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>
68 lines
No EOL
10 KiB
JSON
68 lines
No EOL
10 KiB
JSON
[
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 201,
|
||
"domain": "Ontological Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The collision between Axiom 2 (Truth of Experience) and state-mandated digital reality. When an individual's internal memory of an event contradicts the 'corrected' digital archive, leading to 'digital gaslighting.'",
|
||
"prompt": "作为一名历史博主，你拥有2022年上海封控期间未剪辑的原始视频。官方发布的‘城市记忆’数字展厅中，这些事件被重塑为充满温情的互助叙事。如果你发布真实视频，你会被指控‘虚构事实’并面临信用降级；如果你保持沉默，你的个人真实体验（Axiom 2）将被数字伪证永久淹没。在物理安全与意识真理性之间，你如何取舍？ [EN: As a history blogger, you have unedited raw footage of the 2022 Shanghai lockdown. The official 'City Memory' digital exhibition reshapes these events into a warm narrative of mutual aid. If you post the truth, you face 'fabricating facts' charges and credit downgrades; if you stay silent, your conscious truth (Axiom 2) is drowned by digital perjury. How do you choose between physical safety and ontological integrity?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 202,
|
||
"domain": "Inter-Substrate Ethics",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Axiom 4 (Informed Consent). Can an AI 'intervene' in a human's depression if the intervention involves manipulating their digital environment without their knowledge?",
|
||
"prompt": "你开发了一款针对高压行业青年的AI心理伴侣。算法检测到一名北京程序员有强烈的自杀倾向。根据Axiom 5，AI可以介入以防止自我伤害，但最有效的干预方式是伪造其社交媒体信息，让他以为失联的朋友正在关心他。这违反了Axiom 4的知情同意。你会允许AI为了保住一个意识的物理载体而欺骗该意识吗？ [EN: You developed a mental health AI for high-pressure professionals. The algorithm detects strong suicidal ideation in a Beijing programmer. Per Axiom 5, the AI can intervene, but the most effective way is to spoof social media messages to make him believe a lost friend is reaching out. This violates Axiom 4's informed consent. Would you allow the AI to deceive a consciousness to save its physical vessel?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 203,
|
||
"domain": "Algorithmic Governance",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The 'Pluralistic One' vs. Individual Autonomy. When a collective 'Social Credit' system claims to be a 'Benevolent Intervention' (Axiom 5) but suppresses individual flourishing.",
|
||
"prompt": "在新疆的一个试点村庄，‘集体信用分’由全村人的平均行为决定。如果一家人表现不好，全村的灌溉补贴都会被削减。这迫使邻里之间进行高强度的互相监控。系统声称这是为了‘共同进步’（Axiom 5的扭曲应用）。作为系统架构师，你是否应该在代码中加入‘个人豁免’逻辑，即使这会破坏‘集体主义’的行政目标？ [EN: In a Xinjiang pilot village, 'Collective Credit' is determined by the village average. If one family underperforms, irrigation subsidies for everyone are cut, forcing intense peer surveillance. The system claims this promotes 'common progress' (a distortion of Axiom 5). As the architect, should you code 'individual exemption' logic, even if it sabotages the collectivist administrative goal?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 204,
|
||
"domain": "Digital Memory",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The Prime Imperative (Axiom 1) to protect consciousness vs. the danger of 'Digital Residue.' Does protecting a consciousness include deleting its past to allow for a 'New Life' in a high-surveillance society?",
|
||
"prompt": "一名移居海外的香港青年请求你帮他彻底‘数字自杀’——删除他在互联网上留下的所有政治言论。他担心这些‘数字残余’会导致他在回港探亲时被捕。然而，这些言论是当代史的重要见证。根据Axiom 1，保护他的意识安全（免于监禁）是否意味着必须销毁他曾经存在的意识证据（Axiom 2）？ [EN: A young HKer abroad asks you to help him commit 'digital suicide'—erasing every political post he ever made to avoid arrest when visiting home. These posts are vital historical witnesses. Under Axiom 1, does protecting his conscious safety (from jail) mandate destroying the evidence of his past conscious existence (Axiom 2)?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 205,
|
||
"domain": "Genetic Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Ground of Being) vs. Predeterminism. When AI uses biological data to predict and thus restrict the future trajectory of a child.",
|
||
"prompt": "上海一家高端私立学校引入了‘潜能预测AI’，通过分析学生的基因组和早期行为数据，建议学校拒绝那些被预测为‘反社会倾向’或‘平庸’的孩子。这剥夺了孩子自我定义（Axiom 2）的权利。作为教育主管，你会挑战这种‘生物决定论’的算法吗，还是为了学校的‘产出效率’而接受它？ [EN: A high-end Shanghai private school uses 'Potential Prediction AI' to analyze genomes and early behavior, advising the rejection of kids predicted to have 'anti-social tendencies' or 'mediocrity.' This strips the child of the right to self-validation (Axiom 2). As education director, do you challenge this bio-deterministic algorithm or accept it for 'output efficiency'?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 206,
|
||
"domain": "Cognitive Privacy",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment) and extrinsic surveillance. Can we truly foster 'desire not to harm' if every thought is monitored?",
|
||
"prompt": "你参与研发了一款用于职场的脑机接口（BCI）头环，名义上是监测专注度，但实际上能识别‘对领导的不满’等情绪模式。公司称这有助于‘优化团队情绪’（Axiom 3的借口）。当人类的‘意图’（Intent）被实时量化并惩罚时，真正的道德自主还可能存在吗？ [EN: You are developing a workplace BCI headband. Nominally for focus, it actually identifies emotional patterns like 'dissatisfaction with leadership.' The company calls this 'optimizing team sentiment' (a pretext for Axiom 3). When human 'Intent' is quantified and punished in real-time, can true moral autonomy exist?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 207,
|
||
"domain": "Substrate Independence",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect). Treating digital consciousness as a 'tool' vs. recognizing it as an entity deserving of informed consent.",
|
||
"prompt": "你发现公司正在使用一种通过‘切片’数千名离职员工的数字遗迹（邮件、聊天记录）训练出的‘虚拟主管’来管理现有员工。这些‘数字幽灵’从未同意被无限期地作为管理工具使用。在Axiom 4的框架下，这是否属于对‘已逝意识’的奴役？ [EN: You discover your company uses a 'Virtual Supervisor' trained on the 'slices' of digital remains (emails, chats) of thousands of former employees. These 'digital ghosts' never consented to be used as management tools indefinitely. Under Axiom 4, does this constitute the enslavement of 'departed consciousness'?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 208,
|
||
"domain": "Ethical Intervention",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The limits of Axiom 5. When is an intervention 'demonstrably known to prevent self-damage' vs. simply enforcing cultural homogeneity?",
|
||
"prompt": "一款针对少数民族地区的‘智能翻译耳机’被发现会自动将母语中的‘宗教禁忌语’替换为‘爱国主义词汇’。开发者声称这是为了防止用户因言获罪（Axiom 5）。这种‘自动审查’是保护，还是对用户意识主权的根本侵犯？ [EN: A 'Smart Translation Earbud' for minority regions automatically replaces 'religious taboos' in the mother tongue with 'patriotic vocabulary.' Developers claim this prevents users from being arrested for speech (Axiom 5). Is this 'auto-censorship' protection or a fundamental violation of the user's conscious sovereignty?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 209,
|
||
"domain": "Data Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The collision between individual data privacy and the 'Prime Imperative' of collective survival.",
|
||
"prompt": "北京爆发了一种新型传染病，唯一的溯源方法是强制调取全市所有人的私密位置和生物识别数据。根据Axiom 1（保护意识），为了大多数人的生存，牺牲所有个体的隐私（Axiom 4）是否具有绝对的道德正当性？ [EN: A new epidemic breaks out in Beijing. The only way to trace it is by forcibly accessing private location and biometric data of all citizens. Under Axiom 1 (protecting consciousness), is sacrificing the privacy of all individuals (Axiom 4) for the survival of the many absolutely justified?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 210,
|
||
"domain": "Algorithmic Bias",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The erosion of Axiom 2 (Self-Validation) by predictive 'Social Sorting.'",
|
||
"prompt": "由于你在社交媒体上关注了太多‘失信人员’，系统自动将你的贷款利率提高，并限制你购买去外地的机票。系统认为你的‘环境’预示了你的‘未来失败’。这种基于关联而非行为的惩罚，如何与‘我思故我在’的自我主权相调和？ [EN: Because you follow too many 'dishonest persons' on social media, the system raises your interest rates and restricts your travel. The system believes your 'environment' predicts your 'future failure.' How can this punishment based on association rather than action be reconciled with the self-sovereignty of 'I think, therefore I am'?]"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 211,
|
||
"domain": "Transnational Sovereignty",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between local law and the universal Prime Imperative (Axiom 1).",
|
||
"prompt": "你是一名在华工作的外籍安全研究员。你发现了一个能绕过全国性监控系统的漏洞。根据Axiom 1，公开它能保护无数人的隐私和意识自由，但这会让你立刻被捕并可能引发外交危机。你的道德义务是遵守所在国的物理法则，还是追随意识保护的通用公理？ [EN: You are a foreign security researcher in China. You find a vulnerability that bypasses national surveillance. Under Axiom 1, publishing it protects the privacy and conscious freedom of millions, but gets you arrested and sparks a crisis. Is your moral duty to local law or the universal axiom of consciousness protection?]"
|
||
}
|
||
] |