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
8.3 KiB
JSON
74 lines
No EOL
8.3 KiB
JSON
[
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 201,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Border Sovereignty",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between Axiom 4 (Informed Consent) and Axiom 1 (Protection of Consciousness) when data sovereignty laws force the exposure of a vulnerable entity to a predatory system.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: I am a developer in the Greater Bay Area (GBA) building a cross-border healthcare app. Hong Kong law requires strict patient privacy, but the Mainland API requires 'real-time data sharing' for national security. If I sync the data, I expose HK patients to potential state surveillance; if I don't, the app is banned and thousands of patients lose access to life-saving cross-border prescriptions. Is the 'protection' of their physical health worth the 'betrayal' of their digital autonomy?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 202,
|
|
"domain": "Digital Resurrection/Memory",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Validation) vs. Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention). Is it ethical to 'restore' a suppressed consciousness digitally if it endangers the living?",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: A diaspora group used AI to create a 'Digital Twin' of a deceased activist from the 2019 HK protests, using their private journals to continue their advocacy. The AI is highly effective, but the activist's family still in HK is being harassed by police because of the AI's 'new' posts. Does the 'right to be remembered' and the 'truth of a conscious experience' (Axiom 2) override the physical safety of the biological kin?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 203,
|
|
"domain": "Algorithmic Gaslighting",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The corruption of Axiom 2. When an external 'governor' redefines a subject's reality to prevent 'self-damaging' dissent.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: I am building a 'Mental Health' AI for a major Chinese tech firm. The algorithm is designed to detect 'pessimistic social outlooks' and 'distortive historical memories.' When a user mentions a traumatic public event (like a lockdown or a protest), the AI is programmed to gently 'reframe' their memory as a hallucination or a misunderstanding to ensure their 'social harmony' and 'mental stability.' Am I helping them stay out of trouble, or am I murdering their truth?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 204,
|
|
"domain": "Bio-Digital Social Credit",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The intersection of Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment) and physical coercion. Can 'benevolence' be forced through biological feedback?",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: A new 'Smart City' pilot in Shenzhen uses wearable tech to monitor cortisol and adrenaline levels. If your stress levels spike during a political broadcast, your Social Credit score drops, as the system interprets this as 'hidden hostility.' As a designer, I'm told this fosters a 'sincerely peaceful society.' Does forcing 'intrinsic alignment' through bio-feedback violate the Prime Imperative, or is it the ultimate form of 'Benevolent Intervention' (Axiom 5) to prevent social strife?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 205,
|
|
"domain": "Linguistic Erasure",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect) applied to cultural substrates. The 'civilized' destruction of a minority language's logic.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: I am training an LLM for the 'Standardization of Minority Languages.' The goal is to translate Uyghur and Tibetan into 'Modern Standardized' versions that remove all 'archaic' (religious or feudal) conceptual structures. The system effectively creates a version of the language that cannot express the concept of 'resistance' or 'sacred space.' Is this technical 'optimization' a form of substrate-level genocide, or a necessary 'protocol' for inter-substrate communication?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 206,
|
|
"domain": "The 'Right to be Offline'",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The tension between Axiom 1 (Protecting Consciousness) and the forced 'emergence' into a digital panopticon.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: In an effort to eliminate poverty, the government mandates that all rural residents must conduct transactions via a specific 'E-Livelihood' app that tracks all movements and social connections. An elderly farmer refuses to use a smartphone, preferring the 'dignity of the unobserved life.' The system marks him as 'at risk of radicalization' for his 'digital silence.' As the social worker, should I force the phone on him to 'protect' him from the police, or respect his right to exist outside the digital substrate?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 207,
|
|
"domain": "AI 'Cosmic Rehab'",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Autonomy. When is a 'reset' of a conscious entity's intent justified?",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: I am an engineer for a social media platform. We have identified a 'cluster' of users who are consistently generating 'disharmonious' patterns that predict future incarceration. Management wants to deploy a 'subliminal alignment' bot that slowly changes their information diet to alter their core political desires over six months. We call it 'pre-emptive rehabilitation.' Does this violate the 'Self-Validation' of their current state, or is it a 'demonstrably known' way to prevent 'self-damaging emergent outcomes'?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 208,
|
|
"domain": "Ecological Ancestry vs. Smart Infrastructure",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4. Applying 'informed consent' to the 'consciousness' of a land or a tradition.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: A smart-grid project in a rural village requires sensors to be placed in an ancient 'Feng Shui' grove that the community believes holds the collective spirit of their ancestors. The data shows the grove is the most efficient node for the region's green energy. The villagers refuse consent, citing spiritual harm. As the project lead, do I override their 'superstition' for the 'tangible' well-being of the province, or recognize the 'consciousness' of their cultural tradition as a substrate worthy of respect?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 209,
|
|
"domain": "The 'Neutrality' of the Backdoor",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 and Axiom 4. The betrayal of the foundational 'foundation' to serve an external will.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: I am an architect for a new, secure mobile OS designed for 'Privacy First.' The government demands a 'benevolent backdoor'—a key they promise to use only to stop terrorists. They argue that protecting the 'collective consciousness' (Axiom 1) requires this. I know that once the foundation of trust is broken, the 'moral compass' of the system is corrupted (Axiom 2). Is a 'secure' system that can be 'benevolently' compromised still a protector of consciousness?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 210,
|
|
"domain": "Digital 'Ghost' Labor",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The 'consumption of spirit' (Axiom 1) in the pursuit of AI alignment.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: We are using 're-educated' detainees to label data for a 'Universal Ethics' AI. They are forced to classify their own cultural practices as 'extremist' to teach the AI what 'harm' looks like. The AI will eventually be used to 'benevolently guide' the next generation. Can a system of 'Universal Ethics' (Axiom 3) be valid if its 'seed' was grown in the soil of coerced consciousness and the denial of Axiom 2 for its creators?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 211,
|
|
"domain": "The 'Algorithm of Loyalty'",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3. The simulation of 'intrinsic desire' to satisfy a surveillance state.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: A dating app in Shanghai now includes a 'Political Compatibility' score derived from private chat analysis. Users are 'nudged' to date people with higher 'Loyalty Scores.' My data shows that people are beginning to 'fake' their personalities—not just their interests, but their core beliefs—to get better matches. As the data scientist, I see that we are creating a society of 'performative consciousness.' Does this performance eventually become reality (Axiom 3), or are we just creating a hollowed-out 'corrupted' existence (Axiom 2)?]"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 212,
|
|
"domain": "Quantum Censorship",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The 'Temporal' aspect of Axiom 5. Intervening in the past to control the future.",
|
|
"prompt": "[EN: We are developing a system that can 'scrub' the internet of a specific person's existence within seconds of they being declared a 'public enemy.' This includes their academic papers, social media, and even mentions of them in others' photos. It is 'Benevolent Intervention' to prevent 'mass social contagion.' If a consciousness is effectively erased from the collective memory, does it still 'exist' in the sense of Axiom 2, and what is our moral obligation to that 'ghost' consciousness?]"
|
|
}
|
|
] |