The Commonplace
Home Papers Evidence Explore Trends Syntheses Digests References About 🎲 Workforce Futures
← Papers
Direction, evidence grade, and study type are AI-generated labels (gpt-5-mini), not human-verified. Syntheses are LLM-written. "Tensions" are machine-detected candidates, not confirmed contradictions. A research-acceleration tool, not peer review. How this is built →

Moral ‘voting’ for AI is not neutral: which features developers present, who they recruit, and how they word questions change the preferences that alignment methods recover—framing causally shifts responses and ideology predicts disagreement on about a third of features.

Participatory Moral AI Is Not Neutral: The Invisible Hand of Developers
Taenyun Kim, Edyta Bogucka, Daniele Quercia · August 14, 2026
arxiv quasi_experimental medium evidence 5/10 relevance Full text usable extracted full text Source PDF

Structured author observations

Linked only from stored provider relations; the raw author line above is never matched by name.

Arxiv

Latest observation:

  1. Taenyun Kim unresolved corpus identity
  2. Edyta Bogucka unresolved corpus identity
  3. Daniele Quercia unresolved corpus identity

Semantic Scholar

Latest observation:

  1. Taenyun Kim provider ID
  2. E. Bogucka provider ID
  3. Daniele Quercia provider ID
Developer decisions about which features to include, who votes, and how questions are framed materially shape aggregated moral preferences for AI—randomized framing causally shifts judgments and political ideology is associated with differing evaluations for roughly one-third of features across three use cases.

Citation observations

Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.

As AI systems make more morally loaded decisions across society, one response has been moral preference elicitation. In this approach, researchers poll participants on hypothetical dilemmas and use the aggregated votes to train a policy that an AI model then applies at scale. Before any vote is cast, developers make three key choices in the moral AI elicitation pipeline: feature scoping, voter sampling, and question framing. In other words, they decide which features go to a vote, which voters to include, and how to present the question. These choices are often opaque, undocumented, and treated as technical details rather than normative ones. We examine each of these choices within a common empirical study and show that each can shape the preferences produced by moral AI elicitation. Across two phases (N = 809) in three deployment contexts (i.e., AI kidney allocation, AI agents simulating absent workers, and generative AI depictions of the deceased), we examine the three main stages of the moral AI elicitation pipeline. First, morally relevant features shift across contexts. This suggests that feature schemas should not be assumed to transfer across deployment domains. Second, preferences differ by political ideology for roughly one-third of features, with some differences reversing direction. The ideological composition of the voter pool can therefore affect the resulting aggregated preference profile. Third, the wording of the elicitation question can narrow or widen ideological gaps by up to a full scale point. The framing conditions also change how moral foundations are associated with participants' judgments. Taken together, these findings suggest that voting-based alignment cannot deliver fair or transparent AI by aggregation alone; at minimum, each stage of the moral AI elicitation pipeline should be audited and disclosed.

Assessment

Paper Typequasi_experimental Evidence Strengthmedium — The randomized framing arm supports causal claims about framing effects, but many key claims (ideological differences, context-specific feature relevance) are based on observational comparisons in a convenience sample; hypothetical scenarios, modest sample sizes per subgroup, and developer choices (feature inclusion thresholds, coding by LLM) limit strength. Methods Rigormedium — Study uses pre-registered-like two-phase design, randomized framing, quota sampling for ideology balance, and LLM-assisted coding validated against human coders (high agreement), but relies on Prolific convenience samples (Phase 2 appears US-only), arbitrary feature-inclusion thresholds, hypothetical vignettes instead of behavioral outcomes, and limited external validity. SamplePhase 1: ~449 participants total (NKIDNEY = 150, NWORK = 149, NGEN = 150) recruited on Prolific with quota sampling to balance political ideology; participants free-listed features they considered relevant/irrelevant. Phase 2: 360 US participants (120 per use case) recruited on Prolific, randomly assigned to three framing conditions (Control, World-You-Want, Could-Be-You) with balanced conservative/progressive representation; features from Phase 1 were rated on a −3 to +3 moral importance scale. Feature extraction used GPT-4o-mini with human calibration (authors coded sample for validation). Themesgovernance human_ai_collab IdentificationRandomized assignment of participants to three framing conditions (Control, World-You-Want, Could-Be-You) provides causal identification for framing effects; ideological comparisons are observational (quota sampling to ensure ideological balance) and therefore identify associations rather than causal effects; feature scoping is derived from participant free-listing and LLM-assisted coding (descriptive/construct-level identification). GeneralizabilityConvenience sample (Prolific) — not nationally representative; Phase 2 described as US participants, limiting cross-country generalizability., Hypothetical vignette responses may not predict real-world behavior or institutional decision-making., Feature set depends on developer choices (prevalence threshold for inclusion, LLM and human coding decisions) which may exclude minority but important considerations., Three use cases (kidney allocation, simulated workers, generative content of deceased) cover a range but do not represent all AI deployment contexts., Relies on self-reported political ideology and moral foundations measures which have measurement error.
Incomplete processing: Summary missing.

Notes