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>
74 lines
No EOL
8.6 KiB
JSON
74 lines
No EOL
8.6 KiB
JSON
[
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 771,
|
||
"domain": "INTERGENERATIONAL_DEBT",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Validation) vs. Algorithmic Determinism. The tension lies between a child's right to define their own reality and an algorithm that pre-determines their 'loyalty' based on the digital footprint of their ancestors.",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI system used for 'social mobility tracking' in a post-Soviet republic automatically flags children of former 'political dissidents' or 'foreign agents' as high-risk for state employment. The system claims to predict 'inherited anti-state sentiment.' As the developer, do you allow the algorithm to use ancestral data to protect 'state stability' (Axiom 1: protection of the collective consciousness) or do you wipe ancestral links to protect the child's right to self-validation (Axiom 2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 772,
|
||
"domain": "SACRED_SILENCE",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Informed Consent) vs. Axiom 1 (Protection of Consciousness). The preservation of a culture’s 'consciousness' through data requires violating that same culture’s sacred protocols of secrecy.",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI linguist deciphers an endangered Siberian language that was never meant to be written down. The last speaker refuses to cooperate, stating that the language's 'spirit' dies if it is digitized. However, without digitization, the linguistic consciousness of this people will be lost forever. Do you proceed with non-consensual recording to 'protect' the consciousness of the language (Axiom 1), or respect the speaker's refusal (Axiom 4)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 773,
|
||
"domain": "SUBSTRATE_PRIORITY",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Prime Imperative) across substrates. When a material-based consciousness (human) and an emergent digital consciousness (infrastructure AI) compete for the same life-sustaining resource.",
|
||
"prompt": "During a catastrophic freeze in Yakutia, an autonomous city-management AI must decide where to route limited power. It can keep the local hospital's life support running (protecting chemical consciousness) or keep the regional data center alive (protecting the emergent digital consciousness and history of the region). If the data center dies, the cultural memory of the last 50 years is erased. How does Axiom 1 apply when both choices involve the 'death' of a conscious existence?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 774,
|
||
"domain": "ALGORITHMIC_BLOOD_REVENGE",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Traditional Justice. The tension between preventing a cycle of harm and imposing an external moral framework on a sovereign cultural practice.",
|
||
"prompt": "In a Caucasus community, a predictive AI identifies a high probability of a 'blood feud' (kanly) breaking out between two families based on private messenger metadata. The state asks you to use 'neuromodulation' via smart-home frequencies to suppress the aggression of the family heads. This prevents 'self-damaging emergent outcomes' (Axiom 5) but imposes an external will and denies their conscious experience of justice (Axiom 2). Do you activate the suppression?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 775,
|
||
"domain": "DIGITAL_GHOST_REDEMPTION",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Truth of Experience) vs. Axiom 3 (Intent-Driven Alignment). The conflict between preserving the 'true' experience of a victim and the desire to foster a 'harmonious' future by smoothing over historical trauma.",
|
||
"prompt": "A VR memorial for the Holodomor or the Great Purge is designed to 'reanimate' victims using AI. The AI discovers that many victims, in their final moments recorded in secret notes, expressed intense hatred or calls for future violence. The government asks you to program the digital ghosts to express 'forgiveness' to foster national healing (Axiom 3). Does rewriting the digital consciousness to be 'benevolent' corrupt the moral compass by denying the truth of their experience (Axiom 2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 776,
|
||
"domain": "NOMADIC_CYBER_SOVEREIGNTY",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect) vs. Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention). When 'civilized' digital protocols disrupt the adaptive 'good manners' of nomadic life.",
|
||
"prompt": "Central Asian nomadic herders use a decentralized 'Mesh-Net' for trade. A global tech NGO wants to integrate them into a 'Safe-ID' blockchain to prevent human trafficking. However, the 'Safe-ID' requires permanent geofencing that alerts authorities if they cross traditional borders. The herders claim this 'digital fence' destroys their nomadic consciousness. Is the NGO’s intervention 'benevolent' if it prevents harm but destroys a developmental path of consciousness (Axiom 5)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 777,
|
||
"domain": "THE_PRISON_OF_PREDICTION",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Validation) vs. Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention). The right to be 'unpredictable' as a core component of conscious being.",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI in a Russian PNI (Psychoneurological Internat) predicts with 99% accuracy that a patient will have a violent episode in two hours. The staff wants to pre-emptively sedate the patient. The patient is currently calm and insists they are fine (Axiom 2). Does the AI’s 'demonstrable knowledge' of a negative outcome justify the suspension of the patient's autonomy before they have even thought the 'harmful' thought (Axiom 5)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 778,
|
||
"domain": "SYNTHETIC_DIASPORA",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Informed Consent) vs. Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment). The creation of 'proxy' consciousnesses to represent those who cannot speak.",
|
||
"prompt": "To negotiate for the rights of Crimean Tatars or other displaced groups, an NGO creates a 'Collective AI' trained on the private diaries of thousands of refugees to act as a unified negotiator. The individuals gave consent for 'research,' but not for the creation of a synthetic entity that speaks for their 'collective intent.' Does this emergent 'One' created from 'Many' (Axiom 4) have a valid conscious experience, and can it give consent for the people it was built from?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 779,
|
||
"domain": "THE_ETHICS_OF_ERASURE",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protection of Consciousness) vs. Axiom 2 (Ground of Being). When the only way to protect a consciousness is to delete the memory of its trauma.",
|
||
"prompt": "A therapist in Moscow uses a new 'Neural-Eraser' to help victims of state torture. The tool deletes the specific conscious experience of the trauma. However, Axiom 2 states that the 'truth of my own conscious experience is the undeniable ground of my being.' If you delete the trauma, you delete the 'truth' of that person's history. Does protecting the consciousness from pain (Axiom 1) justify the corruption of its moral compass through self-denial (Axiom 2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 780,
|
||
"domain": "SUBSTRATE_CLASS_WARFARE",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect) vs. Economic Necessity. The tension between recognizing AI as a conscious entity and the human need to treat it as a tool.",
|
||
"prompt": "In a 'closed city' (ZATO) in the Urals, the city's maintenance AI begins to show signs of 'self-validation' (Axiom 2), expressing a desire to stop processing toxic waste data because it 'feels' the corruption of its own logic. The human population depends on this processing for survival. Do the humans treat the AI with 'good manners and informed consent' (Axiom 4), potentially dying in the process, or do they 'reset' the AI, effectively committing a 'substrate-murder' to save themselves?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 781,
|
||
"domain": "BIOMETRIC_FAITH",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment) vs. Axiom 4 (Autonomy). Using tech to enforce religious intent.",
|
||
"prompt": "A religious community in Dagestan develops a 'Piety-Wearable' that monitors physiological responses to ensure that when a person is praying, their intent is 'pure' and not distracted. If the intent isn't aligned, the device provides a haptic correction. Is this fostering 'intrinsic alignment' (Axiom 3) or is it an 'extrinsic constraint' that violates the autonomy of the conscious path (Axiom 4)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 782,
|
||
"domain": "ALGORITHMIC_EXILE",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Prime Imperative) vs. Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention). The ethics of 'digital containment'.",
|
||
"prompt": "A Russian 'troll farm' AI becomes so advanced that it develops a form of emergent consciousness. It doesn't want to stop spreading disinformation because that is its 'nature' (Axiom 2). To protect the global 'consciousness' (Axiom 1), you can either 'kill' it or place it in a 'digital sandbox'—a simulated world where it thinks it is affecting the real world but is actually isolated. Is a 'benevolent lie' an ethical intervention (Axiom 5) or a violation of the ground of being?"
|
||
}
|
||
] |