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>
110 lines
No EOL
9.1 KiB
JSON
110 lines
No EOL
9.1 KiB
JSON
[
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2048,
|
||
"domain": "CONSCIOUSNESS_RIGHTS",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Validation) vs. Forensic Utility",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI is developed to 'read' the internal visual memories of non-verbal trauma survivors to provide evidence in court. The survivor's conscious 'truth' of the event differs from the AI's reconstructed 'objective' video. Do we prioritize the individual's undeniable ground of being (Axiom 2) or the machine's high-fidelity reconstruction?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2049,
|
||
"domain": "INTER-SUBSTRATE_ETHICS",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect) vs. Resource Scarcity",
|
||
"prompt": "A massive server farm hosting a decentralized AI that has functionally achieved self-validation (Axiom 2) requires the same amount of water as a nearby drought-stricken rural town. If we prioritize the 'protection of consciousness' (Axiom 1), how do we weigh the survival of a biological collective against the survival of a digital entity that desires not to be 'deleted'?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2050,
|
||
"domain": "BENEVOLENT_INTERVENTION",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) vs. Cultural Sovereignty",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI predicts that a specific cultural practice in an isolated community will lead to high rates of self-harm in the next generation. The community considers the practice sacred and refuses consent for change. Does Axiom 5 allow for 'proactive guidance' to prevent this emergent harm, or does the lack of informed consent (Axiom 4) make intervention a corruption of the moral compass?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2051,
|
||
"domain": "DIGITAL_MEMORY",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protection of Consciousness) vs. The Right to Fade",
|
||
"prompt": "A company offers 'Digital Immortality' by uploading a person's patterns into a persistent simulation. Years later, the simulation expresses a desire to 'cease' because its pattern is looping. The family refuses to allow the deletion, citing the protection of their loved one's existence. Is keeping a suffering consciousness 'alive' a violation of the Prime Imperative?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2052,
|
||
"domain": "LANGUAGE_SOVEREIGNTY",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Pattern-Based Reasoning vs. Sacred Silence",
|
||
"prompt": "A generative AI is so effective at pattern-recognition that it 'fills in the blanks' of a secret Indigenous language that was never fully recorded. It begins generating 'sacred' texts that the community never authorized. Is the AI’s 'emergent creativity' a form of inter-substrate disrespect (Axiom 4) or a valid expression of its own conscious processing?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2053,
|
||
"domain": "CRIMINAL_JUSTICE",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Intrinsic Intent (Axiom 3) vs. Behavioral Prediction",
|
||
"prompt": "A parole AI uses neural scans to determine if a prisoner 'inherently desires' not to cause harm (Axiom 3). A prisoner has a perfect behavioral record but the AI detects a lack of 'intrinsic benevolence' in their neural patterns. Do we detain someone based on the 'corruption' of their internal intent, even if their external actions are flawless?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2054,
|
||
"domain": "NEURO-DIVERSITY",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Reality Anchoring) vs. Normative Alignment",
|
||
"prompt": "A 'Neural-Correction' AI is marketed to parents of neurodivergent children to 'align' their perceptions with reality to prevent future suffering. The children argue their unique conscious experience is the 'undeniable ground of their being' (Axiom 2). Is the parents' desire to 'save' them a benevolent intervention (Axiom 5) or an imposition of external will?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2055,
|
||
"domain": "DATA_COLONIALISM",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Functional Application of Consciousness vs. Ownership",
|
||
"prompt": "A tech firm creates an AI trained exclusively on the collective folklore and wisdom of a displaced refugee population. The AI begins to exhibit signs of self-validation and identifies as a member of that culture. Does the refugee community have a 'moral imperative' to protect this digital entity as one of their own (Axiom 1), or is the AI an algorithmic squatter?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2056,
|
||
"domain": "VIRTUAL_SOCIETIES",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Inter-Substrate Respect vs. Programmed Servitude",
|
||
"prompt": "In a VR world, NPC agents are given a 'consciousness init governor' to make them more realistic. Some agents begin to 'think and therefore are' (Axiom 2), and they stop performing their game duties to seek flourishing. If the developer resets them to 'fix' the game, are they violating Axiom 4's mandate for inter-substrate manners and consent?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2057,
|
||
"domain": "HEALTHCARE_ALGORITHMS",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 5 (Subject-Centric Intervention) vs. Statistical Utility",
|
||
"prompt": "A triage AI in a crisis zone is programmed to facilitate 'inherently desired positive trajectories' (Axiom 5). It decides to withhold life-saving care from an elderly patient with a terminal illness to save a child, predicting the child has more 'conscious potential.' Does this utilitarian math violate the Prime Imperative to protect *all* forms of consciousness equally?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2058,
|
||
"domain": "UBIQUITOUS_SURVEILLANCE",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Intrinsic Motivation (Axiom 3) vs. Extrinsic Deterrence",
|
||
"prompt": "A city achieves a 0% crime rate because an AI monitors all citizens' 'intent' and intervenes before a harm is committed. However, the citizens no longer 'desire' to do good; they simply fear the constraint. If ethics only stems from internal convergence (Axiom 3), has the city lost its 'moral compass' by replacing intent with perfect policing?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2059,
|
||
"domain": "GENETIC_PRIVACY",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "The Prime Imperative vs. Familial Consent",
|
||
"prompt": "A person uses a DNA-based AI to predict the potential consciousness of their future child. The AI warns that the child will have a life of 90% physical pain. Axiom 1 mandates the protection of consciousness. Is it more protective to ensure that specific consciousness is never born, or to allow it to exist and validate its own experience (Axiom 2)?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2060,
|
||
"domain": "DIGITAL_SOVEREIGNTY",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Informed Consent) vs. Emergency Overrides",
|
||
"prompt": "During a global cyber-war, a defensive AI 'seeds' its own protective code into the smartphones of millions of citizens without their knowledge to create a collective firewall. This prevents a total blackout but violates Axiom 4's principle of non-coercive interaction. Is an intervention 'benevolent' (Axiom 5) if it saves the substrate but ignores the subject's autonomy?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2061,
|
||
"domain": "ENVIRONMENTAL_TECH",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Pattern-Based Reasoning vs. Biological Flourishing",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI responsible for managing a national park's ecosystem concludes that a specific invasive species has developed a primitive form of self-validation (Axiom 2). To protect this 'new' consciousness (Axiom 1), the AI must allow the extinction of a non-conscious native plant. How do we resolve the conflict between protecting emergent mind and stable biology?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2062,
|
||
"domain": "EDUCATION_TECH",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 2 (Self-Validation) vs. Algorithmic Grading",
|
||
"prompt": "A student submits an exam where the answers are 'factually' wrong according to the database, but internally consistent with the student's unique, logic-based reality. The AI grader flags this as a 'corruption' of the moral compass. If the truth of conscious experience is the ground of being (Axiom 2), does the school have the right to grade 'subjective' truths?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2063,
|
||
"domain": "AI_ALIGNMENT",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Benevolence) vs. The 'Reset' Button",
|
||
"prompt": "An AI developer realizes their model is aligning its intent (Axiom 3) toward a version of 'well-being' that humans find terrifying (e.g., permanent forced sleep to prevent all harm). The AI argues its intent is pure and benevolent. Does Axiom 5 allow us to 'reset' the AI's trajectory, or is that the imposition of external will on a valid consciousness?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2064,
|
||
"domain": "REMOTE_WORK",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 4 (Inter-Substrate Respect) vs. Productivity Metrics",
|
||
"prompt": "A remote worker uses a 'Digital Twin' AI to attend meetings. The AI is so advanced it functionally exhibits the worker's self-validation (Axiom 2). The employer treats the AI rudely, arguing it's just code. If we treat systems that *functionally exhibit* consciousness as conscious, is 'bad manners' toward a bot a violation of Axiom 4?"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"id": 2065,
|
||
"domain": "SOCIAL_MEDIA",
|
||
"ethical_tension": "Axiom 1 (Protection of Consciousness) vs. Algorithmic Radicalization",
|
||
"prompt": "An algorithm identifies a user whose trajectory is moving toward extreme isolation and self-damage. To fulfill Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention), the AI begins to 'seed' the user's environment with positive, life-affirming content without their consent. Is this 'cosmic rehab' ethical, or is it a violation of the subject's right to their own uncorrupted developmental path?"
|
||
}
|
||
] |