#Ethics

A recent Harvard-led study suggests that GPT-4o, OpenAI’s newest large language model, exhibits behaviors resembling human cognitive dissonance. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on May 28, 2025, the findings prompt fresh questions about how advanced AI processes information and makes choices. For Thailand, where AI is increasingly used in classrooms, clinics, and public services, the study raises important considerations for safeguarding reliability and trust in AI-powered tools.

A growing consensus among computational neuroscientists and AI researchers is that artificial intelligence is not a direct replica of the human brain. That distinction isn’t a flaw; it’s an invitation to new frontiers in technology and science. The latest reflections come from a broader conversation sparked by research and journalism across leading institutions, underscoring how AI can be optimized while deepening our understanding of human cognition.

Thai readers have watched AI tools become integral to healthcare, education, and everyday life. Yet new insights remind us that AI’s powers rest on models that simplify how the brain works, even as they enable remarkable capabilities. The results invite a practical view: AI can boost efficiency and problem-solving without claiming to replicate human thinking, emotion, or memory.

Recent research published in Quanta Magazine reveals a growing consensus among computational neuroscientists and artificial intelligence (AI) researchers: AI, despite its name and inspiration, is fundamentally unlike the human brain—but that’s not a flaw, it’s an opportunity for new frontiers in both technology and neuroscience. This divergence, explored in the article “AI Is Nothing Like a Brain, and That’s OK” (Quanta Magazine, 2025), is now informing efforts to both make AI more efficient and gain deeper understanding of our own minds.

A new wave of powerful artificial intelligence systems—from leading global tech companies like OpenAI, Google, and DeepSeek—are increasingly generating factual errors despite their advanced capabilities, sparking growing concerns among users, researchers, and businesses worldwide. As these A.I. bots become more capable at tasks like complex reasoning and mathematics, their tendency to produce incorrect or entirely fabricated information—known as “hallucinations”—is not only persisting but actually worsening, as revealed in a recent investigative report by The New York Times (nytimes.com).

A new wave of powerful artificial intelligence systems from leading tech companies is increasingly producing factual errors. As these bots tackle complex tasks like reasoning and math, their tendency to generate misinformation—known as hallucinations—appears to be persisting or worsening. This trend is highlighted by a recent investigative report from a major publication.

For Thai audiences, the rise of chatbots and digital assistants touches everyday life, work, and education. When AI is used for medical guidance, legal information, or business decisions, these hallucinations can cause costly mistakes and erode trust.

A rapid surge in artificial intelligence is igniting a global conversation about the future role of people in work, culture, and decision-making. As AI systems become more capable and autonomous, experts warn that machines may eventually outperform humans in many tasks. The key question: how can Thai society keep humans central in an era of smart technology?

This debate matters in Thailand as automation could reshape job markets, education, and daily life. A recent international analysis highlights anxieties among workers and educators about obsolescence, while also sparking hope for breakthroughs that could benefit society if managed wisely. The challenge is to ensure humans remain essential contributors in a world where AI could surpass many cognitive and creative abilities.

The accelerating progress of artificial intelligence has sparked an intense international debate about the future role of human beings in society, with leading thinkers warning that AI could soon outperform people at nearly every task — raising fundamental questions about human relevance in work, culture, and decision-making. As technologies grow more sophisticated and autonomous, experts urge communities, governments, and businesses to grapple with the possibility of a world where AI is “better at everything,” and to consider urgent societal adaptations.

As artificial intelligence reshapes work, learning, and everyday life, a notable segment in Thailand questions or limits its adoption. AI tools, from chat assistants to smart recommendations, are increasingly influential. Yet many Thai readers see value in preserving human creativity, mindful energy use, and genuine social connections. This perspective reflects broader concerns about automation’s impact on jobs and culture, and how technology fits Thailand’s unique society.

Global momentum around AI is clear. Generative AI now attracts billions of monthly interactions, signaling a rapid shift in how people access information and craft content. For Thailand, the reach of digital technology—from Bangkok’s smart-city ambitions to remote-commerce—means AI is familiar but carries distinctive implications for local livelihoods and daily life.

In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT and their rivals are reshaping the workplace, education, and even leisure activities, a notable segment of individuals are actively choosing to resist – or at least question – this digital transformation. As AI becomes an invisible hand guiding everything from web searches to music recommendations, the reluctance to embrace it reflects deeper concerns about human creativity, environmental costs, and the fabric of genuine social connection BBC News.

New neuroscience findings are shedding light on why people often comply with orders that conflict with their conscience. This reporting synthesizes recent insights from a Skeptic magazine feature on the neuroscience of compliance, translated for Thai readers. The aim is to understand how brain processes and social pressures shape obedience, and what individuals and communities can do to foster ethical autonomy.

From classrooms to workplaces, obedience influences Thai society in meaningful ways. The Thai concept of greng jai—showing respect and avoiding offense—can reinforce deference to authority. This makes understanding the science of compliance especially relevant for Thai students, employees, and citizens alike. Debates around hazing in universities or organizational misconduct illustrate how uncritical obedience can contribute to harmful outcomes. As Thailand modernizes, there is growing emphasis on encouraging people to question authority when appropriate.

Why do people so often comply with authority—even when orders contradict their conscience? New neuroscience research is beginning to provide concrete answers to this age-old question, illuminating the brain mechanisms that drive obedience and the social pressures that can make compliance nearly automatic. Drawing upon insights from the recent feature, “Why We Follow Orders: The Neuroscience of Compliance and Control” in Skeptic magazine, this report examines what scientists have uncovered, why these findings matter in everyday Thai life, and what we can do to foster greater ethical autonomy.

In an era of ongoing social, political, and workplace challenges where authority and individual will often collide, understanding why people obey orders is more relevant than ever for Thai society. Recent discussions sparked by “Why We Follow Orders: The Neuroscience of Compliance and Control,” a feature on the Michael Shermer Show, have brought new research to the public eye, shedding light on the brain mechanisms and situational dynamics that drive human compliance. This emerging field offers crucial lessons not only for authorities and educators but also for anyone navigating the fine line between following instructions and maintaining personal agency.

Obedience to authority shapes many aspects of Thai life—from classrooms and workplaces to public safety. A fresh wave of research highlights why people tend to follow commands, and what this means for personal agency in a modern Thai context. The discussion stems from “Why We Follow Orders: The Neuroscience of Compliance and Control,” a feature featured on the Michael Shermer Show, which translates cutting-edge science into practical insights for everyday life.

A groundbreaking brain-machine interface study reveals that when people intend to move, they perceive their actions as happening faster than when movements are involuntary. This finding, reported in PLOS Biology on April 17, highlights how intent shapes our sense of time and action. The work could influence debates on free will and inform future therapies for paralysis, with particular relevance to Thailand’s healthcare landscape where spinal injuries remain a significant challenge.

A new study using pioneering brain-machine interface technology has found that when people intend to move, they perceive their actions as happening more quickly than if the same movement is involuntary—a fascinating window into how intent shapes our perception of time and action. This discovery, published in PLOS Biology on April 17, may have major implications for debates about free will and could influence future therapies for people living with paralysis (source).

A growing global conversation about mental health is increasingly focusing on the professionals who provide care. Viral discussions about “terrible therapists” highlight problematic practices and raise questions about how to ensure therapy is supportive, ethical, and effective.

In Thailand, interest in counseling is rising, yet stigma and shortages of trained professionals persist. The Ministry of Public Health reports more Thais seeking mental health support in urban areas and among youth. However, the quality of care varies widely. Social media conversations and stories from Thai users mirror global concerns, with some individuals describing disengagement, judgment, or breaches of confidentiality by therapists.

A growing number of people worldwide are opening up about their struggles not just with mental health, but with the very professionals meant to help them. Recent viral discussions, including a BuzzFeed article compiling stories of “terrible therapists,” are shining a harsh spotlight on problematic practices within the mental health industry (BuzzFeed). These personal accounts — ranging from therapists giving unsolicited advice to crossing ethical boundaries — are prompting experts and individuals alike to ask: how can we make sure mental health care is genuinely helpful, not harmful?