19 Aug AI PERSONALITY AND HALACHIC ETHICS

OpenAI recently released
ChatGPT-5, which faced
a number of public
challenges. One of its
features is that users can
now choose from five
preset Artificial Intelligence
(AI) “personalities.”
The list of personalities includes cheerful
and adaptive; thoughtful and supportive;
exploratory and enthusiastic; efficient and
blunt; and, most provocatively, critical and
sarcastic. In other words, you can now speak
to an AI designed to respond with skepticism,
sarcasm and biting commentary.
This raises an ethical and halachic question.
If AI is only code generating text, do its
character traits matter? Or can it subtly
influence us, shaping how we speak and even
how we think?
I. Growth and Influence
Human beings are social creatures who
continually evolve, with their thoughts and
actions shaped in part by the company they
keep and the models they observe. In order
to grow in the right direction, we must
surround ourselves with positive role models.
Rambam vividly explains the proper attitude
to this psychological reality (Mishneh Torah,
Hilchos De’os 6:1):

“It is natural for one’s character traits (de’os)
and actions (ma’asim) to be influenced by
friends and companions and for one to follow
the local norms of behavior. Therefore a
person must associate with the righteous
and constantly sit with the wise in order
to learn from their deeds. And he should
distance himself from the wicked who walk
in darkness so that he will not learn from their
deeds.”
This statement is not just general guidance
but has specific practical implications. For
example, Rav Shlomo Aviner (cont., Israel)
writes in a responsum that Israelis should
not spend extended time in India after their
army service because, among other reasons,

it involves being in close quarters with non-
religious and non-Jewish people whose

behaviors can have a profound negative
influence (Responsa She’eilas Shlomo 4:246).
Similarly, Rav Shlomo Min Hahar (20th cen.,
Israel), in his 1971 halachic guide for IDF
soldiers (Dinei Tzava U-Milchamah, par. 5)
cautions that they should not spend downtime
with non-religious soldiers because of the
potential impact on their spiritual character.
However, a subtle shift in Rambam’s
language might have significant relevance for
our question. He begins with both de’os and
ma’asim—attitudes, dispositions, character
traits and deeds, behavior, actions. He

concludes that we must keep company with
the righteous and avoid the wicked because
of their deeds. Why the move from traits to
behaviors?
II. The Power of Traits
Given the context of Hilchos De’os, which
discusses the proper character traits, it is
difficult to sustain the argument that halachah
primarily governs what we do, not what
we silently feel. It seems more likely that
Rambam frames the issue in behavioral terms
because character traits are abstract until they
appear in conduct. A selfish attitude becomes
contagious when it is displayed in action. It is
true that we must be worried about adopting
the unhealthy character traits of those who
surround us. However, Rambam highlights
actions because generally they are the vehicle
through which traits spread.
Alternatively, perhaps Rambam feels that
from a practical standpoint, we need only
be concerned with being influenced by
other people’s concrete bad deeds and not
their intangible attitudes. We cannot be
influenced materially by the thoughts inside
other people’s hearts. Our focus must be on
maintaining positive deeds, which will in
turn sustain positive attitudes. If we take care
to avoid unhealthy actions, we will avoid
being influenced by other people’s negative
character traits.
This last approach raises the important
question: if Rambam focuses on actions,
does that mean that we need not worry
about being influenced by other people’s
traits if they are not translated into action?
The Gemara (Shabbos 33a) teaches that
one who merely hears nibul peh, vulgar or
profane speech, is punished. He himself
did not speak improperly. However, the
words alone, encountered passively, carry
moral harm. This text implies that exposure
to speech itself, without physical action,
can corrode character. Even language
divorced from deed conveys a personality
trait and influences the listener. If vulgar
speech damages, then cynicism, sarcasm
or arrogance transmitted in words can also
damage.
III. AI and Character
With this in mind, we can return to our
discussion of AI personalities. A human
being has both traits and behaviors with
influence often flowing through deeds that
then shape traits. An AI chatbot has no
deeds; it does not act in the world. Its entire
presence is in speech.
This means that the danger lies not in
AI’s actions, because it has none, but in
its simulated traits. An AI cynic models
cynicism. An AI with a sharp tongue
normalizes sarcasm. A dismissive or
arrogant personality slowly habituates its
users to those same traits.
Must we worry about AI’s corrosive
influence on character traits? This seems to
depend on how we understand Rambam’s

shift in language from de’os and ma’asim,
traits and actions, to just ma’asim, actions.
If we believe that Rambam is concerned for
both but focuses on actions because generally
that is how attitudes are transmitted, then we
must avoid a chatbot’s corrosive speech. On
the other hand, if Rambam only warns us
about learning from others’ negative deeds
because attitudes are not transmittable,
then we need not be concerned about an AI
chatbot’s personality.
A third possibility is that speech constitutes
action. Traditionally, there is a debate
whether speech rises to the level of action.
For example, the Torah forbids muzzling
a working animal to prevent it from eating
(Deut. 25:4). If you effectively muzzle an
animal by verbally berating it, R. Yochanan
says you violated the prohibition through
speech while Resh Lakish says that speech
does not constitute action (Bava Metzi’a 90b).
Tosafos (ad loc., s.v. R. Yochanan) quote a
number of relevant texts regarding whether
speech constitutes action and conclude that
speech constitutes action if it yields tangible
results, like an animal refraining from eating.
In our case, it seems farfetched to say that an
AI’s words lead to action and therefore that
the speech constitutes action.
IV. Practical Implications
The upshot is that creators of AI tools,
particularly but not exclusively for Jewish
use, must design them to speak with derech
eretz and kavod, manners and respect.
AI must model responsible behavior so
it becomes a positive, and certainly not a
negative, influence.
When this is not the case, according to one
reading of Rambam, we are instructed to
distance ourselves from bad influence.
Choosing a sarcastic or cynical AI personality
is no different from choosing friends who
mock and belittle. Even if the AI is only
computer code, the influence of its words is
real. Interacting daily with an AI cynic or a
sarcastic assistant risks habituating yourself
to bad traits. This is not harmless fun; it is a
steady shaping of character.
Rambam writes above that “a person must
associate with the righteous and constantly
sit with the wise.” Today, that advice applies
not only to our neighbors and friends but also
to the personalities we allow into our lives
electronically. AI can be a tool for Torah
and personal growth but only if it speaks
with dignity and refinement. Otherwise, it
becomes a daily tutor in bad midos.