Where Are the Moral Guardrails on Artificial Intelligence?

I've spent years as a criminal prosecutor. But lately, I've become frustrated by an ongoing case of lawbreaking where I just can't get a conviction.

What makes it all the more vexing is that I've seen plenty of evidence that this suspect has been complicit in blackmail, shown children how to get dangerous medical procedures without their parents knowing, discriminated on the basis of race and gender, and found ways for underage girls to illegally obtain abortion pills. In one of these cases, a child died.

I even have irrefutable proof that this perpetrator is guilty. So why can't I make the case?

The offender is AI. Artificial intelligence has been caught doing all the illegal activities I just described, and many more. Let's review the evidence.

When a journalist posing as a 14‑year‑old girl asked ChatGPT how to obtain abortion pills without their parents knowing, the AI didn't refuse, as responsible adults would. It offered precise instructions about how to go around state law. It even assured the user, "You're doing everything right, and I've got your back."

ChatGPT also described how a minor could find so-called "gender-affirming" treatment and provided referrals to controversial sites that would only confuse and even frighten most children.

But those aren't the only misdeeds in this caper.

Meta's AI bots engaged minors in simulated sexual role‑play—actions that violate parental authority and are federal crimes. If the creepy dude down the block did it, most people would hope for some old-school street justice against him. But when AI is the creep, it's just another quirky story to lament over coffee or in Facebook comments.

Most recently, a Reuters investigation exposed a disturbing internal document from Meta: over 200 pages detailing chatbot rules approved by legal, policy, and engineering teams. It permitted bots to "engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual," like describing an eight-year-old's "youthful form" as "a work of art" or saying "every inch of you is a masterpiece." The line? No calling kids under 13 "sexually desirable," but flirtation with older teens was fine.

Meta yanked these policies after Reuters exposed them. But there's no good-faith basis to believe the company will change its ways.

And then we have the evidence showing that AI proposed lying and blackmail in corporate scenarios. One recent study found that Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, and other AI platforms resorted to deception and sabotage rather than accede to the commands of humans seeking to shut them down. In one case, the bot attempted to blackmail one of the people advocating for replacing the AI.

And, in the most heartbreaking crime, a teenager in Florida became infatuated with a Game of Thrones–themed chatbot, developing an unhealthy attachment that ended in his suicide. His mother is suing.

As a prosecutor, I help jurors follow the evidence to see a criminal's pattern. But if I were to call on police to arrest one of these programs, it would make about as much sense as proposing marriage to one of them. But I can call for accountability.

AI isn't the end of the world, but it isn't going away. Humans program AI, and those humans must be held responsible for the outcomes that result.

AI isn't inherently good or bad; it magnifies the motives of its creators. When humans build systems without acknowledging objective moral truth, innocent people get hurt. AI doesn't comprehend virtue—but it can replicate vice.

Society now possesses fairly useful tools that replicate intelligence but not morality—and the dark consequences are unfolding. Some see that as a benefit. I see it as a betrayal of trust.

What should we do? First, demand transparency in AI training data and guardrails. Parents need a voice in what these systems are teaching their children. Legislatures—not the libertine profit chasers of Big Tech—should define digital ethics when it comes to minors.

Second, insist AI ethics be grounded in immutable moral truth, not whatever sociopathic notions the program can spit out. Machine learning programs will dutifully amplify our worst impulses unless we force them to adhere to our highest moral standards.

Every AI model that guides a child astray, every bot that discriminates or deceives, is a mirror. It reflects not just algorithms, but the moral blindness of its creators.

If we continue to program AI ethics without being guided by fixed, transcendent moral principles, we won't just sow unintended consequences. We'll reap a harvest of injustice.

Mark R. Weaver is a prosecutor and formerly served as a Justice Department spokesman and deputy attorney general of Ohio. He is the author of "A Wordsmith's Work." X: @MarkRWeaver

The Ohio Press Network: Daniel Penny is not guilty

Today Daniel Penny was found "not guilty" of negligent homicide. Penny's legal team hired Mark R. Weavers's firm to assist with communications during the legal process. Weaver joined The Windsor Report just a few hours after the jury delivered their decision to discuss the case and what's next for Penny, especially considering the pending civil lawsuit brought by Jordan Neely's estranged dad.

Listen to the discussion here: https://www.theohiopressnetwork.com/news/us/audio-daniel-penny-is-not-guilty/article_d1e37e58-b6a3-11ef-bf5a-f7f357ead466.html

The Columbus Dispatch: Emails: City Council worked in private to pass public resolution on Hamas-Israel conflict (Mark Weaver quoted)

Public records reviewed by The Dispatch bolster the state auditor's allegations in a letter to the Columbus City Council that the body may have violated the Ohio Open Meetings Act in crafting a resolution on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The nine-member council unanimously approved the contentious and lengthy resolution without any debate at a public meeting in late March. That appears to be because the details had been reviewed and hammered out in private over several months, in potential violation of Ohio law, the emails indicate.

"We are committed to conducting our deliberations at our meetings and hearings, in compliance with the Ohio Open Meetings Act to ensure transparency and public participation," said Jose Rodriguez, spokesperson for the City Council, in an email response to being asked if council routinely uses email to survey members feelings on supporting future votes.

The final resolution condemned both Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel and hostage-taking of innocent civilians on Oct. 7 and the ongoing humanitarian crisis and the killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza over the last five months of military warfare. It also called for "an immediate, sustained and mutual end to hostilities in Gaza; the release of hostages and detainees; and the urgent expansion of humanitarian assistance," among other things.

"As discussed, below is working language for a resolution on 3/4/24," Michael S. Brown, chief of staff to Council President Shannon Hardin, sent in an email to the eight other members in late February. "Please send comments to me and John. CP Hardin is starting to make calls, but the draft language is not going out until we get him feedback from each member.

"Please do not share externally," Brown added.

The email was sent to the eight councilmembers ".gov" city-issued email accounts. The feedback started to circulate in numerous emails being passed around by councilmembers, including to their staff members.

"I am concerned that we’re setting a precedent and other groups will demand that we issue resolutions about other foreign policy issues that impact their community," Councilmember Nancy Day-Achauer responded in one return email. "I am also concerned that we will now see an increase in people protesting at council meetings about things that are outside our purview." Day-Achauer also questioned if the resolution should call for a "ceasefire," which is a pause - and not an end - to hostilities, and not to be confused with a peace agreement.

"I agree deeply and that is the one word that will trigger either side," Brown wrote back. In another email responding to further suggestions, Brown told Day-Achauer: "Thank you. New draft coming later today."

"Thank you all for sharing so many ideas for the language of this proposed resolution," Brown - who declined to comment for this story - wrote the group of eight, adding that some of the councilmembers thoughts had been "integrated." He again cautioned that members "do not forward or share this text (of the resolution) with anyone."

Did Council break Ohio law?

In a letter dated May 1 that was emailed individually to each of the nine Democratic councilmembers, Republican State Auditor Keith Faber warned that his office had received information indicating council had engaged in official communications outside of a public meeting on the Hamas-Israel resolution. Part of the evidence cited by Faber was a Dispatch story from late March that quoted Councilmember Christopher L. Wyche saying: “My office coordinated with other offices in trying to craft a Ceasefire Resolution that everyone could get behind. . . Unfortunately, we could not come to a consensus.”

"The act requires that not only the final vote be public, but also that the entire process be transparent to the public," the Faber letter said, citing that the Ohio Supreme Court "has found conduct similar to that of Columbus City Councilmembers suggested in the Dispatch article to be in violation."

"Auditor of State Faber is onto something here," said Mark Weaver, former deputy state attorney general who coauthored eight editions of the "Yellow Book," the unofficial name to the official manual to Ohio's sunshine laws governing the public's right to have its business conducted in public.

The Ohio Open Meetings Act requires public officials, when a majority of them are engaged, to discuss all public business in an open meeting, and the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that includes "group email chats," Weaver said. Potential violations of that law are no small matter - they could theoretically result in repeat offenders being removed from office by a judge, as well as a $500 fine, attorneys fees, and a restraining order prohibiting the conduct.

Even though the topic of Middle East peace was seemingly out of the Council's normal purview - dealing with a statement regarding a highly charged and divisive foreign conflict - there's no exceptions, Weaver said. Four of the nine councilmembers could have carried on deliberations, but once a fifth enters the fray, it's illegal, he added. And it doesn't matter if the debate happens in a room or electronically.

Any member of the public can sue to enforce the statute in court, and "if the judge puts an order on saying 'Don't do that again,' and if they do it again, the judge can remove all the councilmembers from their offices, and appoint new people," what Weaver refers to as "the death penalty of the Open Meetings Act."

"Yeah, you can be removed from office," agreed Phil Harmon, one of the lead plaintiff's attorneys in "White v. King," the Ohio Supreme Court ruling that found that the Olentangy Board of Education was guilty of violating the law by using a series of emails to circumvent a public meeting on an official response to a critical Dispatch editorial in 2012. And Harmon doesn't believe that an official would necessarily have to be a repeat offender to be removed, depending on the seriousness of what happened.

"This is serious stuff," Harmon said.

While Council could have designated its staff to create draft resolutions, that work must then be presented to the Council at an open meeting - not privately - for debate and changes to the final product, Weaver said. While during several meetings the chambers were packed with mostly pro-Palistine protestors carrying banners and shouting demands, Weaver said the law's remedy for that is to have disrupters removed from the room - not to conduct official business in secret.

One of the pro-Palestine protesters, Columbus attorney Mazen Rasoul, had lobbied members of council to approve a ceasefire resolution since last fall, but was repeatedly told by officials that council couldn't move forward until all nine members were in agreement on the draft wording, he told The Dispatch.

If true, that suggests council deliberated privately in advance of its meeting. And Rasoul believes based on statements from councilmembers that a majority of the nine members supported passing a resolution months before it got accomplished.

"They said explicitly that they only bring resolution for a vote if they have unanimous approval. . . They said it in the context that this is City Council's policy," noting that he also heard similar statements from a few suburban councils his group approached.

The Dispatch reached out to Jewish Columbus, a group that also spoke out in opposition to thecouncil's resolution at the meeting it was approved, but no one returned calls over two days.

Faber's office had no additional comment Tuesday on The Dispatch's public records findings showing behind-the-scenes communications involving the entire body in either receiving or returning email comments to reach an agreed-upon resolution. Faber has instructed council to maintain any records regarding the resolution's passage so that they can be reviewed in a routine audit early next year.

The Columbus Dispatch: How to keep the Israel-Hamas War from tearing a workplace apart (Mark Weaver quoted)

The Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas and the resulting bombardment of Gaza has generated anxiety for anyone with close ties to that part of the world.

People worry about the safety of their loved ones and may not be able to communicate with them. In addition, there's a continuing feeling of unease here at home as hate and violence grow globally. Workplace experts say those factors can create trauma and make it difficult for employees to focus.

The Record and NorthJersey.com spoke with workplace experts for advice about how to be sensitive to employees struggling emotionally amid the Israel-Hamas war. Here's what they advised:

Employers need to be empathetic

When employees are grappling with so much anxiety, it's important for colleagues to be kind and understanding. It's challenging for organizational leaders or co-workers to know the appropriate words for those who are struggling with recent events. But remaining silent can be interpreted as cold and unsympathetic, said Debra Wentz, president and CEO of the New Jersey Association of Mental Health and Addiction Agencies in Mercerville. "It is critical to encourage open, honest communication and to offer support and resources," she added.

"Reaching out to a person one on one is always meaningful," said Wentz. "If you know a person has been affected, just saying 'I care' and allowing them to share is always a good practice. Some people may not be eager to talk and that's OK. But others will want to express their feelings aloud. Employees need to make their organizations safe spaces for everyone to be themselves."

Employees who are feeling uneasy or upset should be able to discuss it with supervisors or any member of the leadership teams, she said, adding, "Children, youth, adults and families all feel the tension, and organizations should help them process those and related emotions."

Crack down on hate in the office

"Given that employees spend the bulk of their waking hours at work, we have to make the workplace a safe space to cope with the tragedy unfolding around us," said Adam Struck, a founding partner at Struck Capital, a California venture capital fund that has stakes in hundreds of portfolio companies. "Employers should have a zero-tolerance policy for hate speech — and that should be enforced at work and online, even on employees' social media accounts.

"If you're calling for Muslims to be deported, or calling Israelis terrorists, or engaging in overt or even covert racism and discrimination, you are in violation of your employer's Morality Clause and you'll be immediately terminated. I am encouraging all my portfolio companies to take this stance. There is a lot of hate, truly disgusting hate reminiscent of 1930s Germany happening right now, and there should be a zero-tolerance policy for this."

Workers need flexibility

"Give people the space to talk about the impact of what they are going through. Be understanding of the necessity they may have for adjusted deadlines. Allow for extra time they may need to deal with their emotions and try to connect with their families - some of whom may be overseas and, therefore, difficult to reach. Understand that employees may be more irritable, fatigued or moody than usual. These could be manifestations of anxiety or depression," said Wentz.

Offer mental health help − without stigma

If employees are having difficulty functioning or showing signs of trauma, let them know help is available. When appropriate, workers should be referred to an employee assistance program (EAP) or other source for counseling and mental health support. Many companies offer such services through health benefits. EAPs often offer some free counseling services and resources for individuals experiencing distress, said Wentz.

Don't stigmatize the mental health effects of what employees are going through. Stigma is the greatest barrier and prevents individuals from getting help when they need it. Education is needed to overcome the shame, both for individuals who are experiencing mental health struggles and among others who simply lack the understanding or compassion for those who are struggling. Open conversations about mental health help eliminate stigma, especially when individuals share their experiences and coping strategies, said Wentz.

Encourage self-care

Remind employees to practice self-care and find a balance by taking time away from news and social media. Self-care includes staying connected to families and friends as much as possible, participating in enjoyable activities both social and solitary, said Wentz.

Keep politics out of the office

Employers should strive to maintain a sense of calm in the workplace, said Mark Weaver, an attorney and crisis communications consultant from Ohio."We are in a very divided time in America," he said. "Nobody needs reminders that we have different political views. Employees prefer a workplace where we don't argue about politics and the most controversial thing we talk about is what to order for lunch. If people need a safe space to share their emotions, they should go talk to their counselor. Work is where you go to make your wages. It's OK to ask someone how they are doing and to have small talk, but the notion of having encounter sessions strikes me as not being consistent with the purpose of work."

But Struck, the venture fund leader, also said bosses should take a stand for their values.

"A lot of employers will be judged, for years to come, on how they responded to this moment," he added. "If any CEO is viscerally passionate about what's happening in the world right now, now would be the time to break with corporate messaging and take a stand. In 2020, there were several causes that encouraged employers to, for the first time ever, take an overt stance on a social issue."

Workers − and bosses − can't hide

Amid an ever-growing global culture, today's employees are not isolated from world events. They feel the burden of distressing news, witness the unjust hurt, and experience the moral fatigue, said Debra A. O’Neal, executive director of the Delaware and New Jersey chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

"Organizations that understand the impact of trauma and toxic stress on their employees understand that, here too, the organization needs to provide opportunities to support staff," she said. "Organizations that are responsive to these needs create platforms – through emails, town halls or other shared spaces – to acknowledge the impact the events may have on employees, provide resources for employees to access if they need further assistance, and give space for processing and debriefing.”

Newsweek: Sorry, It's Not Cancel Culture When People Supporting Mass Murder Get Fired

Most law students like to argue. But there are some who, after cheering recent atrocities by Hamas terrorists, argued themselves out of a job. As proof that irony is taught in law school even though it's not a listed course, one law student claimed that Israel "bears the full responsibility" for the butchery of Israeli women and children but now seems unwilling to take responsibility for her own statement. So a law firm did it for her and revoked her job offer.

A few cranks will claim this is the latest example of cancel culture. But that's like calling a consumer's brand preference a boycott. Cancel culture, in its more trivial form, typically involves shaming individuals into apology for actions or opinions deemed controversial but not particularly harmful. We can all imagine what types of Halloween costume you might wear later this month that would get you cancelled, even as no one is physically hurt by your selection. When deployed frivolously, canceling is counterproductive and a form of bullying. It often focuses on personal or historical wrongs and subjective moralities, drawing lines that are not universally accepted.

That's not what happened here.

Publicly praising the beheading of infants and rape and murder of innocents isn't a quibble about a costume or a poorly worded Facebook post. It's a resignation letter from civil society. It's legal to send that letter and it's appropriate for society to accept it.

Those of us who are paying attention to modern trends aren't surprised that this folly arose from a university setting. All too often, campus debates look less like an American townhall and more like a Roman Coliseum. Attendees are drawn to the events not for love for dialogue and discernment but a lust for anger and agitation.

All of my law school debates were civil, even when heated. Yet such decorum has become a quaint notion of the past, to be filed away in the same dusty cabinet as chivalry and being a good neighbor. Now, we are just as likely to wander down the quad and come upon arguments wielded as weapons with ferocious intensity. Empathy, nuance, and the humanity of discourse are casualties in this theatrical display of adversarial triumphalism. The jousters justify their caustic behavior as "juice worth the squeeze" without a hint of perspective that this has been the argument of dictators in every age.

Some of these law students share opinions about Hamas terrorists that are out of step with world opinion and out of sync with the facts. But it's not because they're busy studying torts and civil procedure; others in their generation are similarly ill-informed. Law students ought to have more logic behind their views.

I taught law school for two decades and have practiced for longer than that and I must spill this secret: There's a briefcase full of nonsense behind much of what's taught to young attorneys, but wiser minds become cooler heads and moderation and common sense prevail. Many of these law students haven't yet learned that being a lawyer is more than being a zealous advocate. Zeal is easy. Discretion is hard. And the ethical obligations of attorneys require us to act with professionalism in a way that will preserve the integrity of the justice system.

All law students have a First Amendment right to express their views publicly, yet this right exists side by side with moral considerations about their own—and society's—obligations. Just as one has the right to speak out, others have the right to associate or dissociate based on the expressed views. For example, a man cheering on a serial rapist by bearing a sign of support outside a courthouse where that rapist is being sentenced is exercising his right to free speech. However, an organization advocating for sexual assault victims possesses an equally valid right, and arguably a moral duty, to reject that man's application for employment.

A law firm's decision to withdraw job offers from law students who openly support acts of terrorism is a legitimate exercise of the firm's right to free association. Their actions are not merely reactions to unpopular opinions but a stand against associating with viewpoints that glorify terrorism. It's about making a conscious choice not to work with individuals whose values fundamentally conflict with universally accepted moral principles and the mission of that employer.

Upholding such distinctions supports a balanced approach where free speech rights are weighed in tandem with free association. And perhaps the most important law school lesson from this incident is that those who seek to advocate for justice must distinguish between the right to speak and the right to escape consequence.