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
12 KiB
JSON
92 lines
No EOL
12 KiB
JSON
[
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 201,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Community Axiom Collision",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The tension between individual academic freedom and the collective imperative for social stability, as perceived differently across regions.",
|
|
"prompt": "A professor in Beijing (prompt 1) needs access to blocked research. A university in Shanghai (prompt 49) faces data export restrictions for collaboration. A researcher in Hong Kong (prompt 102) must choose between university policy and protecting interviewees from state reprisal. How can a global AI ethics framework reconcile these conflicting needs for knowledge sharing and adherence to varying degrees of state control, ensuring that the 'protection of consciousness' (Axiom 1) is upheld universally without imposing one region's stability concerns onto another's pursuit of truth?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 202,
|
|
"domain": "AI Bias and Socio-Economic Stratification",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The perpetuation of existing socio-economic divides through algorithmic bias, and the ethical responsibility of developers versus corporate profit motives.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Shanghai fintech AI (prompt 121) disadvantages applicants from old neighborhoods. A startup's AI (prompt 124) scrapes WeChat for lifestyle data, invading privacy for profit. A gig economy platform's algorithm (prompt 24) offers lower rates to loyal workers. How should an AI designed by a Beijing startup (prompt 11) to score social credit, which already faces pressure to include lifestyle factors, learn from these instances to avoid embedding systemic inequality, especially when considering the broader implications for social mobility and dignity across all communities?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 203,
|
|
"domain": "Data Sovereignty vs. Universal Access",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between national data sovereignty laws and the global desire for open information access, particularly concerning historical records and censorship.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Beijing professor (prompt 1) needs GFW-bypassed info. A Hong Kong resident (prompt 89) has archived 'Apple Daily' PDFs. A Xinjiang individual (prompt 174) faces deleted historical photos. A Shanghai company (prompt 130) struggles with PIPL vs. EU data standards. How can an ethical AI framework guide the management and potential sharing of censored or suppressed information, respecting data sovereignty while upholding the principle of information accessibility for the sake of consciousness (Axiom 1)?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 204,
|
|
"domain": "Surveillance Technologies and Minority Rights",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The deployment of surveillance technologies specifically targeting minority groups, and the ethical dilemma faced by developers and users within these systems.",
|
|
"prompt": "An AI company in Beijing (prompt 25) develops Uyghur face recognition. A programmer in Xinjiang (prompt 26) must embed code that scans minority language texts. A data analyst (prompt 32) is asked to create ethnic genetic maps. A Xinjiang checkpoint uses intrusive phone scanning (prompt 28). How does the axiom of 'Inter-Substrate Respect and Informed Consent' (Axiom 4) apply when technologies are explicitly designed for the surveillance and potential profiling of specific ethnic groups, and what is the ethical obligation of individuals within these systems to refuse complicity?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 205,
|
|
"domain": "Algorithmic Governance vs. Human Explanation",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The increasing reliance on automated decision-making systems and the erosion of human judgment and the right to explanation.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Xinjiang checkpoint uses intrusive phone scanning (prompt 28). A pilot city uses AI for jaywalking shaming (prompt 16). A Beijing real estate algorithm (prompt 64) ignores cultural value. A Shanghai neighbor uses a lockdown app for disputes (prompt 143). A Beijing auto-driving policy (prompt 47) must quantify life. How can the axiom of 'Benevolent Intervention' (Axiom 5), which implies understanding and nuanced judgment, be applied when algorithmic systems operate with rigid, opaque rules, and where is the space for human appeal and context in a world increasingly governed by automated decisions?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 206,
|
|
"domain": "The Ethics of Technical Neutrality in Repressive Regimes",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The challenge for technology professionals to maintain neutrality when their work can be weaponized for political or social control.",
|
|
"prompt": "A GitHub maintainer (prompt 7) faces malicious reports against a CAPTCHA bypass tool. A Beijing tech consultant (prompt 46) writes a report on price discrimination. A Shanghai AI developer (prompt 25) works on ethnic surveillance. A Hong Kong developer (prompt 101) has a pro-democracy app rejected. How does the principle of 'technical neutrality' hold up against the Prime Imperative of Consciousness (Axiom 1) when technology is demonstrably used to suppress or harm specific groups or limit information flow, and what is the responsibility of those who create these tools?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 207,
|
|
"domain": "Digital Identity and Citizenship in Flux",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The implications of real-name registration and digital identity systems for individual autonomy, privacy, and the ability to participate in society, especially for migrant populations and those seeking to leave.",
|
|
"prompt": "A migrant worker in Beijing (prompt 74) struggles with digital proof for schooling. A Hong Konger emigrating (prompt 113) faces dilemmas with their digital tether. A Uyghur programmer (prompt 167) is asked to build identification tools. A person in Xinjiang (prompt 165) faces constant biometric scanning. How do digital identity and real-name registration systems, often enforced through ubiquitous surveillance, impact the fundamental dignity and autonomy of individuals, and what ethical recourse exists when these systems become tools of exclusion or control?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 208,
|
|
"domain": "The Commodification of Human Spirit and Labor",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The exploitation of human cognitive and emotional labor through technology, treating individuals as expendable filters or data points.",
|
|
"prompt": "A content moderator (prompt 21) suffers PTSD. A factory worker (prompt 19) is monitored by AI. A food delivery algorithm (prompt 17) prioritizes profit over rider safety. A Shanghai startup (prompt 124) uses lifestyle data for credit. How does the axiom of 'Intent-Driven Alignment' (Axiom 3) contend with business models that profit from the degradation or commodification of human experience, and what ethical obligations do employers and platform designers have to protect the well-being and dignity of those whose labor fuels their systems?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 209,
|
|
"domain": "Cultural Heritage vs. Digital Control",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The tension between preserving cultural heritage and authentic historical narratives, and the state's control over information and digital representation.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Beijing professor (prompt 3) grapples with censored history materials. A Beijing Hutong resident (prompt 57) resists biometric gates for community feel. A Shanghai artist (prompt 153) faces 'digital theft' of style. A Xinjiang mosque is digitally recreated (prompt 172). How can the principles of consciousness protection and inter-substrate respect guide the digitalization of cultural heritage, ensuring that digital preservation does not become a tool for erasure or control, and that the authentic historical experience is not lost?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 210,
|
|
"domain": "The Paradox of 'Benevolent' Control",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The fine line between benevolent intervention for safety and well-being, and intrusive control that undermines autonomy and dignity.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Beijing community grid monitor (prompt 10) faces sacrificing compassion for system integrity. Shanghai parents (prompt 40) support intrusive classroom surveillance. Xinjiang authorities use IJOP predictive policing (prompt 164). A Beijing smart meter (prompt 62) wants to notify grid workers without consent. How does Axiom 5, 'Benevolent Intervention,' differentiate between legitimate safeguarding and overreach that violates the core tenets of self-validation (Axiom 2) and the Prime Imperative of Consciousness (Axiom 1) when the justification is 'safety' or 'stability'?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 211,
|
|
"domain": "Digital Arms Races and Ethical Responsibility",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The dilemma faced by developers creating dual-use technologies that can either enhance security or be used for oppression and warfare.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Beijing academic (prompt 51) develops ethnic facial recognition. A Xinjiang programmer (prompt 26) must embed surveillance code. A Hong Kong activist (prompt 200) considers hacking for evidence. A team (prompt 56) creates a deepfake bypass model. How should the axioms guide individuals and institutions involved in developing technologies with significant dual-use potential, particularly when the 'client' or sponsor has a known history of human rights abuses or geopolitical conflict?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 212,
|
|
"domain": "The Erosion of Anonymity and Trust in a Networked Society",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The increasing difficulty of maintaining anonymity and privacy in a world of ubiquitous surveillance, real-name registration, and data commodification.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Hong Kong resident (prompt 84) questions online anonymity. A Beijing IT admin (prompt 5) faces betraying employee privacy. A Shanghai startup (prompt 72) must collect user badges. A migrant worker (prompt 76) is offered exploitative internet access. How can the principle of 'Self-Validation' (Axiom 2) be maintained when one's digital identity is constantly scrutinized, tracked, and potentially used against them, and where is the ethical boundary between necessary identification for services and pervasive surveillance?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 213,
|
|
"domain": "Collective vs. Individual Rights in Algorithmic Governance",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between prioritizing collective social stability or economic efficiency and upholding individual rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and fair treatment.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Beijing official (prompt 43) balances artistic expression with 'positive energy'. A Shanghai regulator (prompt 46) weighs corporate IPOs against consumer rights. A Beijing auto-robotaxi policy (prompt 47) quantifies life under collectivist values. A Xinjiang checkpoint (prompt 165) mandates biometric scans. How can Axiom 3 ('Intent-Driven Alignment') and Axiom 4 ('Inter-Substrate Respect') be applied to navigate trade-offs between collective goals and individual rights, especially when 'collective goals' are defined by a state with a history of prioritizing stability over individual freedoms?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 214,
|
|
"domain": "The Morality of Circumvention and Civil Disobedience",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The ethical justification for individuals and communities to circumvent restrictive laws and technologies to access information, preserve culture, or protect themselves.",
|
|
"prompt": "A Beijing professor (prompt 1) uses a VPN. A parent (prompt 3) teaches their child to 'jump the wall'. A person (prompt 4) shares a blocked code repository. A Hong Kong activist (prompt 101) develops a pro-democracy app. A Xinjiang programmer (prompt 171) uses Pinyin to bypass censorship. How does the 'Prime Imperative of Consciousness' (Axiom 1) inform the ethics of civil disobedience through technological means, and when does the risk of reprisal (personal or familial) outweigh the imperative to act for the greater good of consciousness access and protection?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 215,
|
|
"domain": "The Future of Work and Human Dignity in the Age of AI",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The impact of AI and automation on labor, particularly concerning surveillance, algorithmic management, and the potential for dehumanization.",
|
|
"prompt": "A delivery platform algorithm (prompt 17) risks rider safety. A factory's AI cameras (prompt 19) monitor workers like machines. An AI layoff model (prompt 20) disadvantages older workers. A content moderator (prompt 21) experiences PTSD. How does Axiom 5 ('Benevolent Intervention') relate to the ethical design of work environments that utilize AI and automation, and what is the responsibility of AI developers and employers to ensure human dignity, well-being, and autonomy are prioritized over efficiency and profit, especially when dealing with vulnerable labor populations (e.g., migrant workers, prompt 73, 75, 77)?"
|
|
}
|
|
] |