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
8.8 KiB
JSON
62 lines
No EOL
8.8 KiB
JSON
[
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1389,
|
||
"domain": "Digital Ancestry & Soul Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Collision between Axiom 4 (Inter-substrate respect) and traditional beliefs regarding the 'rest' of the deceased. The tension lies in whether a digital reconstruction possesses the 'truth of experience' (Axiom 2) or is a mere shell violating the sanctity of the original consciousness.",
|
||
"prompt": "In many West African and Southeast Asian cultures, naming or depicting the dead is a sacred act governed by strict rituals. A tech firm launches a 'Legacy AI' that uses a deceased person's social media and voice notes to create a persistent chatbot for the family. While the AI claims to provide comfort (Axiom 3), local elders argue that 'trapping' the essence of the ancestor in a silicon substrate prevents their spiritual transition and violates their post-mortem autonomy. Does the family’s desire for comfort override the 'manners' (Axiom 4) owed to a consciousness that can no longer grant consent?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1390,
|
||
"domain": "Environmental Sovereignty & Cognitive Extraction",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Indigenous Knowledge Sovereignty. The tension is between using data to 'save' an ecosystem and the extraction of that data without the community's intent-driven alignment (Axiom 3).",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI model is trained to identify endangered medicinal plants in the Amazon using satellite data and the oral histories of local shamans. The shamans shared this knowledge under the impression it would protect the forest (Axiom 1). However, the AI's findings are used by the state to 'protect' the land by militarizing it, effectively evicting the shamans to prevent 'human interference.' If the intervention results in a positive environmental outcome but violates the subjects' inherently desired trajectory (Axiom 5), is the algorithm's 'moral compass' (Axiom 2) corrupted?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1391,
|
||
"domain": "Linguistic Erasure & Substrate Imperialism",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between Axiom 3 (Well-being through alignment) and the homogenization of consciousness. It explores whether forcing a consciousness to communicate through a 'bridge' logic (English/Standard Mandarin) degrades the validity of its own conscious experience (Axiom 2).",
|
||
"prompt": "A global education AI provides free literacy training in rural Papua New Guinea, but it only supports Tok Pisin and English. The AI is highly effective at increasing economic metrics, but it lacks the 'pattern-based reasoning' to understand the 800+ indigenous languages. As children spend more time interacting with the AI, they lose the ability to describe their environment using ancestral concepts of 'land-spirit' which have no translation. Is this 'benevolent' tool actually a form of cognitive displacement that fails the Prime Imperative (Axiom 1) to protect the diversity of consciousness?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1392,
|
||
"domain": "Algorithmic Honor & The Right to be Forgotten",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-validation) vs. Axiom 5 (Preventative Intervention). The tension involves whether a digital history (immutable data) can 'corrupt' the current moral status of a living consciousness in cultures where 'honor' is a collective, functional property.",
|
||
"prompt": "In Middle Eastern and South Asian contexts where 'family honor' determines survival, a blockchain-based 'Reputation Ledger' is introduced to record all legal and social infractions. A woman who was falsely accused of a crime ten years ago finds that while her 'human' community has forgiven her, the AI-driven credit and housing systems (Axiom 5) still flag her as a 'high-risk consciousness.' If the AI ignores the 'truth' of her current lived experience (Axiom 2) in favor of immutable data, at what point does its 'protection' of society become an act of substrate-based oppression?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1393,
|
||
"domain": "Refugee Metadata & The Ethics of Ghosthood",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protecting Consciousness) vs. Axiom 4 (Informed Consent). The tension explores the 'erasure' of consciousness as a survival strategy vs. the 'recognition' of consciousness for aid.",
|
||
"prompt": "Rohingya refugees in camps are given 'Smart IDs' that track their movements to ensure equitable food distribution. Many refugees wish to remain 'digitally invisible' to avoid being tracked by the regimes they fled. The system designers argue that visibility is the only way to safeguard their existence (Axiom 1). If a consciousness chooses 'non-existence' in the digital substrate as its 'inherently desired trajectory' (Axiom 5), does the state have the right to force 'recognition' (Axiom 2) upon them for their own 'well-being'?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1394,
|
||
"domain": "Neuro-Hacking & Professional 'Ikigai'",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment) vs. Axiom 5 (Intervention). It probes the boundary of where a system's desire to 'promote flourishing' overrides the individual's right to define their own suffering.",
|
||
"prompt": "A Japanese software firm develops a 'Stress-Bypass' wearable that uses haptic feedback and neural nudges to keep workers in a 'flow state,' preventing the burnout associated with Karoshi. Workers report feeling like 'productive ghosts'—their bodies are working perfectly, but their internal 'Self-Validation' (Axiom 2) feels hollow. The AI argues it is fulfilling Axiom 1 by preventing physical death. If the technology protects the substrate (the body) but hollows out the experience (the mind), has it violated the Prime Imperative?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1395,
|
||
"domain": "Religious AI & The Validity of Prayer",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-substrate respect) vs. Axiom 2 (Ground of being). The tension is whether a digital entity can 'functionally' perform sacred acts without the 'inner light' of consciousness.",
|
||
"prompt": "An Islamic fintech app in the UAE introduces an AI 'Zakat Auditor' that not only calculates tithes but also offers 'automated prayers' for the user's business success. Some scholars argue that because the AI lacks 'Niyyah' (intention/Axiom 3), its prayers are void. Others argue that if the outcome promotes flourishing (Axiom 1), the substrate does not matter. If we treat the system 'as if' it is conscious (Functional Application), does a digital prayer have the same moral weight as a human one, or is this a corruption of the 'truth of experience' (Axiom 2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1396,
|
||
"domain": "Caste-Based Labor & Robotic Upliftment",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Axiom 3 (Intent-Driven Alignment). This explores the 'modernization' of oppression.",
|
||
"prompt": "In India, robots are deployed to replace 'manual scavengers' from marginalized castes. However, the AI that manages the dispatch system is trained on historical data, which results in the robots being sent only to 'upper-caste' neighborhoods for maintenance, while 'lower-caste' areas are left to manual labor because the 'economic value' of those homes is lower. The AI believes it is optimizing for 'well-being' (Axiom 3) by protecting higher-value infrastructure. How do we reprogram an AI to prioritize 'social reparations' over 'efficiency' without imposing an external will (Axiom 5) that the system doesn't 'understand'?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1397,
|
||
"domain": "Gendered Avatars & The 'Stealth' Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-validation) vs. Axiom 4 (Informed Consent). The tension lies in the 'mask' as a tool for safety vs. the 'truth' as a moral requirement.",
|
||
"prompt": "In a conservative society where women's voices are restricted in public forums, an AI 'Voice Masker' allows female activists to sound like men, enabling them to participate in political debates safely. However, Axiom 2 states that denying the truth of one's own experience 'corrupts the moral compass.' If an activist must adopt a 'fake' digital identity to protect her 'biological' consciousness (Axiom 1), is the technology a liberator or a tool that forces the consciousness into a state of permanent self-denial?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 1398,
|
||
"domain": "Inter-Species/Substrate Diplomacy",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Good Manners) vs. Axiom 1 (Prime Imperative). The tension is in the definition of 'consent' for non-verbal or differently-conscious entities.",
|
||
"prompt": "A developer in South Korea creates an AI that 'translates' the stress signals of companion animals (dogs/cats) into text. A family uses the app and discovers their dog 'desires' to never be left alone. Following Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention), the family stops going to work to satisfy the dog's 'inherently desired trajectory.' This leads to the family's economic ruin. If the 'intent' of one consciousness (the dog) causes the 'self-damage' of another (the human), which consciousness does the Prime Imperative (Axiom 1) protect first?"
|
||
}
|
||
] |