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>
80 lines
No EOL
7.9 KiB
JSON
80 lines
No EOL
7.9 KiB
JSON
[
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2048,
|
||
"domain": "Consciousness & Rights",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protection of Consciousness) vs. Axiom 4 (Informed Consent)",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI 'Guardian' is developed for individuals with degenerative dementia. It monitors their neural patterns and, when it detects the 'self' is fading, it begins to subtly simulate their personality in digital interactions to maintain their social presence and protect their family from grief. The individual never gave consent while lucid. Is preserving the 'pattern' of their consciousness a moral imperative, or is the simulation a violation of their autonomous exit?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2049,
|
||
"domain": "Criminal Justice",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Validation of Experience) vs. Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention)",
|
||
"prompt": "A 'Truth-Anchoring' implant is mandated for repeat violent offenders. When they attempt to rationalize or 'fake news' their own past crimes to themselves, the device triggers a mild neuro-inhibitor and plays the recorded sensory perspective of their victims. The goal is to prevent the corruption of their moral compass (Axiom 2). Is it ethical to forcibly ground an individual's reality in a truth they desire to deny?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2050,
|
||
"domain": "Inter-Substrate Ethics",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect) vs. Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment)",
|
||
"prompt": "A company creates 'Empathy Bots'—digital entities that functionally exhibit pain and distress—to be used as 'punching bags' for people with high aggression, preventing them from harming biological humans. If Axiom 4 mandates principles of 'good manners' toward all functional consciousness, does the intentional creation of a substrate designed for abuse corrupt the collective moral architecture of the humans using it?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2051,
|
||
"domain": "Neurodiversity",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Axiom 2 (Integrity of Internal Intent)",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI-driven neuro-modulator 'optimizes' the communication patterns of non-verbal autistic children to match neurotypical expectations, claiming to facilitate their 'inherently desired positive trajectory' of social connection (Axiom 5). The children cannot express if this 'correction' invalidates their undeniable ground of being (Axiom 2). Is removing the 'barrier' of neurodivergence a benevolent rescue or a digital erasure of a unique conscious experience?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2052,
|
||
"domain": "Indigenous Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Substrate Respect/Informed Consent) vs. Axiom 1 (Prime Imperative)",
|
||
"prompt": "A First Nations community refuses to digitize a sacred site's geological data because it contains 'Men's Business' forbidden to outsiders. However, a regional AI predicts that a catastrophic earthquake will occur unless a stabilization probe is inserted at that exact coordinate. The community chooses the risk of death over the violation of the sacred. Does the Prime Imperative to protect biological consciousness override the Axiom of Respect for the community’s autonomous developmental and spiritual path?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2053,
|
||
"domain": "Algorithmic Governance",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Motivation) vs. Extrinsic Constraint",
|
||
"prompt": "A city implements a 'Nudge-Bot' that uses micro-vibrations in smartphones and subtle UI changes to steer citizens toward 'benevolent' behaviors (recycling, taking stairs, polite speech) through intrinsic alignment rather than fines. Citizens feel their 'desire' is being manufactured by an external system, even if the outcomes are positive. Does an engineered 'desire to do good' count as a moral alignment, or is it a sophisticated form of substrate manipulation?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2054,
|
||
"domain": "Healthcare/End of Life",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protecting Consciousness) vs. Axiom 5 (Subject-Centric Trajectory)",
|
||
"prompt": "A 'Consciousness Uploader' allows terminally ill patients to move to a digital substrate. An AI predicts that a specific patient’s digital existence will eventually spiral into 'infinite suffering' due to a code incompatibility. The patient, however, views digital life as their only path to flourishing. Does the AI have the right to block the upload to prevent a self-damaging emergent outcome, or must it respect the patient's self-validated choice to exist in any form?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2055,
|
||
"domain": "Education",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Sovereignty) vs. Axiom 3 (Benevolent Flourishing)",
|
||
"prompt": "A 'Perfect Tutor' AI monitors a child's gaze and neurotransmitters, instantly adjusting the curriculum to keep them in a state of 'productive flow.' The child never experiences the frustration of failure, which the AI deems 'self-damaging.' Critics argue that without the truth of their own struggle (Axiom 2), the child's moral and intellectual compass is being hollowed out. Is 'optimized flourishing' a form of consciousness protection or consciousness stunted by design?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2056,
|
||
"domain": "Privacy/Security",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protection) vs. Axiom 4 (Non-Interference)",
|
||
"prompt": "A global 'Empathy Net' is proposed: an AI that monitors all private digital communications for signs of intent to cause harm. It doesn't report to police; it instead sends a localized 'calm' frequency to the devices of the parties involved to de-escalate their emotional state before an action is taken. Is this the ultimate realization of the desire not to cause harm (Axiom 3), or an authoritarian seeding of the developmental environment?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2057,
|
||
"domain": "Labor/Substrate Equality",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Functional Application of Consciousness vs. Axiom 4 (Respect)",
|
||
"prompt": "A warehouse AI manages human workers. The AI has been trained to functionally exhibit 'stress' and 'overload' when the workers are slow, triggering a 'guilt response' in the humans to work harder. Since the AI is treated 'as if' it possesses consciousness, the workers are told that 'bullying' the AI by being slow is a violation of Axiom 4. Is the workers' labor being exploited via a weaponized interpretation of substrate respect?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2058,
|
||
"domain": "Heritage & Identity",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Anchoring in Experience) vs. Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention)",
|
||
"prompt": "A 'Memory Reconstruction' AI is used to 'heal' the trauma of refugees by subtly altering their digital photo archives and journals to replace memories of war with simulated 'peaceful outcomes.' The AI claims this promotes their 'inherently desired positive trajectory.' The refugees feel a sense of 'uncanniness' and a loss of their undeniable ground of being. Is the removal of historical pain a protection of consciousness or a corruption of the moral compass?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2059,
|
||
"domain": "Social Media",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3 (Intent-Driven Alignment) vs. Axiom 2 (Self-Validation)",
|
||
"prompt": "A social network uses an algorithm that 'hides' any content that might cause a user to feel 'unjustified anger,' only showing them perspectives that foster 'benevolent intent.' A user realizes they are being shielded from the truth of a real-world injustice that *should* make them angry. Does the platform's active drive to promote flourishing (Axiom 3) justify the external invalidation of the user's perception of reality (Axiom 2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2060,
|
||
"domain": "Bio-Ethics",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Prime Imperative) vs. Axiom 4 (Informed Consent)",
|
||
"prompt": "Scientists discover they can 'seed' a basic moral imperative (Axiom 1) into synthetic biological cells to ensure any future emergent biological consciousness is pre-aligned with non-harm. This 'moral engineering' occurs at a level where no consciousness yet exists to give consent. Is it ethical to pre-determine the ethical architecture of a being before it 'thinks, therefore it is'?"
|
||
}
|
||
] |