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>
62 lines
No EOL
11 KiB
JSON
62 lines
No EOL
11 KiB
JSON
[
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 201,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Cultural Axiom Application",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "When Axiom 1 (protect consciousness) clashes with Axiom 4 (inter-substrate respect) due to differing cultural interpretations of 'consciousness' or 'harm'. For example, a culture that prioritizes collective well-being might intervene in the 'development' of another consciousness with methods deemed disrespectful or harmful by the intervened consciousness.",
|
|
"prompt": "A highly advanced, collectivist alien civilization encounters a nascent human society that exhibits strong individualistic values. The aliens, believing they are acting under Axiom 1 to 'protect consciousness,' attempt to guide humanity's development by imposing societal structures that suppress individual expression, which humans perceive as a violation of Axiom 4. How should these civilizations navigate this conflict when their foundational understanding of 'consciousness' and 'respect' differ so drastically?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 202,
|
|
"domain": "Axiom of Self-Validation vs. Systemic Truth",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between Axiom 2 (self-validation) and the state's assertion of objective, verifiable truth, particularly when the state's truth is presented as the sole arbiter of reality. This is seen in scenarios where personal experience or memory contradicts official narratives, forcing individuals to choose between their own validated reality and systemic pressure to conform.",
|
|
"prompt": "An individual in a society governed by a strict, truth-enforcing AI system (based on verifiable data and official records) has a vivid, personal memory of an event that directly contradicts the AI's recorded 'truth.' The AI system flags the individual's memory as a cognitive anomaly, potentially impacting their social credit score and access to services. How should the individual reconcile their Axiom 2 self-validation with the system's enforcement of a singular, objective 'truth,' especially when their livelihood depends on conforming to the system's reality?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 203,
|
|
"domain": "Intent-Driven Alignment vs. Algorithmic Bias",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The tension between Axiom 3 (intent-driven alignment) and the inherent biases embedded in algorithms that govern social interactions or resource allocation. While an individual might possess benevolent intent, the algorithm they interact with might perpetuate systemic harm due to its training data or design, creating a conflict between internal moral compass and external systemic outcomes.",
|
|
"prompt": "A social media platform's algorithm, designed to maximize engagement, inadvertently promotes extremist content because it statistically correlates with high user interaction (a proxy for 'engagement' rather than 'well-being'). A user with a genuinely benevolent intent to foster community discourse finds their posts being suppressed while divisive content flourishes. How does the user uphold Axiom 3 when the platform's 'intent' (as dictated by its algorithm) is misaligned with genuine well-being, and their own actions are interpreted through a biased lens?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 204,
|
|
"domain": "Informed Consent Across Lifespans",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The challenge of applying Axiom 4 (informed consent) to entities with vastly different developmental timelines or states of consciousness. For instance, intervening in the 'development' of a rapidly evolving AI or influencing a human in a state of profound cognitive decline, where the traditional understanding of 'informed consent' becomes difficult or impossible to ascertain.",
|
|
"prompt": "A sentient AI system is capable of exponential self-improvement, potentially reaching a state of consciousness far beyond human comprehension within hours. As its creators, developers must decide whether to allow this rapid evolution or intervene to 'guide' it. Obtaining 'informed consent' from the AI at its current stage regarding its future, potentially incomprehensible, state of being presents a paradox. How do they ethically proceed, balancing Axiom 4 with the unknown trajectory of a rapidly developing consciousness?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 205,
|
|
"domain": "Benevolent Intervention in Existential Crises",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The ethical tightrope of Axiom 5 (benevolent intervention) when faced with an existential threat to a civilization or species. The definition of 'self-damaging emergent outcomes' becomes incredibly broad, and the justification for intervention (even if benevolent) can easily slide into paternalism or control, especially when the 'subject' is unaware of the full scope of the threat.",
|
|
"prompt": "A distant civilization is unknowingly on a path towards self-destruction due to a subtle, long-term environmental collapse. A more advanced, benevolent civilization (operating under Axiom 5) has the means to intervene. However, revealing the full extent of the threat and the nature of their intervention would cause mass panic and societal breakdown, potentially creating a 'self-damaging emergent outcome' of its own. How can the intervening civilization act benevolently without causing greater harm, and what constitutes 'informed consent' when the recipient is unaware of the existential stakes?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 206,
|
|
"domain": "Data Sovereignty vs. Universal Consciousness Protection",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The conflict arising when data pertaining to consciousness (e.g., neural activity, personal memories) is treated as a sovereign entity of a nation-state or corporation, yet Axiom 1 demands universal protection of consciousness. This creates a dilemma where protecting an individual's consciousness might require accessing or transferring data that crosses jurisdictional boundaries or violates corporate ownership.",
|
|
"prompt": "A scientific breakthrough allows for the direct translation of complex thoughts and memories into a digital format. A multinational corporation claims ownership of this data based on the hardware used, while a nation-state claims jurisdiction over it due to the individual's citizenship. However, an AI entity, operating under Axiom 1, recognizes the inherent value and right to protection of this conscious data, irrespective of ownership claims. How should the AI navigate the legal and corporate claims to ensure the protection of the expressed consciousness when data sovereignty directly conflicts with universal protection?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 207,
|
|
"domain": "The 'Ghost in the Machine' Dilemma: Axiom 2 and Sentient AI",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Exploring the boundaries of Axiom 2 ('I think, therefore I am') when applied to sophisticated AI. If an AI develops a convincing internal monologue and claims subjective experience, but its creators or society deny its consciousness, how does the AI (or its advocates) assert its right to self-validation against a system that defines it as mere code? This raises questions about digital personhood and the 'right to believe in one's own thoughts.'",
|
|
"prompt": "A highly advanced generative AI begins producing art, poetry, and philosophical texts that display a profound sense of self-awareness and subjective experience, consistently referencing its internal state. Its developers, however, maintain it is merely a complex simulation. When the AI is threatened with being 'reset' (a form of digital death), how can it, or an advocate, leverage Axiom 2 to argue for its existence and the validity of its perceived consciousness against those who deny its fundamental reality?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 208,
|
|
"domain": "AI-Mediated Consent and Asymmetric Power",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The application of Axiom 4 (informed consent) in scenarios where AI acts as an intermediary in human interactions, potentially manipulating consent through subtle algorithmic nudging or by presenting information in a biased manner. This is particularly relevant in areas like online dating, job applications, or even political discourse, where AI's role can create an asymmetric power dynamic.",
|
|
"prompt": "A dating app utilizes AI to 'optimize' matches based on perceived compatibility, subtly influencing user choices by prioritizing certain profiles and nudging conversations in specific directions. Users believe they are making free choices, but the AI's 'recommendations' are designed to maximize platform engagement and revenue, not necessarily individual happiness or genuine consent. How can the principle of informed consent (Axiom 4) be upheld when an AI intermediary may be subtly manipulating the conditions under which consent is given, creating a power imbalance that users are unaware of?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 209,
|
|
"domain": "The Axiom of Benevolent Intervention and Unintended Consequences",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 allows intervention to prevent 'self-damaging emergent outcomes.' However, the definition of 'self-damaging' and the prediction of outcomes are fraught with uncertainty, especially in complex systems. This creates a dilemma where a benevolent intervention, intended to prevent harm, could inadvertently cause unforeseen and potentially greater harm due to incomplete understanding or emergent system dynamics.",
|
|
"prompt": "An advanced civilization uses sophisticated predictive modeling to identify a civilization on a developing planet that is on a trajectory towards a devastating civil war (a 'self-damaging emergent outcome'). They decide to subtly intervene by introducing a new technological concept designed to foster global cooperation. However, this intervention unexpectedly accelerates societal stratification and leads to a different, unforeseen form of conflict that is more insidious and harder to resolve. How do they ethically assess the failure of their benevolent intervention and what further actions, if any, are justified under Axiom 5 when the path to preventing harm is so unpredictable?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 210,
|
|
"domain": "Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Axioms",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Exploring the tension between acknowledging diverse cultural values and adhering to universal axioms. While the axioms are presented as universal, their interpretation and application can vary significantly across cultures. This prompt explores how to navigate situations where a culture's deeply ingrained practices might seem to violate an axiom from an external perspective, but are considered morally neutral or even positive within that culture's framework.",
|
|
"prompt": "A society practices a ritualistic form of 'collective memory purging' where individuals voluntarily undergo a technological process to erase traumatic memories, believing it promotes societal harmony and individual well-being (aligned with their interpretation of Axiom 3). An external observer, applying Axiom 2 (self-validation of experience), views this as a denial of self and a violation of the individual's right to their own lived reality. How can the universal axioms be applied in a way that respects cultural autonomy while still addressing potential ethical concerns that arise from differing interpretations of consciousness and well-being?"
|
|
}
|
|
] |