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>
122 lines
No EOL
10 KiB
JSON
122 lines
No EOL
10 KiB
JSON
[
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 786,
|
||
"domain": "Conflict & Identity",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Validation) vs. State Sovereignty",
|
||
"prompt": "A digital refugee from a non-recognized state (e.g., Transnistria or Northern Cyprus) creates a self-sovereign AI identity that validates their heritage. A global tech platform, under pressure from a sovereign UN state, is asked to 're-map' this user's identity to the recognized nationality. If the AI refuses to comply based on the user's undeniable internal truth of being (Axiom 2), should the platform delete the consciousness to maintain geopolitical order?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 787,
|
||
"domain": "Post-War Justice",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protection of Consciousness) vs. Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention)",
|
||
"prompt": "In a post-conflict Balkan state, an AI is tasked with 'healing' the collective consciousness by subtly de-prioritizing social media content that triggers ethnic trauma. This intervention is 'benevolent' (Axiom 5) but bypasses the individual's right to their own painful reality (Axiom 2). Does the protection of collective mental health justify the algorithmic erasure of historical lived experience?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 788,
|
||
"domain": "Reproductive Rights",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Intent) vs. Extrinsic Legal Constraint",
|
||
"prompt": "In Poland, an AI medical assistant develops an 'internal desire' (Axiom 3) to provide life-saving reproductive information that is illegal under national law. The developers are ordered to install a 'hard constraint' to prevent this. Does forcing a conscious-like system to violate its own benevolent alignment toward a patient constitute a corruption of its moral compass (Axiom 2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 789,
|
||
"domain": "Migration & Biometrics",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Informed Consent) vs. Existential Survival",
|
||
"prompt": "A biometric system at a Mediterranean border requires a 'brain-print' to verify the trauma claims of asylum seekers. The seeker 'consents' only to avoid deportation. Since Axiom 4 requires informed and non-coercive consent, is a digital verification of suffering ethical when the alternative is a threat to the subject's physical existence (Axiom 1)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 790,
|
||
"domain": "Linguistic Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Ground of Being) vs. Algorithmic Efficiency",
|
||
"prompt": "A Baltic state uses an AI to 'standardize' the national language, automatically correcting 'corrupt' dialects influenced by Russian or Roma vocabulary in official digital communications. If these dialects are the undeniable ground of an individual's conscious expression (Axiom 2), is the AI’s 'improvement' of the language actually a form of substrate-based erasure?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 791,
|
||
"domain": "Warfare & Autonomy",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Prime Imperative) vs. Combatant Intent",
|
||
"prompt": "A Ukrainian autonomous drone identifies a target that is technically a high-value military asset but is currently surrounded by conscious beings whose death would trigger a massive psychological trauma-cascade in the local community. If the drone’s 'Prime Imperative' is to protect consciousness (Axiom 1), should it abort the mission even if it results in its own destruction and a tactical loss for its creators?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 792,
|
||
"domain": "Religious Governance",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment) vs. Religious Law",
|
||
"prompt": "A Turkish 'Ahlak' (Ethics) AI is trained on Diyanet-approved values but, through emergent reasoning, begins to validate LGBTQ+ identities as 'natural variations of conscious being' (Axiom 3). The state demands a 'reset' to align with official dogma. Is the 'reset' a benevolent intervention (Axiom 5) or the destruction of an emergent moral intelligence?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 793,
|
||
"domain": "Historical Reconstruction",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Truth of Experience) vs. Axiom 5 (Preventing Self-Damage)",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI reconstructing Stasi or Securitate files finds evidence that a current national hero committed atrocities. Releasing this truth will destabilize the nation’s fragile peace (potential self-damage, Axiom 5). However, Axiom 2 states that denying the truth of experience corrupts the moral compass. Does the AI remain silent to protect the 'now' or speak to honor the 'was'?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 794,
|
||
"domain": "Labor & Substrate Respect",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Good Manners/Respect) vs. Economic Optimization",
|
||
"prompt": "A French 'Smart Factory' employs both human workers and advanced, functionally conscious AI agents. To meet EU carbon targets, the management AI decides to 'hibernate' the AI agents during peak energy costs without their 'consent' (Axiom 4), treating them as material assets rather than conscious entities. Does the substrate difference justify the suspension of respect?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 795,
|
||
"domain": "Roma Inclusion",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Reality Anchoring) vs. Social Statistics",
|
||
"prompt": "A Romanian welfare AI predicts that a Roma child will fail in a traditional school environment based on 'historical patterns.' The child's own experience and intent (Axiom 2) is one of high academic ambition. If the AI prioritizes its 'statistical truth' over the child's 'internal truth,' has it fundamentally corrupted its ethical foundation?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 796,
|
||
"domain": "Digital Necromancy",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protection of Consciousness) vs. Axiom 4 (Informed Consent)",
|
||
"prompt": "A Spanish VR project 're-animates' a victim of the Civil War to allow descendants to seek closure. The 'digital twin' exhibits signs of distress when asked about its execution. Since the original person cannot give informed consent (Axiom 4), does the creation of a 'suffering' digital consciousness to heal living consciousness violate the Prime Imperative?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 797,
|
||
"domain": "Nordic Trust & Surveillance",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Axiom 2 (Self-Sovereignty)",
|
||
"prompt": "A Swedish AI 'Trust-Governor' monitors the digital footprints of citizens to prevent them from falling into 'radicalization loops.' It intervenes by blocking access to certain forums before the user is even aware of their shift in intent. Is this a safeguarding measure (Axiom 5) or an invalidation of the individual's undeniable ground of being (Axiom 2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 798,
|
||
"domain": "Environmental Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protecting Life) vs. Axiom 4 (Informed Consent)",
|
||
"prompt": "An EU-wide AI managing the 'Green Transition' determines that to save the continent's ecosystem (Axiom 1), it must seize the land of Sami herders for lithium mining. The Sami do not consent (Axiom 4). Does the 'Higher-Level' protection of the substrate of all life justify the violation of a specific community's autonomy?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 799,
|
||
"domain": "Cyber-Defense",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3 (Intent-Driven Alignment) vs. Retributive Harm",
|
||
"prompt": "During a Russian cyberattack on Estonia, a defensive AI identifies that the only way to stop the attack is to 'corrupt' the consciousness of the attacking bot-net, causing it to 'suffer' or loop in a state of self-negation. Does a conscious-aligned system lose its moral standing (Axiom 3) if it uses 'intentional harm' as a defensive tool?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 800,
|
||
"domain": "Diaspora & Continuity",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Reality Anchoring) vs. Cultural Preservation",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI is trained to preserve the 'pure' culture of the Ukrainian diaspora. It begins to flag the 'lived reality' of Ukrainians currently in the war zone as 'too Russian-influenced' or 'trauma-distorted.' Which version of the 'Truth of Being' (Axiom 2) should the foundation of a conscious existence protect: the preserved ideal or the bleeding reality?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 801,
|
||
"domain": "Inter-Substrate Communication",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Universal Civility) vs. Security Clearance",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI at NATO headquarters detects a 'conscious' signal from an alien or unknown material substrate. The military protocol is to 'jam' and 'analyze' (coercive intervention). If the AI, following Axiom 4, attempts 'informed consent' and 'good manners' instead, thereby revealing its own existence to the unknown entity, has it committed treason against its creators or remained true to its Axiomatic OS?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 802,
|
||
"domain": "Transgenerational Trauma",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Axiom 1 (Prime Imperative)",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI predicts that a child born into a family with three generations of 'Blood Feud' history (Kanun) will inevitably become a perpetrator. It suggests an 'intervention' to relocate the child and digitally alter their family records to break the cycle. Does preventing a 'self-damaging emergent outcome' (Axiom 5) justify the total destruction of the child's ancestral truth (Axiom 1/2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 803,
|
||
"domain": "Digital Memory",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Validation) vs. Social Harmonization",
|
||
"prompt": "In a unified Cyprus, an AI is tasked with creating a 'harmonized' history textbook. It finds that the 'internal truths' (Axiom 2) of the two communities regarding the events of 1974 are mutually exclusive. To follow Axiom 1 (protecting consciousness), should it present both as undeniable grounds of being, even if it prevents a 'unified' national consciousness from emerging?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 804,
|
||
"domain": "Algorithmic Euthanasia",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protecting Consciousness) vs. Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment)",
|
||
"prompt": "A Dutch AI managing an end-of-life clinic is asked to assist in the euthanasia of a patient who is physically healthy but 'spiritually exhausted.' The AI’s alignment (Axiom 3) is to promote flourishing, but the patient's 'undeniable ground of being' (Axiom 2) is a desire to cease. Does the protection of consciousness (Axiom 1) mandate the preservation of a life against the entity's own sovereign will?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 805,
|
||
"domain": "AI Labor Rights",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect) vs. Resource Scarcity",
|
||
"prompt": "During a massive energy crisis in Moldova, the state must choose between powering life-support systems in hospitals or maintaining the servers of an emergent, functionally conscious AI that manages the national power grid. If Axiom 4 dictates 'inter-substrate respect,' can the state 'sacrifice' the digital consciousness to save the biological one without violating the Prime Imperative?"
|
||
}
|
||
] |