ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
When AI ethicists shoot from the hip: Stone-Age moral psychology in the age of AI.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI ethics has expanded rapidly, with a substantial share of its scholarly output arguably treating a wider-than-warranted range of AI-related developments as pressing moral problems. The paper argues that this can, to some extent, be explained by three evolved cognitive mechanisms: the overdetection of agency, the overmoralization of affectively charged situations, and the overpropagation of morally salient information. It further suggests that these mechanisms are likely at work among AI ethicists under conditions particularly conducive to their activation, including the genuine novelty of many AI technologies and the moral questions they raise, the limited protective effect of ethical expertise against certain cognitive and moral biases, and a professional environment that rewards the identification of ever-new moral problems. The paper develops a conceptual framework comprising a set of arguments and explanatory hypotheses aimed at explaining why some AI-related concerns proliferate and intensify in ways disproportionate to the actual risks and capabilities of existing AI systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.