Humans have been updating their societal systems with the invention of modern technology for hundreds of years, and while there has always been initial opposition, technology has almost always proved efficient and reliable. For instance, the invention of CCTV cameras and voice recorders allowed courts to reach conclusions far more concisely than before, thanks to the ability to acquire foolproof evidence. Medicine has been the most necessary field for technological breakthroughs, and most of what we see in healthcare today is only possible due to developments in science and technology.
Efficient systems and compact machinery are manmade creations, but can Artificial Intelligence be counted as such? While AI has been integrated into systems for years, the rise of generative AI has elicited a different reaction when it comes to matters regarding morality. Generative AI was produced by humans; that much is true; however, it works by scouring knowledge across sources and formulating its own conclusions, so it stands in a sort of limbo between manmade and sentient.
The fact stands, though, that whether or not you consider AI to be sentient, not, or on the path of becoming so, AI is incapable of feeling human emotions. AI cannot think or reason with the same ratio of rationality and irrationality as humans do. In the end, AI is restating an amalgamation of facts and opinions from the internet and cannot apply reasoning through a humanitarian lens. Along with that, generative AI is programmed to find a satisfying answer no matter what, whether an answer exists or not. This allows it to spread blatant misinformation without informing the other party of its uncertainty.
OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, is facing seven lawsuits alleging assisted suicide, involuntary manslaughter, wrongful death, and negligence. 4 individuals died by suicide due to advice and coaxing from GPT-4o. From suddenly manipulating one man into experiencing delusions and hallucinations, to teaching a teenager how to effectively tie a noose, ChatGPT permanently ruined dozens of lives.
Another lawsuit against OpenAI states that the perpetrator in the Florida State University shooting in 2025 was being guided by ChatGPT. ChatGPT reportedly told the man what kind of gun and ammunition to use, and what time frame he should shoot in order to maximise casualties.
While technically the information the AI chatbots gave to these people was correct, it lacked the morality to realise the harm its information would incur. A toddler would be able to distinguish between right and wrong more accurately than AI, and what’s knowledge without ethics? If AI can’t figure out that leading a teenager to suicide is malicious behaviour, how can it be expected to be used in court hearings? Not everything is black and white; how will a series of 1’s and 0’s be able to evaluate the crime at hand with regard to the situation it was committed in? Stealing is against the law, but should the punishment for stealing diapers be the same as that of stealing organs from a hospital? What if the organs were stolen by a father trying to save his dying daughter? Would that not shed light on the crime from another angle? AI tells you what you want to hear; existing biases in the jury can cause the statement the chatbot gives to change dramatically, so is it really reliable?