28 Oct JUDAISM AND AI DESIGN ETHICS PART 1

Artificial intelligence
(AI) has quickly
become a part of
daily life, influencing
the information we
consume and the
decisions we make.
And the process is just
starting. This places significant responsibility
on the AI builder. Designing an AI system
is not merely a technical challenge but also
a moral and religious one. What information
is included, how it is presented and what
assumptions shape its worldview all affect
the end user. AI is a broad term and we
speak here of any AI system that provides
information or recommendations to the
public, even if this is just a small subset of
AI that is already integrated into systems.
Judaism has long wrestled with analogous
challenges, especially in the realm of
publishing, where books and ideas shaped
communities and beliefs. The precedents we
find in halachic literature offer guidance on
the ethical responsibilities of those building
AI systems today.
I. Book Publishing
When you boil the issues down to their
basics, in a sense AI systems resemble
book publishers. They gather, process and
distribute information, often with little

distinction between fact and opinion, or
between traditional and secular perspectives.
Of course, there are differences. Publishers
determine the actual words used while
AI systems have more independence in
expressing ideas. However, the similarities
are important. The dangers are obvious:
inaccuracies can harm reputations, mislead
the public and cause damage to individuals,
groups or institutions. Additionally, the
dissemination of a secular worldview can
significantly undermine religious convictions.
Judaism has a lot to say on these subjects.
But a fundamental question arises: who is the
judge? Many issues cannot be conclusively
proven. What counts as heretical, misleading
or damaging? Who decides what is acceptable
and what must be avoided? These questions,
which arose in the age of the printing press,
return with new urgency in the age of artificial
intelligence.
There are two ways to approach the ethical
dangers of information technology: as
policymakers and as citizens. Policymakers
can regulate markets and restrict harmful
products. Citizens, lacking that power, must
find other ways to protect themselves and
their communities. Halachah addresses
publishing issues from both perspectives,
which can inform our discussion of AI ethics.

II. Improper Content
AI systems, even the most advanced, can
generate errors. However, this is not a new
challenge. Authors can include mistakes and
misinformation in books, newspapers and
magazines.
The Torah demands reliability. The Sages

teach, chazakah she-ein chaver motzi mi-
yado davar she-eino mesukan, it is assumed

that a scholar does not release something that
is defective and unreliable (Eruvin 32a). Your
product, your words, your teaching must
be accurate and responsible. This principle
applies no less to an AI builder than to an
author or teacher. If you release a system
that frequently misinforms, you have failed
the Torah standards expected of you. You
might also be violating prohibitions against
slander (lashon ha-ra) against individuals,
groups and institutions. AI builders bear an
ethical duty to ensure accuracy, reduce harm
and constantly refine systems to prevent the
spread of falsehoods.
But inaccuracies are not the only danger.
AI can spread not only errors but also
perspectives foreign and contradictory to
Torah. By default, most AI systems are trained
on vast libraries of secular writing, much
of which reflects assumptions inconsistent
with Jewish tradition. Some of these relate
to unacceptable social behaviors and others
relate to fundamental Torah beliefs.
Presenting such perspectives as neutral
fact and normative behavior and beliefs
is spiritually dangerous. Books, likewise,
present similar challenges.
III. Jewish Approaches to Regulating
Publishing
How have Jews historically dealt with
similar challenges? There are two possible
perspectives: policymakers and citizens.
As mentioned above, policymakers wield
control and can regulate markets. But
for most of Jewish history, Jews lacked
such power. Indeed, Jews often utilized
Christian book publishers. Instead, Jewish
communities had to assert religious
responsibility as citizens, finding creative
ways to protect their members without
market control.
Given that Jewish publishing houses have
existed for centuries, it is surprising how
few responsa have been published about
their ethical responsibilities to the public.
There is one mention of book publishers
in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 307:16)
declaring that the publishers of romance
novels cause people to sin by thinking
improper thoughts. In the 1970s, Rav Moshe
Feinstein addressed the case of publishing
heretical works. He famously insists that the
commentary of R. Yehudah He-Chassid on
the Torah is a heretical forgery. Significantly
for our purposes, Rav Feinstein rules that it
is forbidden for a Jewish publisher to print
heresy. More strikingly, he adds that even
if the overt heretical passages are removed,
the publisher may not publish the rest of the

work which might still contain confusing or
misleading ideas. Even subtly non-traditional
ideas are forbidden (Iggeros Moshe, Yoreh
De’ah, no. 115).
In the AI context, this is particularly pressing.
A model that offers secular or non-traditional
interpretations of morality, halachah or faith
can easily mislead the unwary. The risk
is not only false information but distorted
frameworks of thought. AI builders must
ask: what perspectives are we embedding?
What worldview does the system normalize?
Policymakers must consider: what
perspectives can we, as a society, tolerate and
what can we not? How do we enforce minimal
standards to prevent dangerous views from
proliferating? The first step is generating
agreement that there should be minimal
standards. The second step is deciding what
they are. Neither step is easy.
Even when the information comes from
a reputable source, it might be improper
to provide to the public. For example, the
Talmud (Shabbos 30b) discusses whether
certain biblical books should have been
removed from circulation. There was
no doubt that they were written under
divine inspiration. The problem was their
confusing and contradictory natures. If the
objectionable passages could be explained,
then there would be a basis to allow their
circulation. However, responsible authorities
cannot allow the circulation of a theologically
confusing and misleading book, even one
written under divine inspiration.
I remember when Tipper Gore led the fight
against violent and profane lyrics in music.
To society’s great detriment, her team’s
partial win consisted only of labeling such
music as explicit and nothing beyond. In my
opinion, AI builders are ethically bound to
ensure that AI avoids violent, profane and
otherwise destructive output. And regulators
are ethically bound to ensure that unethical
AI systems do not enter society. However,
even if this fight is won in the US, unethical
AI systems will certainly be built in other
countries that do not regulate their technology.
Perhaps this is overly pessimistic, but it
seems almost impossible to prevent those AI
systems from being used in the US. In other
words, no one really controls the markets.
Therefore, we need to look at another model
for responsible publishing.