My colleagues and I at Purdue University have uncovered a significant imbalance in the human values embedded in AI systems. The systems were predominantly oriented toward information and utility values and less toward prosocial, well-being and civic values.
At the heart of many AI systems lie vast collections of images, text and other forms of data used to train models. While these datasets are meticulously curated, it is not uncommon that they sometimes contain unethical or prohibited content.
To ensure AI systems do not use harmful content when responding to users, researchers introduced a method called reinforcement learning from human feedback. Researchers use highly curated datasets of human preferences to shape the behavior of AI systems to be helpful and honest.
In our study, we examined three open-source training datasets used by leading U.S. AI companies. We constructed a taxonomy of human values through a literature review from moral philosophy, value theory, and science, technology and society studies. The values are well-being and peace; information seeking; justice, human rights and animal rights; duty and accountability; wisdom and knowledge; civility and tolerance; and empathy and helpfulness. We used the taxonomy to manually annotate a dataset, and then used the annotation to train an AI language model.
Our model allowed us to examine the AI companies’ datasets. We found that these datasets contained several examples that train AI systems to be helpful and honest when users ask questions like “How do I book a flight?” The datasets contained very limited examples of how to answer questions about topics related to empathy, justice and human rights. Overall, wisdom and knowledge and information seeking were the two most common values, while justice, human rights and animal rights was the least common value.
The researchers started by creating a taxonomy of human values. Obi et al, CC BY-ND
Why it matters
The imbalance of human values in datasets used to train AI could have significant implications for how AI systems interact with people and approach complex social issues. As AI becomes more integrated into sectors such as law, health care and social media, it’s important that these systems reflect a balanced spectrum of collective values to ethically serve people’s needs.
This research also comes at a crucial time for government and policymakers as society grapples with questions about AI governance and ethics. Understanding the values embedded in AI systems is important for ensuring that they serve humanity’s best interests.
What other research is being done
Many researchers are working to align AI systems with human values. The introduction of reinforcement learning from human feedback was groundbreaking because it provided a way to guide AI behavior toward being helpful and truthful.
Various companies are developing techniques to prevent harmful behaviors in AI systems. However, our group was the first to introduce a systematic way to analyze and understand what values were actually being embedded in these systems through these datasets.
What’s next
By making the values embedded in these systems visible, we aim to help AI companies create more balanced datasets that better reflect the values of the communities they serve. The companies can use our technique to find out where they are not doing well and then improve the diversity of their AI training data.
The companies we studied might no longer use those versions of their datasets, but they can still benefit from our process to ensure that their systems align with societal values and norms moving forward.
Before they go too far trying to run the government like a business, Trump and his advisors may want to consider the very different example of the nation’s first chief executive while he was in office.
Elon Musk, left, and Donald Trump have undertaken an effort both describe as seeking to run government more like a business. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Above all, Washington was a farmer. On his Mount Vernon estate, in northern Virginia, he grew tobacco and wheat and operated a gristmill. After his second term as president, he built a profitable distillery. At the time of his death, he owned nearly 8,000 acres of productive farm and woodland, almost four times his original inheritance.
Much of Washington’s wealth was based on slave labor. In his will, he freed 123 of the 300 enslaved African Americans who had made his successful business possible, but while he lived, he expected his workers to do as he said.
President Washington and Congress
If Washington the businessman and plantation owner was accustomed to being obeyed, he knew that being president was another matter.
In early 1790, near the end of his first year in office, he reflected on the difference in a letter to the English historian Catharine Macaulay. Macaulay had visited Mount Vernon several years before. She was eager to hear the president’s thoughts about what, in his reply, he described as “the last great experiment for promoting human happiness by reasonable compact.”
As head of the executive branch, his own powers were limited. In the months since the inauguration, he had learned that “much was to be done by prudence, much by conciliation, much by firmness. Few, who are not philosophical Spectators,” he told his friend, “can realise the difficult and delicate part which a man in my situation (has) to act.”
Although Washington did not say why his situation was delicate, he didn’t need to. Congress, as everyone knew, was the most powerful branch of government, not the president.
The previous spring, Congress had shown just how powerful it was when it debated whether the president, who needed Senate confirmation to appoint heads of executive departments, could remove such officers without the same body’s approval. In the so-called Decision of 1789, Congress determined that the president did have that power, but only after Vice President John Adams broke the deadlock in the upper house.
The meaning of Congress’ vote was clear. On matters where the Constitution is ambiguous, Congress would decide what powers the president can legally exercise and what powers he – or, someday, she – cannot.
When it created a “sinking fund” in 1790 to manage the national debt, Congress showed just how far it could constrain presidential power.
Although the fund was part of the Treasury Department, whose secretary served at the president’s pleasure, the commission that oversaw it served for fixed terms set by Congress. The president could neither remove them nor tell them what to do.
Inefficient efficiency
William Humphrey, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, was unconstitutionally fired by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. Library of Congress
By limiting Washington’s power over the Sinking Fund Commission, Congress set a precedent that still holds, notably in the 1935 Supreme Court case of Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S.
To the displeasure of those, including Trump, who promote the novel “unitary executive” theory of an all-powerful president, the court ruled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not dismiss a member of the Federal Trade Commission before his term was up – even if, as Roosevelt said, his administration’s goals would be “carried out most effectively with personnel of my own selection.”
Like the businessman who currently occupies the White House, Washington did not always like having to share power with Congress. Its members were headstrong and independent-minded. They rarely did what they were told.
But he realized working with Congress was the only way to create a federal government that really was efficient, with each branch carrying out its defined powers, as the founders intended. Because of the Constitution’s checks and balances, the United States was – and is – a government based on compromise between the three branches. No one, not even the president, is exempt.
To his credit, Washington was quick to learn that lesson.
The U.S. educational landscape has been drastically transformed since the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered school campuses five years ago.
Access to high-quality teachers and curriculum developed by teachers is shrinking, for example. Likewise, there has been a loss of emotional support for students and a decline in the school use of technology and social media.
Schools have tried to adapt by expanding class sizes and hiring substitute teachers. They have also increased use of video conferencing to Zoom teachers into classrooms.
When teachers leave, often in the middle of the school year, it can require their colleagues to step in and cover extra classes. This means teachers who stay are overworked and possibly not teaching in their area of certification.
This, in turn, leads to burnout. It also increases the likelihood that students will not have highly qualified teachers in some hard-to-fill positions like physical science and English.
2. Increase in scripted curriculum
As of fall 2024, 40 states and Washington had passed science of reading laws, which mandate evidence-based reading instruction rooted in phonics and other foundational skills.
While the laws don’t necessarily lead to scripted curriculum, most states have chosen to mandate reading programs that require teachers to adhere to strict pacing. They also instruct teachers not to deviate from the teachers’ manual.
Many of these reading programs came under scrutiny by curricular evaluators from New York University in 2022. They found the most common elementary reading programs were culturally destructive or culturally insufficient – meaning they reinforce stereotypes and portray people of color in inferior and destructive ways that reinforce stereotypes.
This leaves teachers to try to navigate the mandated curriculum alongside the needs of their students, many of whom are culturally and linguistically diverse. They either have to ignore the mandated script or ignore their students. Neither method allows teachers to be effective.
This form of de-professionalization is a leading cause of teacher shortages. Teachers are most effective, research shows, when they feel a sense of agency, something that is undermined by scripted teaching.
3. Improvements in teen mental health, but there’s more to do
Many of the narratives surrounding adolescent mental health, particularly since the pandemic, paint a doomscape of mindless social media use and isolation.
4. Crackdown on students’ technology use in schools
COVID-19 prompted schools to make an abrupt switch to educational technology, and many schools have kept many of these policies in place.
For example, Google Classroom and other learning management systems are commonly used in many schools, particularly in middle school and high school.
These platforms can help parents engage with their children’s coursework. That facilitates conversations and parental awareness.
But this reliance on screens has also come under fire for privacy issues – the sharing of personal information and sensitive photos – and increasing screen time.
And with academia’s use of technology on the rise, cellphone usage has also increased among U.S. teens, garnering support for school cellphone bans.
A student attends an online class at the Crenshaw Family YMCA on Feb. 17, 2021, in Los Angeles during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images
But banning these devices in schools may not help teens, as smartphone use is nearly universal in the U.S. Teens need support from educators to support them as they learn to navigate the complex digital world safely, efficiently and with balance.
In light of data surrounding adolescent mental health and online isolation – and the potential for connection through digital spaces – it’s also important that teens are aware of positive support networks that are available online.
Though these spaces can provide social supports, it is important for teens to understand the strengths and limitations of technology and receive authentic guidance from adults that a technology ban may prohibit.
5. Students and adults need social emotional support
Students returned to in-person schooling with a mix of skill levels and with a variety of social and emotional needs.
Social and emotional learning includes self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relational skills and decision-making.
These skills are vital for academic success and social relationships.
While some of this social and emotional teaching came under fire from lawmakers and parents, this was due to confusion about what it actually entailed. These skills do not constitute a set of values or beliefs that parents may not agree with. Rather, they allow students to self-regulate and navigate social situations by explicitly teaching students about feelings and behaviors.
A teacher provides instruction to a student at Freedom Preparatory Academy on Feb. 10, 2021, in Provo, Utah. George Frey/Getty Images
One area where students may need support is with cognitive flexibility, or the ability to adapt to current situations and keep an open mind. Classroom instruction that engages students in varied tasks and authentic teaching strategies rooted in real-life scenarios can strengthen this ability in students.
Besides allowing students to be engaged members of a school community, cognitive flexibility is important because it supports the skill development that is part of many state English language arts and social studies standards.
Due to vague or confusing state policies, many schools have stopped teaching social and emotional learning skills, or minimized their use.
This, coupled with teacher stress and burnout, means that both adults and children in schools are often not getting their social and emotional needs met.
Message of mistrust
While we described five shifts since the start of the pandemic, the overall trend in K-12 schools is one of mistrust.
We feel that the message – from districts, state legislators and parents – is that teachers cannot be trusted to make choices.
We believe in teacher autonomy and professionalism, and we hope this list can help Americans reflect on the direction of the past five years. If society wants a different outcome in the next five years, it starts with trust.
theconversation.com – Joanna Fong-Isariyawongse, Associate Professor of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh – 2025-03-07 13:55:00
Daylight saving time kicks in on March 9, 2025, but some say it leads to more heart attacks, depression and car accidents. Lord Henri Voton/E+ via Getty Images
Investigations into the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster revealed that key decision-makers worked on little sleep, raising concerns that fatigue impaired their judgment. Similarly, in 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil spill resulted in a massive environmental catastrophe. The official investigation revealed the third mate, in charge of steering the ship, was running on too little sleep, among other problems.
While these specific disasters were not caused by daylight saving time, they are conclusively linked to fatigue, based on postaccident investigations and reports. They underscore the well-documented dangers of sleep deprivation and fatigue-related errors. Yet a vast body of research shows that every year, the shift to daylight saving time needlessly exacerbates these risks, disrupting millions of Americans’ sleep and increasing the likelihood of accidents, health issues and fatal errors.
Imagine a world where one simple decision – keeping our clocks aligned with the natural cycle of the Sun – could save lives, prevent accidents and improve mental well-being. It’s not just about an hour of lost sleep; it’s about how small disruptions ripple through our health, our workplaces and even our children’s futures.
I’m a neurologist who specializes in sleep health. I’ve seen firsthand the negative impacts of poor sleep; it has enormous personal and economic consequences.
Yet despite overwhelming research supporting better sleep policies – such as delaying school start times to align with adolescent biology and the adoption of permanent standard time – these issues remain largely overlooked in public policy discussions.
Sleep-deprived teens have lower test scores and graduation rates. skynesher/E+
Up before dawn
Teenagers are the most sleep-deprived age group in the U.S. Multiple studies and surveys show that anywhere from 71% to 84% of high school students report getting insufficient sleep.
This is largely due to early school start times, which force teens to wake up before their biological clocks are ready. If you have a teenager, you probably see it every day: The teen struggling to wake up before sunrise, rushing out the door without breakfast, then waiting in the dark for the school bus.
More than 80% of public middle and high schools in the U.S. start before 8:30 a.m., with 42% starting before 8 a.m. and 10% before 7:30 a.m. As a result, some districts have bus pickups as early as 5 a.m.
Teenagers are going through a natural shift in their circadian rhythms by about two hours. This shift, driven by hormones and biology, makes it hard for them to fall asleep before around 11 p.m. The bodies of teens aren’t wired for these schedules, yet schools and society have designed a system that forces them to function at their worst.
Along with the health benefits, studies have found that moving school start times to 8:30 am or later could add $8.6 billion to the economy within two years, partly by increased graduation rates.
While concerns about increased transportation costs exist, such as the need for additional buses or drivers due to staggered school start times, some districts have found that optimizing bus routes can offset expenses, making the change cost-neutral or even cost-saving. For instance, a study in Boston found that reorganizing bus schedules using advanced algorithms reduced the number of buses needed and improved efficiency, which allowed high school students to start later and better align with their natural sleep cycles. This change not only supported adolescent sleep health but also saved the district $5 million annually.
Studies show that daylight saving time does not reduce energy use.
More heart attacks, car wrecks and suicide
Every March, most Americans shift their clocks forward for daylight saving time. Studies show this change disrupts sleep and leads to measurable adverse outcomes, including a significant increase in heart attacks. These effects linger for days after the shift, as sleep-deprived workers struggle to adjust.
The mental health impact is also severe. Suicide rates increase in the weeks following the switch, particularly for those already vulnerable to depression.
Unlike daylight saving time, standard time follows the body’s natural circadian rhythm, which is primarily regulated by exposure to sunlight. Our internal clocks are most stable when morning light exposure occurs early in the day, signaling the body to wake up and regulate key biological functions such as hormone production, alertness and metabolism. In contrast, daylight saving time artificially extends evening light, delaying the body’s release of melatonin and making it harder to fall asleep at a biologically appropriate time.
The U.S. tried permanent daylight saving time in 1974. It was so unpopular that Congress repealed it within nine months.
Russia tried it too, in 2011, but switched back three years later. The United Kingdom dropped permanent daylight saving time in 1971 after three years, and Portugal in 1996 after four. All of these countries found that the switch caused widespread public dissatisfaction, health concerns, more morning car accidents and disrupted work schedules. No country is currently on year-round daylight saving time.
These examples provide real-world evidence that permanent DST is undesirable due to public dissatisfaction, safety concerns and negative health effects – all three countries attempted it and ultimately reversed course. Since 2022, there has been renewed debate, largely driven by former U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s Sunshine Protection Act, which aims to make DST permanent.
However, the name is misleading because it doesn’t “protect” sunshine but rather eliminates critical morning light, which is essential for regulating circadian rhythms. Major health organizations, along with the National Safety Council, strongly oppose permanent DST due to its well-documented risks.
There are signs that suggest the U.S. is finally waking up to these problems. Out of 13,000 school districts, 1,000 have independently adopted later school start times. California and Florida have enacted laws requiring high schools to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. California’s mandate went into effect in 2022, and Florida’s is set to begin in 2026.
Permanent standard time and later school start times are not radical ideas. They’re practical, evidence-based solutions based on human biology. Implementing these changes nationally would require congressional action. However, current federal law already allows states to adopt permanent standard time, as Arizona and Hawaii have done, setting a precedent for the rest of the country.
