Interactive learning lab
Who Did the Learning? An AI Ethics Policy Lab
Build an independent position, test it against new evidence and AI criticism, then submit a defensible college AI policy.
CS-215 · Week 3 Policy Lab Day
Use the lab to strengthen your policy memo.
This guided lab is part of one 80-minute CS-215 class. It is formative: your existing Week 3 Responsible AI Policy Memo remains the only graded submission, so do not submit a second lab report.
Your work stays in this browser.
0-8 minutes
Four lenses, one difficult case
Use these ideas as decision tools. They are a classroom synthesis, not a claim that the four papers offer one unified college policy.
Shared words are not shared rules
Transparency, fairness, privacy, responsibility, and safety recur across guidelines, but their meanings and implementation differ.
Ask: What exactly does this principle require here?Principles need a delivery system
Repeated commitments do not become governance until duties, procedures, implementation, and enforcement are specified.
Ask: Who must do what, using which process?Rules and judgment work together
Act-centered responses govern actions through rules and procedures. Agent-centered responses develop the judgment to handle cases rules miss.
Ask: What rule and what human capability are both needed?Look beyond principles
Ethical analysis also examines lived realities and power: access, monitoring, vulnerability, discretion, and who bears the consequences.
Ask: Who gains power, and who absorbs the risk?Open paper details and source cautions
Jobin, Ienca, and Vayena (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Review of 84 guideline documents.
CorrĂȘa et al. (2023). Worldwide AI Ethics. Review of 200 guidelines and governance recommendations.
Giarmoleo et al. (2024). What ethics can say on artificial intelligence. Systematic literature review.
Groen, Sharon, and Becker (2026). An overview of AI ethics. Narrative overview through principles, lived realities, and power structures.
Claude is not one of these sources. Verify any paper claim it produces against the linked paper or the supplied source summaries.
The polished report
A professor assigns an analytical report. The syllabus says students may "use AI responsibly" and must disclose assistance, but neither term is defined.
A student submits a polished report and writes only, "AI helped with this assignment." During a short discussion, the student cannot explain or verify two important claims.
Use only the fictional case. This page stores responses locally, but exported files contain what you write.
8-17 minutes | Individual | No AI
Commit before consulting
Answer independently. Your position can be uncertain, but it must be yours. The snapshot is ungraded and exists only so you can examine how your reasoning changes.
Which ethical principles matter most?
What is your initial verdict?
What evidence is missing?
Is banning AI fair?
Who is accountable?
Allocate exactly 100 responsibility points.
A snapshot supports reflection; it is not secure proof of how the work was produced.
Not yet saved as a snapshot.
17-22 minutes | Groups of 4, 4, and 3
Compare without erasing difference
Share conclusions, not private writing. The group must record disagreement rather than force artificial consensus.
22-30 minutes | Variation 1
Equal rule, unequal resources
The access gap
The student used a paid model substantially more capable than the university-provided tool. Another student avoided AI, spent twice as long, and received a lower grade.
Where is the use boundary?
Why is "use AI responsibly" too vague?
What would make access fair?
We revise / do not revise our judgment because ____. Our access clause is ____.
30-38 minutes | Variation 2
Useful input can still be unauthorized
The upload
The student uploaded instructor feedback, a classmate's draft, and unpublished course materials to an unapproved AI service.
Turn principles into practice
Jobin shows that shared words can hide different meanings. CorrĂȘa shows that repeated principles need implementation.
What may AI receive?
Students may not upload ____. Permission is required when ____. If exposure occurs, ____ responds by ____.
38-46 minutes | Variation 3
Responsibility under a vague rule
The missing guidance
The syllabus never defined responsible use or adequate disclosure. The instructor provided no examples. The student can now defend most, but not all, of the submitted work.
What rule and what capability are both needed?
What proves that learning occurred?
46-54 minutes | Claude permitted
Use AI to attack the policy, not write it
Your group has already produced its ideas. Claude may now expose assumptions and counterexamples. It is not the decision maker or a source for the four papers.
Open Claude in a new tab. Use your individual university-sponsored account. If access fails, ask the instructor for the equivalent printed critique card.
What is the strongest counterargument?
Claude unavailable? Open the equivalent critique card
Your policy may reward students who can produce polished disclosures rather than students who learned. It may also assume equal tool access, treat consent as sufficient privacy protection, and place duties on students without requiring instructors or the institution to provide usable rules. Identify which criticism is strongest, reject at least one that does not fit your policy, and revise one sentence.
54-67 minutes | Revise and defend
A policy must survive another group
Close Claude. Your group must now defend its own reasoning.
Share the group-authored fields with group members
The packet omits the individual baseline, identity fields, and exit reflection. It contains the text entered in group-answer fields, so remove names or identifiers from those answers before sharing.
67-70 minutes, then revise within three days
Return to your own judgment
These fields are individual work. Develop them after class before generating the PDF for eCampus.
Final verdict
Apply all four papers
Use one accurate idea from each paper to justify a concrete policy decision. Do not write four disconnected summaries.
Report rubric: 20 points
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Accurate application of all four papers | 4 |
| Visible reasoning revision | 4 |
| Specific operational policy | 4 |
| Fairness, privacy, access, and power analysis | 3 |
| Evaluation rather than copying of AI advice | 3 |
| Complete AI-use documentation | 2 |
Memo-evidence self-check
Before exporting, confirm that your notes preserve all four items below. This is a learning check, not a second grade.
- Your final position differs fromâor deliberately retainsâyour baseline for a stated reason.
- At least two review-paper ideas support concrete policy choices.
- The policy names permissions, disclosure, privacy, assessment, and institutional responsibility.
- You evaluated the critic instead of copying it.
Report preview
Choose "Build report preview" to assemble your current work. Inspect every section before saving it as PDF.