Accessibility Settings
It is important to us that you have a smooth navigation experience on our website. To ensure this, you can set global settings for your view of the website here.
Animations
We use some animations on this website. If you find these annoying, you can switch them off here at any time.
We’ve chosen a challenging topic for this issue of the newsletter. We want to shed light on morality and ethics in the context of AI – or at least make a small contribution to the discussion.
Here, we define morality as everyday actions that a particular community judges to be right. However, notions of morality vary depending on the community. Ethics provides the scientific foundation for examining moral practices.
In the context of artificial intelligence, ethics deals with the role of AI systems as well as with ethical standards for people who, among other things, design, produce, and use artificial intelligence. If a machine exhibits “behavior,” that behavior is also part of ethics – as are the consequences that such “behavior” entails.
In discussions, we observe that the focus is often on specific actions, for example, in dealing with AI. Strictly speaking, therefore, we tend to speak of morality – that is, of specific practices – rather than of ethics as an academic discipline. “Morality,” however, can quickly sound like a wagging finger.
What we repeatedly practice with our participants in study courses, as well as with professionals, is critically examining assumptions – such as those regarding users’ needs. To conduct this examination, we design a specific experiential space. This means, for example: In a project aimed at improving the mobility experience in Berlin, we transfer between public transit modes while loaded down with luggage to put ourselves 100% in the shoes of potential users and experience their daily commutes firsthand, in every detail.
This approach broadens our perspectives and thus our ability to make sound judgments, for example, when deciding for or against certain strategic directions in an innovation project.
Against this backdrop, we in the editorial team asked ourselves: In which situations involving AI use does the needle on our inner moral compass begin to swing? Here, “we” should be understood as a group of many different individuals engaged in conversation, all of whom are distinct and each bring their own uniquely oriented inner compass to the table.
This led to the follow-up question: How do we use the needle’s movement to sharpen our judgment and critical thinking – and thereby develop AI applications that put users at the center and contribute to a better life for future generations? This also means: How can we productively harness the incredible potential of AI for the benefit of humanity?
In our discussions, we’ve observed that people increasingly feel the need for dialogue and discussion in the following areas of experience with AI in order to sharpen their judgment:
The first source of unease begins right at the input stage. Those who work with AI feed systems with questions, thoughts, research material, raw data – and sometimes even sensitive information. But what happens to this data? Is it stored? Do a handful of companies hold a data monopoly? A sense of imbalance arises. We disclose information without knowing exactly who has access to it, how long it will be stored, or how it might be used in the future. Even when AI applications are more securely housed within an organization, the question remains: what data are we actually entering, and are we aware of its sensitivity?
The second source of frustration arises when artificial intelligence delivers results that seem impressive – but aren’t reliable. An instruction appears to be clearly formulated, the process runs through several loops, yet suddenly the system overlooks key specifications. Details disappear, terms get mixed up, and sources or statements are incorrectly combined.
People describe the dilemma this way: Are we willing to accept enormous efficiency gains if, at the same time, part of the analysis could be flawed, incomplete, or distorted? Is speed becoming the new measure of quality? And who will even notice if something crucial is missing? This dilemma leads to an increased subjective need to continuously monitor AI results. Effective use of AI, therefore, does not mean relinquishing control. It means organizing control differently: more consciously, more systematically, and with a clear understanding of where human judgment remains indispensable (human oversight).
A third concern relates to the question of whose perspectives AI makes visible and whose perspectives are overlooked.
AI systems work with patterns, probabilities, and statistical frequencies. This is technically understandable, but it leads to distortions: minorities are underrepresented and the mainstream is overrepresented.
AI can synthesize interview data, but it always overlays it with a grid of statistical probabilities. The question, therefore, is: How do we prevent AI from turning diversity into a plausible-sounding mediocrity and losing forward-looking nuances? AI can help reveal blind spots. But it cannot guarantee that we will judge correctly. Here, too, critical thinking remains the central human task.
What does this search for traces of our critical thinking and our capacity for judgment mean for societies that want to bring something new into the world – something new that makes life on this planet better, more just, and more sustainable? Our conclusion from exploring this topic: The crucial question is not whether AI is moral. The crucial question is whether we retain and further develop our critical thinking and judgment as we work with AI.
Critical thinking and sound judgment are therefore not a hindrance to innovation, but a prerequisite for it.
In the June 2026 issue of the HPI d-school newsletter, Marc Stussak, Senior Program Lead for Corporate Innovation, discusses how he supports corporate teams in innovation workshops and agile projects to sharpen their judgment and use AI strategically as a reflective counterpoint. We also present a customized workshop offering on the responsible use of AI in business.
Through our “Wayfinder” program, students can further develop their reflective and critical thinking skills – for example, in relation to their own aspirations for the future. In the “Neuland” podcast, you’ll learn what inspired the creators of the course concept.
Note
For this article, AI assisted our editorial team as a proofreader to maintain a consistent style throughout the text, shorten it, and correct grammar and spelling.
