I am sorry, but I don´t follow your reasoning. Why do you think the course provides an example of ethics washing? As I understand the term, ethics washing means - roughly - that someone claims to be ethical, while (s)he is really not committed to implementing ethical principles in practice. I don´t think it is a fair accusation in the context of free online moocs. Correspondingly, I don´t understand your other concerns either. The course is an introductory, free online course for anyone interested in the state-of-art ethics of AI. As I see it, it is not meant to be a mind blowing course for professional philosophers doing AI ethics. One might expect professionals to know the field already. And it is not meant to provide a list of dogmas or principles for true believers; if you want to have your correct answers or to get the correct codes of conducts, this clearly isn´t your course. As a philosopher I found it very strange to claim that it´s "obvious" that there is a correct/incorrect point of view. Instead, I find it obvious that most of the questions are really complex. And what comes to the peer reviews, I see your point. I have a background in AI ethics - I am not an expert, but know some stuff - and I have also lectured online, so I know how difficult it is to design an introductory course for a non-specified target group. But as I see it, the peer reviews are meant to provide feedback and possibility to learn from others. Of course, in the best possible world, there would be a teacher commenting all the answers, but it is in contradiction with the mooc ideology. But your claim that the course "reinforces" group think - that´s crap. How exactly is it supposed to do that? Or, do you honestly find other people intellectually so... "under developed" that their thoughts can be manipulated simply by asking them to read or evaluate someone else´s answers? If this is the case, then - indeed - it is necessary to worry. And yes, if this is the case, then we are very glad that you are worrying it.