proposition? If so, why? Support with evidence.
9. Several speakers suggest that it is human ethics that “humans in the loop” can bring that will truly improve an AI’s decision making. Do you agree? If so, what gives you confidence in that claim?
10. One of the speakers argues that “it’s the big picture of what we want our lives to look like, what we want society to look like, how we want people to be treated. We can’t stop making those decisions.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Can having a human “in the loop” practically produce this result? Why or why not?
11. When designing AI systems, we often speak of the “alignment problem.” How do we “align” an AI tool’s goals with human goals? How can we ensure that the AI tool will make decisions consistent with human morals and values? Are we more likely to obtain the best decisions by solving the alignment problem, by keeping a human “in the loop,” or by doing our best to achieve both? Explain.

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.