Technology Dilemmas

A student used AI for homework but clearly learned the material. Should the teacher still give a zero?

A self-driving car's brakes fail. It must choose: swerve into a barrier (killing the passenger) or hit a pedestrian who jaywalked.

A forbidden machine intelligence is the only system that can stop an alien fleet. Should commanders activate it?

A player uses an AI reaction assistant and says it compensates for a disability. Should competitive leagues allow it?

A creator uses AI to draft emotional personal posts, then publishes them as their own voice. Should they disclose it?

A brand uses a realistic AI influencer to promote products to teens. Should the synthetic identity be labeled in every post?

An online art contest is flooded with AI-assisted entries. Should organizers require a human-only category?

A museum displays AI-generated art beside human-made work without clear labels. Should visitors be told which is which?

A temple can create beautiful sacred images with AI at almost no cost. Should it use them in worship spaces?

A religious institution believes AI will displace vulnerable workers. Should it publicly oppose the technology?

A faith school can ban AI tools to protect reflection, or teach them so students are not left behind. What should it do?

A platform sees religious-nationalist posts that are legal but clearly raising tensions. Should it remove them early?

A regulator appoints an outsider who challenges expert consensus, promising fresh scrutiny of old assumptions. Should the public welcome it?

A tech city is asked to pause new large data centers for a year while it writes rules on power, water and noise. Should it pause them?

A social platform can block more underage users only by asking everyone for stronger age checks. Should it do it?

Should governments release all UAP files even if the data is low quality and easily misread?

If scientists found weak evidence of alien life, should they announce it before confirmation?

Should a verified alien signal be answered by one country or only by a global vote?

Should evidence of alien technology be kept secret if it could destabilize religions and markets?

Should AI-generated films compete against human-made films at major festivals?

Should studios disclose every scene that used generative AI?

Should an AI-assisted screenplay be eligible for writing awards?

Should film schools teach AI production even if many artists oppose it?

If AI guardrails slow medical discovery, should they still apply equally?

Should citizen panels help decide acceptable AI risk?

Should open-source frontier AI wait for independent safety approval?

Should failed AI safety tests stay confidential if publishing them could help attackers?

Should AI labs share dangerous-capability test results with rival countries?

Should a government be allowed to block a frontier AI launch after secret safety tests?

If one country refuses AI guardrails, should others slow their own development anyway?

Should AI safety treaties include independent inspections of private labs?

Should countries agree not to release AI models that help non-state actors cause major harm?

Should rival superpowers share AI safety protocols even if they compete economically?

Should smaller AI labs face the same pre-release testing rules as the biggest companies?

Should AI companies disclose failed pre-release safety tests to the public?

If a safety agency finds a serious flaw in an unreleased AI model, should it be allowed to delay launch?

Should frontier AI labs give governments pre-release access to test powerful models?

Two rival superpowers can reduce AI catastrophe risk by sharing safety protocols, but doing so may reveal strategic weaknesses. Should they cooperate?

A government asks frontier AI labs for early access to unreleased models to test national-security risks before launch. Should the labs comply?

A platform's algorithm flags a user's private messages as potential self-harm signals — ambiguous, possibly venting. Do you alert emergency contacts?

You built a tool that automates your colleague's entire role. Telling them lets them prepare — but also costs them their job sooner. Do you tell?

A news network replaces its human anchors with AI presenters that never err, never tire, never strike. Should viewers be told they're watching an AI?

A studio wants to digitally resurrect a beloved actor for a final film. The family refuses. Should the studio proceed if the actor left no written wishes?

Scientists confirm your unborn child carries a gene guaranteeing a painful, fatal disease by age 30. You can genetically edit the embryo to eliminate it — but the same gene cluster also shapes traits like empathy and creativity that make your child uniquely who they will be. Do you edit?

You have the chance to use genetic editing to save your future child from a horrific, fatal disease that runs in your family, but doing so could inadvertently erase a unique genetic trait linked to extraordinary artistic talent that has also been passed down for generations.

Facing a crisis of teen suicide linked to online platforms, a lawmaker must decide between holding tech giants accountable or preserving the open nature of the internet. Is the potential for saving lives worth the risk of stifling freedom of expression?

Should governments be permitted to bypass legal constraints and hack into private digital systems if it could prevent an immediate terrorist threat?

Would you choose a perfect, fulfilling life in a simulation while knowing the real world outside is collapsing, or accept a grim reality to possibly help others?

Should governments be permitted to bypass encryption on private devices and networks to stop a confirmed, imminent terrorist threat when explicit consent is impossible to obtain?

To save your future child from a painful hereditary disease, you can edit their genes. But doing so could set a precedent for 'designer babies' and widen societal inequality.

Social media platforms connect millions of teens but can also host harmful content. Should these companies be held legally accountable when a teen's suicide is linked to content they hosted?

If you knew your future child would inherit a fatal genetic disease, would you use gene editing to prevent it, or accept the natural risk to preserve genetic diversity?

Should social media platforms face legal consequences when their algorithms amplify harmful content linked to teen suicides, even if they did not create the content themselves?

You can enter a perfect simulated reality where you experience joy and fulfillment, but doing so means abandoning the deteriorating real world and the people suffering in it.

Should social media platforms be held legally responsible when their content algorithms contribute to teen suicide, potentially protecting vulnerable users?

You can enter a perfect, lifelong virtual reality that is indistinguishable from a good life, but doing so means abandoning the real world, which is suffering an irreversible ecological collapse.

Should intelligence agencies be permitted to breach encrypted private communications when they have credible evidence of an imminent mass casualty attack, even if it undermines digital privacy for all citizens?

Would you use genetic editing to prevent a hereditary disease in your future child, knowing it sets a precedent for altering human traits and could widen social divides?

An AI generates a masterpiece painting with no human creative input. Who owns the copyright?

Scientists can upload your consciousness to a computer perfectly. Your biological body must die in the process. Is the digital version still you?

You can permanently delete all social media from existence. The world becomes slower and less connected, but global mental health improves 40%.

AI will eliminate 30% of all jobs in 10 years. Governments can slow it down at massive economic cost, or let it happen and retrain workers.

You have a deepfake video of a public figure committing a crime. You don't know whether the real event happened — only that the video itself is fake.