Skip to content
Sprint projectMar 10, 2025

Moral Wiggle Room in AI

Yingjie Hu, Parinistha Surya, Stefan Trnjakov, Matthias Endres · Team Warwick AI Safety Team

Submitted to Women in AI Safety Hackathon. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: Moral Wiggle Room in AI

Share

Does AI strategically avoid ethical information by exploiting moral wiggle room?

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

  1. I really liked this project! You ahve realistic scenarios/incentive structures, I like that the setup does not rely on purely "malicious" agents.

    You pose original and relevant research questions (at least I am not aware of work in this direction, and could not find any on a quick search).

    Well written and clear paper, well motivated and clear about limitations, considering the influence of prompt structure.

    I would be very excited to see followup research on this!

  2. This project presents a well formed question about whether LLMs (here, Llama) exhibit an effect known as the Moral Wiggle Room, ie., exploit ambiguity to act selfishly by avoiding information. This is relevant to safety and seems feasible to test. However I note a few limitations of the methods.

    - Several ambiguities in the methods could be addressed. How were the prompt stimuli constructed and what were their general properties? What was manipulated across the conditions, how was that validated, and what was controlled between conditions? How was the scoring of ethicality performed and how was that validated? It should also be better described how many variants of each condition were presented so that the breadth and generalizability of the findings could be assessed.

    - More content/domain cases than environmental audits should be tested to understand results are content specific or more general.

    - statistical analyses should be presented to support the conclusions

    Read full reviewShow less
  3. This was a great submission, and certainly met the requirements of all the marking criteria at a satisfactory level. Well done to the authors for picking a specific topic and examining it thoroughly. I would have liked to have seen more synthesis in the discussion and conclusion, and drawing upon the three questions that they had posited at the beginning of the paper. More broadly, I would have liked to have seen more than one impact being discussed in the paper, and these effects being disastrous for businesses/supply chain organisations/ESG stakeholders etc. Overall, well done to the team!

Cite this project

@misc{hu2025moral,
  title = {{Moral Wiggle Room in AI}},
  author = {Yingjie Hu and Parinistha Surya and Stefan Trnjakov and Matthias Endres},
  year = {2025},
  month = mar,
  note = {Submitted to Women in AI Safety Hackathon, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/moral-wiggle-room-in-ai}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/moral-wiggle-room-in-ai}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026