The AI Frontier in Humanitarian Aid — Embracing Possibilities and Addressing Risks

Barry, M., Hansen, J., & Darmstadt, G. L. (2025).

New England Journal of Medicine.

https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp2505435

Here is how it opens:

During disasters, timely response is critical. For example, after an earthquake — such as the 7.7-magnitude earthquake that devastated Myanmar in March 2025 — people who are trapped under collapsed buildings face a steep decline in their chance of survival after 48 hours. Yet the scope of devastation, combined with limited resources for disaster response and uncertainty about on-the-ground conditions, can constrain rescue efforts. Responders have recently had a new tool at their disposal, however: artificial intelligence (AI).

Shortly after the Myanmar earthquake, a satellite captured images of the affected area, which were sent to Microsoft’s AI for Good Lab. Machine-learning tools were used to analyze the images and assess the location, extent, nature, and severity of the damage.1 Such information, which was gained without the grave risks inherent to entering an unstable disaster zone and much more rapidly than would have been possible with traditional data-gathering and analysis methods, can help organizations quickly and safely prioritize relief efforts in areas that are both highly damaged and densely populated.2 This example reflects one of several ways in which AI is being used to support humanitarian efforts in disaster and conflict zones.

Global conflicts, infectious diseases, natural disasters driven by climate change, and increases in the number of refugees worldwide are magnifying the need for humanitarian services. Regions facing these challenges commonly contend with diminished health care systems, damage to other infrastructure, and shortages of health care workers. The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the weakening of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. State Department further jeopardize access to vital funding, constrain supply chains, and weaken the capacity for humanitarian response.

The article is linked above.

Here are some thoughts:

This article outlines the transformative potential of AI as a novel and powerful tool in the realm of humanitarian aid and crisis response. It moves beyond theory to present concrete applications where AI is being deployed to save lives and increase efficiency in some of the world's most challenging environments. Key innovative uses include leveraging AI with satellite imagery to perform rapid damage assessments after disasters, enabling responders to quickly and safely identify the most critically affected areas. Furthermore, AI is being used to predict disasters through early-warning systems, support refugees with AI-powered chatbots that provide vital information in multiple languages, optimize the delivery of supplies via drones, and enhance remote healthcare by interpreting diagnostic images like radiographs. However, the article strongly cautions that this promising frontier is accompanied by significant challenges, including technical and financial barriers, the risk of algorithmic bias, and serious ethical concerns regarding privacy and human rights, necessitating a responsible and collaborative approach to its development and deployment.

Moral injury is independently associated with suicidal ideation and suicide attempt in high-stress, service-oriented occupations

Griffin, B. J., et al. (2025).

Npj Mental Health Research, 4(1).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-025-00151-9

Abstract

This study explores the link between moral injury and suicidal thoughts and behaviors among US military veterans, healthcare workers, and first responders (N = 1232). Specifically, it investigates the risk associated with moral injury that is not attributable to common mental health issues. Among the participants, 12.1% reported experiencing suicidal ideation in the past two weeks, and 7.4% had attempted suicide in their lifetime. Individuals who screened positive for probable moral injury (6.0% of the sample) had significantly higher odds of current suicidal ideation (AOR = 3.38, 95% CI = 1.65, 6.96) and lifetime attempt (AOR = 6.20, 95% CI = 2.87, 13.40), even after accounting for demographic, occupational, and mental health factors. The findings highlight the need to address moral injury alongside other mental health issues in comprehensive suicide prevention programs for high-stress, service-oriented professions.

Here are some thoughts:

This study found that moral injury—a psychological distress resulting from events that violate one's moral beliefs—is independently associated with a significantly higher risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among high-stress, service-oriented professionals, including military veterans, healthcare workers, and first responders. Even after accounting for factors like PTSD and depression, those screening positive for probable moral injury had approximately three times higher odds of recent suicidal ideation and six times higher odds of a lifetime suicide attempt. The findings highlight the need to address moral injury specifically within suicide prevention efforts for these populations.

The Cruelty is the Point: Harming the Most Vulnerable in America

This administration has weaponized bureaucracy, embarking on a chilling campaign of calculated cruelty. While many children, disabled, poor, and working poor grapple with profound food insecurity, their response is not to strengthen the social safety net, but to actively shred it.

They are zealously fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to let families go hungry, stripping SNAP benefits from the most vulnerable. 

Yet the most deafening sound is the silence from the GOP—a complicit chorus where not a single supposed fiscal hawk or moral conservative dares to stand against this raw, unadulterated malice. 

Their collective inaction reveals a party that has abandoned any pretense of compassion, proving that for them, the poor and struggling are not a priority to protect, but a problem to be punished.

Beyond right and wrong: A new theoretical model for understanding moral injury

Vaknin, O., & Ne’eman-Haviv, V. (2025).

European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 9(3), 100569.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2025.100569

Abstract

Recent research has increasingly focused on the role of moral frameworks in understanding trauma and traumatic events, leading to the recognition of "moral injury" as a clinical syndrome. Although various definitions exist, there is still a lack of consensus on the nature and consequences of moral injury. This article proposes a new theoretical model that broadens the study of moral injury to include diverse populations, suggesting it arises not only from traumatic experiences but also from conflicts between moral ideals and reality. By integrating concepts such as prescriptive cognitions, post hoc thinking, and cognitive flexibility, the model portrays moral injury as existing on a continuum, affecting a wide range of individuals. The article explores implications for treatment and emphasizes the need for follow-up empirical studies to validate the proposed model. It also suggests the possibility that moral injury is on a continuum, in addition to the possibility of explaining this process. This approach offers new insights into prevention and intervention strategies, highlighting the broader applicability of moral injury beyond military contexts.

Here are some thoughts:

This article proposes a new model suggesting that moral injury is not just a result of clear-cut moral violations (like in combat), but can also arise from everyday moral dilemmas where a person is forced to choose between competing "rights" or is unable to act according to their moral ideals due to external constraints.

Key points of the new model:

Core Cause: Injury stems from the internal conflict and tension between one's moral ideals ("prescriptive cognitions") and the reality of a situation, not necessarily from a traumatic betrayal or act.

The Process: It happens when a person faces a moral dilemma, makes a necessary but imperfect decision, experiences moral failure, and then gets stuck in negative "post-hoc" thinking without the cognitive flexibility to adapt their moral framework.

Broader Impact: This expands moral injury beyond soldiers to include civilians and professionals like healthcare workers, teachers, and social workers who face systemic ethical challenges.

New Treatment Approach: Healing should focus less on forgiveness for a specific wrong and more on building cognitive flexibility and helping people integrate moral suffering into a more adaptable moral identity.

In short, the article argues that moral injury exists on a spectrum and is a broader disturbance of one's moral worldview, not just a clinical syndrome from a single, overtly traumatic event.

High Self-Control Individuals Prefer Meaning over Pleasure

Bernecker, K., Becker, D., & Guobyte, A. (2025).

Social Psychological and Personality Science.

https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251323948

Abstract

The link between self-control and success in various life domains is often explained by people avoiding hedonic pleasures, such as through inhibition, making the right choices, or using adaptive strategies. We propose an additional explanation: High self-control individuals prefer spending time on meaningful activities rather than pleasurable ones, whereas the opposite is true for individuals with high trait hedonic capacity. In Studies 1a and 1b, participants either imagined (N = 449) or actually engaged in activities (N = 231, pre-registered) during unexpected free time. They then rated their experience. In both studies, trait self-control was positively related to the eudaimonic experience (e.g., meaning) of activities and unrelated to their hedonic experience (e.g., pleasure). The opposite was true for trait hedonic capacity. Study 2 (N = 248) confirmed these findings using a repeated-choice paradigm. The preference for eudaimonic over hedonic experiences may be a key aspect of successful long-term goal pursuit.

A pdf is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This research proposes a new explanation for why people with high self-control are successful. Rather than just being good at resisting temptation, they have a fundamental preference for activities that feel meaningful and valuable, known as eudaimonic experiences.

Across three studies, individuals with high trait self-control consistently chose to spend their free time on activities they found meaningful, both in hypothetical scenarios and in real-life situations. Conversely, individuals with a high "trait hedonic capacity"—a natural skill for enjoying simple pleasures—showed a clear preference for activities that were pleasurable and fun. The studies found that these traits predict not just what people choose to do, but also how they experience the same activities; a person with high self-control will find more meaning in an activity than their peers, while a person with high hedonic capacity will find more pleasure in it.

This inherent preference for meaning over pleasure may be a key reason why those with high self-control find it easier to pursue long-term goals, as they are naturally drawn to the sense of purpose that such goal-directed actions provide.

International stability and change in explicit and implicit attitudes: An investigation spanning 33 countries, five social groups, and 11 years (2009–2019).

Kurdi, B., Charlesworth, T. E. S., & Mair, P. (2025).

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 

154(6), 1643–1666.

https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001746

Abstract

Whether and when explicit (self-reported) and implicit (automatically revealed) social group attitudes can change has been a central topic of psychological inquiry over the past decades. Here, we take a novel approach to answering these longstanding questions by leveraging data collected via the Project Implicit International websites from 1.4 million participants across 33 countries, five social group targets (age, body weight, sexuality, skin tone, and race), and 11 years (2009–2019). Bayesian time-series modeling using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation revealed changes toward less bias in all five explicit attitudes, ranging from a decrease of 18% for body weight to 43% for sexuality. By contrast, implicit attitudes showed more variation in trends: Implicit sexuality attitudes decreased by 36%; implicit race, age, and body weight attitudes remained stable; and implicit skin tone attitudes showed a curvilinear effect, first decreasing and then increasing in bias, with a 20% increase overall. These results suggest that cultural-level explicit attitude change is best explained by domain-general mechanisms (e.g., the adoption of egalitarian norms), whereas implicit attitude change is best explained by mechanisms specific to each social group target. Finally, exploratory analyses involving ecological correlates of change (e.g., population density and temperature) identified consistent patterns for all explicit attitudes, thus underscoring the domain-general nature of underlying mechanisms. Implicit attitudes again showed more variation, with body-related (age and body weight) and sociodemographic (sexuality, race, and skin tone) targets exhibiting opposite patterns. These insights facilitate novel theorizing about processes and mechanisms of cultural-level change in social group attitudes.

Impact Statement

How did explicit (self-reported) and implicit (automatic) attitudes toward five social categories (age, body weight, sexuality, skin tone, and race) change across 33 countries between 2009 and 2019? Harnessing advances in statistical techniques and the availability of large-scale international data sets, we show that all five explicit attitudes became less negative toward stigmatized groups. Implicit attitudes showed more variation by target: Implicit sexuality attitudes also decreased in bias, but implicit age, body weight, and race attitudes did not change, and implicit skin tone attitudes even increased in bias favoring light-skinned over dark-skinned people. These findings underscore the possibility of widespread changes in a direction of more positivity toward stigmatized social groups, even at an automatic level. However, increasing bias in certain domains suggests that these changes are far from inevitable. As such, more research will be needed to understand how and why social group attitudes change at the cultural level.

A pdf is here.

Here is the tldr:

Between 2009 and 2019, explicit (self-reported) attitudes toward five stigmatized social groups—age, body weight, sexuality, skin tone, and race—became significantly less biased across 33 countries. In contrast, implicit (automatic) attitudes showed mixed trends:

• Decreased bias for sexuality (−36%),
• Remained stable for age, body weight, and race,
• Increased bias for skin tone (+20%, favoring light over dark skin).

These findings suggest that explicit attitude change is driven by broad, domain-general forces (like global shifts toward egalitarian norms), while implicit attitude change depends on group-specific cultural and historical factors. The study used data from 1.4 million participants and advanced Bayesian modeling, highlighting both hopeful progress and concerning backsliding in societal biases.

Are moral people happier? Answers from reputation-based measures of moral character.

Sun, J., Wu, W., & Goodwin, G. P. (2025).

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000539

Abstract

Philosophers have long debated whether moral virtue contributes to happiness or whether morality and happiness are in conflict. Yet, little empirical research directly addresses this question. Here, we examined the association between reputation-based measures of everyday moral character (operationalized as a composite of widely accepted moral virtues such as compassion, honesty, and fairness) and self-reported well-being across two cultures. In Study 1, close others reported on U.S. undergraduate students’ moral character (two samples; Ns = 221/286). In Study 2, Chinese employees (N = 711) reported on their coworkers’ moral character and their own well-being. To better sample the moral extremes, in Study 3, U.S. participants nominated “targets” who were among the most moral, least moral, and morally average people they personally knew. Targets (N = 281) self-reported their well-being and nominated informants who provided a second, continuous measure of the targets’ moral character. These studies showed that those who are more moral in the eyes of close others, coworkers, and acquaintances generally experience a greater sense of subjective well-being and meaning in life. These associations were generally robust when controlling for key demographic variables (including religiosity) and informant-reported liking. There were no significant differences in the strength of the associations between moral character and well-being across two major subdimensions of both moral character (kindness and integrity) and well-being (subjective well-being and meaning in life). Together, these studies provide the most comprehensive evidence to date of a positive and general association between everyday moral character and well-being. 

A pdf of an earlier version is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This research concludes that moral people are, in fact, happier. Across three separate studies conducted in both the United States and China, the researchers found a consistent and positive link between a person's moral character—defined by widely accepted virtues like compassion, honesty, and fairness, as judged by those who know them—and their self-reported well-being. This association held true whether the moral evaluations came from close friends, family members, coworkers, or acquaintances, and it applied to both a general sense of happiness and a feeling of meaning in life.

Importantly, the findings were robust even when accounting for factors like how much the person was liked by others, and they contradicted the philosophical notion that morality leads to unhappiness through excessive self-sacrifice or distress. Instead, the data suggest that one of the primary reasons more moral individuals experience greater happiness is that their virtuous behavior fosters stronger, more positive relationships with others. In essence, the study provides strong empirical support for the idea that everyday moral goodness and personal fulfillment go hand-in-hand.

Moral trauma, moral distress, moral injury, and moral injury disorder: definitions and assessments

VanderWeele, T. J., Wortham,  et al. (2025).

Frontiers in psychology, 16, 1422441.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1422441

Abstract

We propose new definitions for moral injury and moral distress, encompassing many prior definitions, but broadening moral injury to more general classes of victims, in addition to perpetrators and witnesses, and broadening moral distress to include settings not involving institutional constraints. We relate these notions of moral distress and moral injury to each other, and locate them on a “moral trauma spectrum” that includes considerations of both persistence and severity. Instances in which moral distress is particularly severe and persistent, and extends beyond cultural and religious norms, might be considered to constitute “moral injury disorder.” We propose a general assessment to evaluate various aspects of this proposed moral trauma spectrum, and one that can be used both within and outside of military contexts, and for perpetrators, witnesses, victims, or more generally.

Here are some thoughts:

This article proposes updated, broader definitions of moral injury and moral distress, expanding moral injury to include victims (not just perpetrators or witnesses) and moral distress to include non-institutional contexts. The authors introduce a unified concept called the “moral trauma spectrum,” which ranges from temporary moral distress to persistent moral injury—and in severe, functionally impairing cases, possibly a “moral injury disorder.” They distinguish moral trauma from PTSD, noting different causes (moral transgressions or worldview disruptions vs. fear-based trauma) and treatment needs. The paper also presents a new assessment tool with definitional and symptom items applicable across military, healthcare, and civilian settings. Finally, it notes the recent inclusion of “Moral Problems” in the DSM-5-TR as a significant step toward clinical recognition.

Scaling Laws Are Unreliable for Downstream Tasks: A Reality Check

Lourie, N., Hu, M. Y., & Cho, K. (2025).

ArXiv.org.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00885

Abstract

Downstream scaling laws aim to predict task performance at larger scales from pretraining losses at smaller scales. Whether this prediction should be possible is unclear: some works demonstrate that task performance follows clear linear scaling trends under transformation, whereas others point out fundamental challenges to downstream scaling laws, such as emergence and inverse scaling. In this work, we conduct a meta-analysis of existing data on downstream scaling laws, finding that close fit to linear scaling laws only occurs in a minority of cases: 39% of the time. Furthermore, seemingly benign changes to the experimental setting can completely change the scaling trend. Our analysis underscores the need to understand the conditions under which scaling laws succeed. To fully model the relationship between pretraining loss and downstream task performance, we must embrace the cases in which scaling behavior deviates from linear trends.

Here is a summary:

This paper challenges the reliability of downstream scaling laws—the idea that you can predict how well a large language model will perform on specific tasks (like question answering or reasoning) based on its pretraining loss at smaller scales. While some prior work claims a consistent, often linear relationship between pretraining loss and downstream performance, this study shows that such predictable scaling is actually the exception, not the rule.

Key findings:

• Only 39% of 46 evaluated tasks showed smooth, predictable (linear-like) scaling.
• The rest exhibited irregular behaviors: inverse scaling (performance gets worse as models grow), nonmonotonic trends, high noise, no trend, or sudden “breakthrough” improvements (emergence).
• Validation dataset choice matters: switching the corpus used to compute pretraining perplexity can flip conclusions about which model or pretraining data is better.
• Experimental details matter: even with the same task and data, small changes in setup (e.g., prompt format, number of answer choices) can qualitatively change scaling behavior.

Conclusion: Downstream scaling laws are context-dependent and fragile. Researchers and practitioners should not assume linear scaling holds universally—and must validate scaling behavior in their own specific settings before relying on extrapolations.