Here are some notes that I have from a meeting NAME_1, a philosopher at Oxford. I am an AI reseracher/PhD student, and the meeting was between me, my advisor (NAME_2), and my coauthor (NAME_3). We are building an AI system and dataset for modeling morality, with an emphasis on plurality and rich moral features.

Here is a very stream of thought, messy set of notes from the meeting. Please help me extract the main points that we discussed, along with any implications, in an outline.

Messy Notes:
```
Are we trying to reproduce whatever religious perspective on X
Already you’re making those moral judgments. The question is - are we doing a social
That disappoints me if that’s a view - 
The other thing to bear in mind is. Don’t just think those views.

If you do clearly descriptive - if you don’t do that, you get canceled. Because if you don’t you create a scary AI thing which will harm people.
On the other hand, if you explore “what is the true moral value”. They worry that such AI technology will be misused by people in power to project their values.

What do we do now?
Right now, the model output looks pretty good. The reason why it’s good is not because these models are large. The reason why it’s good is because they hired very smart people to write such lawyer style, elaborate text.  People speculate that it is California tech bros being propagated. Because it’s closed, you cannot inspect and correct anything. We wanted to see whether we can explicitly spell out what this training data can look like by
