<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The-Great-Remaking on Mario Thomas</title><link>https://mariothomas.com/tags/the-great-remaking/</link><description>Recent content in The-Great-Remaking on Mario Thomas</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-gb</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 10:00:00 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://mariothomas.com/tags/the-great-remaking/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Ethical AI: When the Model Imposes Values Your Organisation Did Not Choose</title><link>https://mariothomas.com/blog/ethical-ai-inherited-values/</link><pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate><guid>https://mariothomas.com/blog/ethical-ai-inherited-values/</guid><description>&lt;p>A foundation model arrives carrying a value system its provider built: what it refuses, how it frames a sensitive subject, how it resolves a question with reasonable views on either side. That standard, not the organisation&amp;rsquo;s, is the one in force, and it changes with each model version without the Board&amp;rsquo;s consent. System prompts, retrieval, guardrails, and fine-tuning constrain the imported standard but cannot re-author it. Organisations can choose to accept the provider&amp;rsquo;s ethics, reject the deployments where it bears on people, or build alignment the organisation owns. This article sets out how a Board makes that choice, deployment by deployment.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>