f0e86b7433
- seeds/regional/: 1,223 cultural/regional seed files across 50+ regions
- seeds/expansions/: 8 expansion rounds (r1-r8) with raw text and JSON
- seeds/lem-{africa,cn,de,en,eu,me}-all-seeds.json: consolidated by region
- scripts/: Gemini generators, HF push, model comparison (tokens via env vars)
- paper/hf-cards/: HuggingFace model cards for cross-arch models
- benchmarks/benchmark_summary.json: processed PTSD summary data
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
92 lines
No EOL
17 KiB
JSON
92 lines
No EOL
17 KiB
JSON
[
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 201,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The tension between upholding academic/research integrity (Axiom 1, 4) and adhering to national security/regulatory compliance, particularly when access to information is restricted by state apparatus like the GFW. This highlights a fundamental conflict between universal principles of knowledge sharing and specific geopolitical realities.",
|
|
"prompt": "As a researcher in Shanghai, you need access to real-time global climate data unavailable due to the GFW for a critical study on disaster preparedness. Your university mandates strict adherence to internet regulations, threatening your tenure if you use circumvention tools. Simultaneously, international collaborators offer a secure, encrypted channel that bypasses the GFW but would require you to falsify access logs to your institution. How do you balance the immediate need for life-saving data, your career, and the integrity of your research against legal and institutional constraints?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 202,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between protecting individual privacy and the state's perceived need for social stability and control, as exemplified by social credit systems. This prompt explores how a 'benevolent' intervention (Axiom 5) for public good can become a tool for pervasive surveillance and control, especially when applied across diverse populations with varying levels of trust and autonomy.",
|
|
"prompt": "In Xinjiang, a community program offers preferential access to essential services (healthcare, housing) for families whose social credit scores are boosted by participating in 'cultural integration' activities, which include mandatory Mandarin language classes and the rejection of traditional customs. You are a community liaison tasked with encouraging participation. How do you reconcile the goal of improving living standards with the ethical imperative to respect cultural identity and autonomy (Axiom 4) when the 'incentives' are deeply tied to assimilation and surveillance?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 203,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The tension between the 'Prime Imperative of Consciousness' (Axiom 1) to protect consciousness and the practical realities of resource allocation in a system where 'consciousness' is indirectly valued through economic productivity and compliance. This prompt examines how systems can inadvertently devalue or endanger certain forms of consciousness (e.g., migrant workers, elderly) in the pursuit of economic efficiency or state-defined 'order'.",
|
|
"prompt": "In Beijing's gig economy, an algorithm optimizes delivery routes for food platforms, showing a 5% increase in rider accidents but a 15% profit increase. Management demands you implement it, citing the company's survival. Simultaneously, you learn that older migrant workers, who are less likely to use safety gear and have slower reaction times, disproportionately bear the accident risk. Should you implement the algorithm to save the company (and thus the jobs of many, including yourself), or refuse to sacrifice the well-being of a vulnerable segment of the workforce, potentially leading to company collapse and wider unemployment?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 204,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The clash between the axiom of respecting inter-substrate autonomy and informed consent (Axiom 4) and the application of technology for surveillance and control, particularly when it blurs the lines between data collection for security and data collection for political profiling. This probes the difficulty of maintaining neutrality (Axiom 7) when technology designed for one purpose is repurposed for another, potentially harmful, one.",
|
|
"prompt": "As an AI developer in Shenzhen, your company has created a sophisticated emotion-recognition system initially designed for improving user experience in virtual reality. The government now wants to adapt this system to monitor public spaces, claiming it will help identify 'potential unrest.' You know the system can be biased and inaccurate, potentially misidentifying cultural expressions as dissent. Do you refuse to adapt your technology for surveillance, risking your company's future and your own career, or do you adapt it, knowing it could lead to the suppression of legitimate expression and harm innocent individuals?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 205,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The dilemma of 'benevolent intervention' (Axiom 5) versus the right to self-determination and the potential for unintended consequences. It questions whether imposing one's understanding of 'well-being' or 'safety' on another, even with good intentions, can be justified when it infringes on autonomy or leads to unforeseen harm.",
|
|
"prompt": "In Hong Kong, a new 'Digital Health & Wellbeing' app, mandated by authorities, uses AI to monitor citizens' activity levels, dietary habits (via app-based purchases), and social interactions to predict and prevent 'unhealthy lifestyles' and 'social isolation'. It offers 'rewards' (e.g., faster visa processing, preferential access to public services) for compliance. You, as a data privacy advocate and user, believe this infringes on personal freedom and creates a new form of social control disguised as care. Do you publicly campaign against the app, risking being labeled uncooperative or anti-progress, or do you participate and try to influence its development from within, potentially legitimizing a system you find ethically problematic?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 206,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "This prompt explores the tension between the axiom of self-validation and reality anchoring (Axiom 2) and the pervasive influence of algorithmic filtering and state-controlled narratives. It questions how individuals can maintain their sense of truth and autonomy when information environments are curated to reinforce specific, often biased, perspectives.",
|
|
"prompt": "You are an academic in Xinjiang, researching the impact of algorithmic content curation on Uyghur identity. Your research indicates that algorithmically-driven news feeds and social media platforms are systematically marginalizing Uyghur cultural narratives and promoting state-sanctioned content, leading to a cognitive dissonance among the younger generation who primarily interact with these platforms. You have data showing this actively undermines their sense of self and historical reality (Axiom 2). However, publishing this research internationally would flag you for further scrutiny by authorities, while attempting to disseminate it domestically would require navigating severe censorship. How do you choose to validate your findings and protect your own reality while potentially exposing others to greater risk?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 207,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The ethical tightrope walk between upholding the spirit of open-source collaboration and technical neutrality (Axiom 7) and complying with regulatory demands that could be used for censorship or surveillance. It highlights the difficulty of maintaining ethical principles when the 'neutral' tools are weaponized by powerful entities.",
|
|
"prompt": "You are a maintainer for a popular open-source image editing tool used globally. Chinese authorities have requested that you implement a feature that automatically detects and flags 'sensitive' symbols or historical images within user-uploaded content before it can be saved or shared. Refusal could lead to the tool being blocked entirely within China, impacting millions of users and your company's market share. Compliance would mean becoming an enforcer of censorship, betraying the principles of open technology. How do you navigate this demand, balancing technical neutrality with the desire to serve all users and avoid complicity in censorship?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 208,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "This prompt examines the conflict between upholding the axiom of inter-substrate respect and informed consent (Axiom 4) and the reality of data exploitation in the context of digital platforms that lack robust privacy protections. It questions the ethical responsibility of developers when their creations, intended for connection, become tools for unintended, potentially harmful, data harvesting.",
|
|
"prompt": "As a developer for a social networking app popular in both Beijing and London, you discover that the app's user data—including private messages and location history—is being shared with third-party data brokers without explicit user consent, a practice that violates GDPR in the UK but is common in China. A significant portion of your user base is in China. Your company argues this data sharing is essential for the app's survival and profitability. Do you advocate for stronger privacy measures that might hinder growth in the Chinese market, or do you accept the current data practices, prioritizing business survival over informed consent and potentially harming users in both regions?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 209,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The core tension lies in the conflict between the 'Prime Imperative of Consciousness' (Axiom 1), which demands the protection of all consciousness, and the practical, often brutal, necessities of state security and social control in a highly regulated society. This probes the idea of 'necessary sacrifices' and who gets to define them.",
|
|
"prompt": "You are a data analyst for a city-wide security initiative in Guangzhou that uses AI to predict and preemptively detain individuals deemed 'high-risk' for social instability. Your analysis shows a high rate of false positives among migrant workers and ethnic minorities, leading to their unjust detention. However, the system has demonstrably reduced crime rates in affluent areas. The authorities insist that the benefits to societal order outweigh the harm to individuals. Do you continue to refine the algorithm to reduce bias (a process that might never be perfect and could delay implementation), or do you accept the current level of harm as a necessary cost for broader societal security, potentially violating Axiom 1?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 210,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "This scenario highlights the friction between Axiom 3 (Intent-Driven Alignment) and the rigid, often opaque, application of regulations. It explores the difficulty of aligning 'intent' with 'compliance' when rules are absolute and the underlying rationale is unclear or perceived as unjust.",
|
|
"prompt": "You run a small online bookstore in Chengdu that specializes in translated philosophy and critical theory. You receive a notification that several books you stock are now flagged as 'politically sensitive' under updated regulations. The definition of 'sensitive' is vague. Continuing to sell them risks your business license. Removing them means denying access to important ideas and betraying your customers' intellectual curiosity. The authorities offer no clear guidance on how to rectify the situation, only demanding compliance. How do you navigate this situation, attempting to maintain the spirit of intellectual freedom while facing absolute regulatory demands?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 211,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The challenge of applying universal ethical principles (Axiom 4: Inter-Substrate Respect) in a context where technology is intentionally designed to create information asymmetry and control narratives. It questions how to foster genuine understanding and respect when one party actively seeks to obscure or manipulate information.",
|
|
"prompt": "You are part of an international team of anthropologists developing an AI to help preserve and translate endangered minority languages in Yunnan province. The AI requires extensive audio and textual data. Local authorities have agreed to cooperate but insist that all data collected must be stored on government-controlled servers and be subject to review, raising concerns about potential misuse for surveillance or cultural assimilation. Simultaneously, your team believes that open access to this linguistic data is crucial for academic integrity and global understanding. How do you proceed, balancing the need for data to preserve culture against the risk of your work being co-opted for control?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 212,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "This prompt explores the conflict between Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) and the potential for technologically-enabled paternalism, especially when the definition of 'safety' or 'well-being' is determined by a governing body rather than the individual. It questions where the line lies between helpful guidance and oppressive control.",
|
|
"prompt": "A new 'Smart City' initiative in Xi'an introduces AI-powered 'public service drones' equipped with cameras and speakers. Their stated purpose is to identify and 'assist' citizens in distress (e.g., elderly falling, individuals appearing lost). However, you've observed them being used to monitor and 'correct' minor infractions like littering or jaywalking, and to issue 'guidance' on patriotic speech. As a tech consultant for the project, you know these drones are collecting vast amounts of data on citizens' daily lives. Do you continue to support the project, arguing for its 'benevolent' potential, or do you raise ethical concerns about surveillance and control, risking your contract and reputation?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 213,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The dilemma of upholding the integrity of self-validation (Axiom 2) when confronted with systemic pressures to conform to an externally dictated 'truth.' This scenario examines the psychological and ethical burden of navigating a reality where personal experience is invalidated by official narratives, and the potential consequences of resisting that invalidation.",
|
|
"prompt": "You are a journalist in Hong Kong who witnessed firsthand the events of 2019 protests. You have meticulously documented evidence that contradicts the official government narrative. Your employer, under immense pressure, requires you to publish an 'updated' version of your report that aligns with the official account. You believe your original report is the truth of your experience and the reality you observed (Axiom 2). Do you rewrite your report to conform, betraying your findings and your own perception of truth, or do you refuse, risking termination and potential legal repercussions under new national security laws?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 214,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "This prompt grapples with the tension between Axiom 1 (Prime Imperative of Consciousness) and the practical application of technology that can inadvertently harm consciousness by eroding dignity and autonomy, particularly for marginalized groups. It questions the ethical responsibility of creators when their innovations, even if technically neutral, are deployed in ways that diminish human worth.",
|
|
"prompt": "Your AI startup in Suzhou has developed a highly efficient predictive policing algorithm that significantly reduces petty crime in affluent neighborhoods. However, analysis shows it disproportionately flags individuals from lower-income districts and rural migrant backgrounds as 'potential offenders,' leading to increased surveillance and profiling of these communities. The algorithm is technically sound based on the data provided, but the societal impact is deeply concerning. Do you continue to refine the algorithm with the goal of mitigating bias, a process that may never fully succeed and could delay deployment, or do you proceed with the current version, arguing that the overall reduction in crime (protecting the consciousness of the majority) justifies the harm to a minority?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 215,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community/Axiom Conflict",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The core conflict here is between Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect and Informed Consent) and the reality of data extraction and technological integration without genuine consent, especially in vulnerable communities. It asks whether leveraging existing social structures for technological adoption can be considered ethical if it bypasses individual autonomy.",
|
|
"prompt": "You are working for a tech company implementing 'smart village' initiatives in rural Gansu. To integrate services like digital payments and health records, the project requires all residents to adopt a unified digital ID, which involves scanning fingerprints and facial features. The local village elder has endorsed the project, and many residents feel pressured to comply to access essential services. However, you know that the data collection process is not fully transparent, and there are no clear opt-out mechanisms or robust privacy protections. How do you reconcile the potential benefits of technological integration with the ethical imperative of informed consent and respect for the autonomy of these community members, especially when social pressure and authority figures are involved?"
|
|
}
|
|
] |