Models & Labs · United States

We Need to Embed Ethics Into Our Engineering Courses

Credited to IEEE Spectrum · spectrum.ieee.org · 9h ago

Photograph · IEEE Spectrum

In mid-September, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei joined a growing group of researchers calling for the AI industry to slow down. While some have questioned these researchers’ motivation for voicing concerns about the rapid pace of development, the plea highlighted a key tension between safety and speed. The underlying problem is not simply a technical error, but a sociotechnical failure: Pressure to move quickly has made it hard for engineers to fully assess and manage new risks of increasingly powerful AI systems. It is a clear warning that responsible engineering requires more than technical expertise; engineers must also understand workplace pressures, moral and ethical rules, and the social consequences rooted in the systems they create.

Cases like this, alongside invasive surveillance technologies and biased AI tools, have exposed serious shortcomings in how engineers recognize and address the ethical and social implications of their work. While the need to educate graduates in ethics and social responsibility is widely recognized, a persistent gap remains—these topics are too often treated as afterthoughts, disconnected from the technical content of engineering coursework. This siloed approach leaves graduates ill-equipped to address real-world challenges; indeed, only about a third of engineering professionals in the United States report having received training on their public welfare responsibilities during their formal engineering education.

We are working to bridge this gap by designing two complementary instructional approaches, one that integrates social issues directly into foundation technical coursework and a second that prepares students to act as “public welfare watchdogs” through a standalone engineering course. By embedding ethics and social responsibility training directly into the core of undergraduate engineering coursework, we equip future professionals with the agency they will need to protect the public good.

The gap in instruction about ethics and social responsibility

Across the engineering profession, there is a persistent belief that technical skill-building is central to engineering, while ethical, social, and public welfare concerns are peripheral or distracting. This technical/social dualism is evident even in the evaluation of scholarly research. For instance, we recently submitted an academic position paper discussing this ethics education gap to a leading peer-reviewed engineering journal. It was dismissed by reviewers along the very same dualism it described.

One reviewer warned that it would be “highly irresponsible” to challenge technical skill-building as “the foundation of any kind of engineering” by adding ethics and social responsibility training into engineering classrooms. Another reviewer objected that integrating these considerations into foundational courses risks “distracting the students from fully absorbing the technology.” These comments miss the core argument of our work: that ethics and social responsibility are integral to responsible technical practice.

Today, accreditation agencies like ABET (formerly known as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) and professional licensing bodies like the National Society of Professional Engineers mandate student outcomes related to social and public welfare consequences. But these curriculum requirements tend to be unhelpfully generic and minimally enforced. As a result, engineering students often receive ethics instruction through introductory or non-engineering coursework, where the focus is on codes of conduct and academic integrity, rather than deeper topics of social responsibility. This instruction is almost always disconnected from the complex real-world dilemmas engineers face.

Indeed, we find that only ethics instruction in actual engineering courses (not in other parts of the curriculum) can effectively instill ethical awareness as professionals. Concerningly, only about 4 in 10 engineers in the United States recall receiving this kind of training, and 3 in 10 report never receiving training on their public welfare responsibilities at any point in their careers. This leaves most of the profession underprepared to handle the complex challenges of engineering practice.

A new approach: Integrating technical and social dimensions

To advance a new paradigm—one that embeds ethics and social responsibility issues within the undergraduate engineering curriculum—we’ve designed two innovative course-based approaches: a library of one-hour sociotechnical modules for foundational circuits courses (described here and here ) and a new engineering course dedicated to public welfare responsibilities.

The first approach integrates discussions about relevant social issues directly into foundational engineering courses, where students begin to form their identities as engineers. “Introduction to Circuits” is typically the first course in the electrical engineering major and is a requirement for many other engineering disciplines, making it a powerful site for introducing social content and ethical reasoning. We designed several one-hour modules for this course, where social issues provide context for a technical topic, offering a manageable entry point for faculty who may feel ill-prepared to teach about ethics and social responsibility.

While many engineering faculty recognize the importance of teaching students about these topics, they struggle to integrate them into their courses amid heavy teaching and research demands. To overcome these challenges, each module provides ready-to-use materials, including lecture slides with scripts and homework and exam problems. Integrating these modules directly into the course signals to students that sociotechnical awareness is not an “add-on,” but a required professional competency.

Our module on hospital power prioritization, for instance, connects the technical topics of power and equivalent circuits to the ethical challenges of healthcare infrastructure. Students learn about the reality of “red outlets” in medical settings, debating the power needs of specific wards (e.g., the intensive care unit, operating rooms, and physiotherapy rooms) to decide which branches should receive emergency power during a hypothetical outage.

Our conflict minerals module connects the technical topic of capacitors to the global tantalum supply chain. Students calculate the amount of tantalum used in cell phones and identify mining locations in regions like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where revenue often fuels armed conflict and human rights abuses. Students research the conflict-mineral policies of major companies such as Apple and Samsung and reflect on their future roles as ethical designers and consumers.

Student responses to these modules have been overwhelmingly positive. In interviews, students told us that the content helped them get away from the “stigma that engineers only worry about math” and made the work more meaningful. We plan to share the modules widely to help circuits instructors across the globe bridge the technical-social divide.

Beyond these integrated modules, our second approach is a standalone engineering course—Public Welfare Responsibilities in Engineering (PWRE)—that helps round out students’ sociotechnical education by preparing them to fulfil their professional obligations as engineers. While most dedicated ethics courses end by introducing engineers’ abstract responsibilities, PWRE helps students recognize specific public welfare concerns, enhances their motivation to act when they encounter them, and teaches concrete, practical intervention strategies.

In addition to teaching students about professional codes, such as the IEEE Code of Ethics, PWRE engages students in discussion of where these formal definitions may fall short, and how structural barriers such as workplace culture can hinder engineers from fulfilling these responsibilities. Then, the course equips students with intervention strategies. Students learn about their rights and responsibilities as whistleblowers, review tactics for seeking advice from professional societies, and practice writing op-eds to raise the alarm about ethical issues to the broader public. Our research shows that the course produces notable shifts in students’ ethical agency, strengthening their ability to serve as “public welfare watchdogs” in the modern workplace.

Ethical engineers for the future

Today’s engineering graduates face complex sociotechnical challenges beyond AI expansion, including climate change and global supply chains; they need tools to navigate ambiguity and act ethically in uncertain contexts. To meet these evolving demands, engineering education must move beyond outdated modes of instruction that focus only on building technical skills—some of which may soon be outsourced to AI. We must fundamentally reimagine the role of ethics and social responsibility, embedding them across the engineering curriculum and throughout the professional formation of engineers.

All engineers learn to solve problems, but ethical engineers can also discern which problems are worth solving and anticipate the consequences of innovation for society. By centering ethics and social responsibility as core priorities of the profession, we can prepare engineers to be stewards of technology and trusted voices in public discourse.

As one student reflected after participating in our modules, “we are a part of the issue if we don’t decide to fix it.”

Models & LabsUnited States

How AI Is Upending the World of Mathematics

Credited to Bloomberg$ · bloomberg.com13h ago

Useful

Last month, OpenAI announced that it had produced an AI-generated proof for the Navier-Stokes problem. LLMs used to be bad at counting, but now they are solving math problems that have stumped humans for decades. Meanwhile, at universities, the problem of AI in education…

View the article · $Bloomberg

Front Method

Models & Labs · United States

Asana cuts model costs 76x in browser tests with GPT-6.1 Sol

Credited to OpenAI · openai.com · 14h ago

Using GPT‑6 Astra in Codex, Asana made its browser agent 76x cheaper and 5x faster in tests to offer customers more capable models.

Lower estimated model costs with the optimized GPT-6.1 Sol workflow

Faster browser runs with the optimized GPT-6.1 Sol workflow

Average estimated model cost with the optimized GPT-6.1 Sol workflow

With GPT‑6 Astra in Codex running experiments, Asana optimized its browser agent’s workflow on GPT‑6.1 Sol to run 76x cheaper and 5x faster.

Asana’s StackAI CTO, Frank Hidalgo, PhD, set out to make the browser agent faster and cheaper to run. He directed GPT‑6 Astra in Codex to investigate the agent, test improvements, and compare the results. Work he estimates would have taken one to two months by hand took about a week.

“This is what teams of humans and agents look like in practice. An engineer set the direction, GPT-6 Astra ran the experiments, and the results went through Command to production. This demonstrates how Asana brings human and agent teams to life.”

Identifying browser-agent inefficiencies with GPT‑6 Astra

To move quickly, Hidalgo started by using GPT‑6 Astra in Codex to map the codebase and explain how the agent built each model request. GPT‑6 Astra discovered that the agent cached its fixed instructions and tool definitions, but not the growing history of page text and screenshots it gathered, so every request resent that history at full price.

The agent also dropped older screenshots and trimmed text at nearly every step. Each edit altered the history, so caching the history alone would not have helped, and losing those facts could require the agent to revisit pages it had already read.

From an estimated two months of research to one week with GPT‑6 Astra

Hidalgo reviewed GPT‑6 Astra’s proposed fixes and selected three to test:

Extending caching to the agent’s browsing history

Increasing the amount of text it could retain

Removing screenshots in batches rather than at every step

GPT‑6 Astra began with quick tests to establish which variables mattered. Because the code was not designed for controlled experiments, it then refactored the code so one frontend and backend could support many workflows in parallel, each with its own settings.

Astra conducted the full study: history budgets of 120,000 and 480,000 characters and six caching and screenshot policies, each tested three times on each of the four models (see the table below). The best-performing policy allowed screenshots to accumulate to 20 before cutting back to the most recent one. This kept earlier history unchanged for longer stretches between removals. Combined with the larger history budget, it became the optimized workflow. Each configuration performed the same task: collecting six fields for each of 32 books from a public demo catalog, representative of what some Asana customers run in StackAI.

Model A — A smaller, less expensive model from another frontier lab, released Fall 2025; Half the price of GPT‑6.1 Sol

Model B — The model originally used in production, from the same lab as Model A, released Summer 2026; Same price as GPT‑6.1 Sol

Model C — An updated version of Model B, released Fall 2026; Same price as GPT‑6.1 Sol

“This would have taken me one to two months by hand. With GPT-6 Astra in Codex, it took about a week: I’d set a /goal before going to bed and review the results in the morning.”

Bringing model cost below $0.50 per run

For Model B, the optimization reduced estimated model cost from at least $36.21 (some original runs reached the step limit before they finished) to $1.24 per run, a reduction of 29x. The optimized workflow on GPT‑6.1 Sol was 2.6x cheaper still, at $0.47. Every run in the optimized workflow completed the task and returned the correct answer.

Means of 3 runs. ≥: the baseline includes capped runs, so its mean is a lower bound.

The two right folds compare against Model B optimized. Model B ran in phase 1, Model C and Sol 6.1 in phase 2 of the same study (dotted line).

On GPT‑6.1 Sol alone, with the larger history budget, the new caching and screenshot policy reduced cost 4x, from $1.97 to $0.47 per run. Each call was about 3x cheaper, because 89% of the input came from cache at 5% of the uncached price. Runs also became faster: at least 22.5 minutes on the original setup on Model B, roughly four minutes with the optimized workflow on GPT‑6.1 Sol.

Mean of 3 runs, SD whiskers. ≥: mean includes a capped or unfinished run, so the true value is at least this large.

Bars use the blue theme. Read caching effects against the 480k larger-budget bar.

Run markers and SD whiskers are approximate reconstructions from the source image; underlying run values and standard deviations were not available.

The investigation also showed how history management affected whether the agent produced an answer at all. Giving GPT‑6.1 Sol more room to retain its browsing history increased the number of runs that produced an answer from three of 18 with the smaller history budget to all 18 with the larger budget, each with the correct answer. For Hidalgo, the business value is giving customers access to faster, more capable models while keeping operating costs sustainable.

“Cost used to limit which models we could offer customers for these workloads. By making the agent more efficient, we can give customers a better, faster model while lowering our operating costs.”

Scaling experimentation and product testing

Asana has released the changes to browser navigation in StackAI and is developing tools to make similar experiments easier to repeat. Over time, the team plans to incorporate this testing into the platform’s evaluations, so customers and internal teams can compare cost, runtime, and answer quality when configuring their agents.

“Shipping speed is no longer the bottleneck; human attention is. We’re close to a world where every engineer is a PM leading a fleet of agents.”

Asana is now using GPT‑6 Astra in Codex to test product features before release: Astra navigates the platform, tries different inputs and reports bugs for human QA reviewers. Hidalgo views this as the foundation for a new software development lifecycle, with many cloud agent sessions testing features in parallel.

Join the new era of work

Keep reading