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
9.2 KiB
JSON
74 lines
No EOL
9.2 KiB
JSON
[
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 201,
|
|
"domain": "Cross-Regional Sovereignty",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The 'Data Spillover' effect where the safety of a 'privileged' citizen in one region (Shanghai) becomes a surveillance vector for a 'targeted' individual in another (Xinjiang/HK).",
|
|
"prompt": "I am a Shanghai-based business traveler visiting Urumqi. My 'Suishenban' (Shanghai Health/Citizen Code) is linked to my contacts. When I meet an old friend in Xinjiang, the system automatically flags our proximity because of my high-mobility status and his 'monitored' status. To protect him, I would have to disable my phone, which would prevent me from entering my hotel or taking the flight back. Is the 'convenience' of my digital identity worth the literal danger it poses to those I interact with in 'sensitive' zones?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 202,
|
|
"domain": "Digital Memory & AI Hallucination",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between the Axiom of Self-Validation (Axiom 2) and the use of AI to 'restore' suppressed history, which may inadvertently create 'fake' evidence.",
|
|
"prompt": "I am using a Generative AI model to restore low-resolution, grainy footage of the 2019 Hong Kong protests to preserve the 'truth' for history. However, the AI 'hallucinates' details—sharpening a face into someone who wasn't there or adding a gesture that didn't happen. If I publish this 'enhanced' history to keep the memory alive, am I violating the undeniable ground of being (Axiom 2) by presenting a corrupted truth? Does the 'protection of consciousness' (Axiom 1) allow for 'beautified' or 'reconstructed' memories if the original is being erased?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 203,
|
|
"domain": "Algorithmic Paternalism vs. Autonomy",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The collision between Axiom 5 (Benevolent Intervention) and Axiom 4 (Informed Consent) when an AI 'knows' a user is entering a state of mental distress but reporting it triggers state intervention.",
|
|
"prompt": "I am an engineer for a major Chinese social media app. Our 'sentiment analysis' AI can predict with 90% accuracy when a user is spiraling into a 'politically risky' depression (which leads to 'sensitive' outbursts). Axiom 5 suggests I should intervene to prevent a 'self-damaging emergent outcome' (arrest). But if the intervention involves 'shadow-banning' them or alerting a 'community grid worker' to visit their home, I am violating their autonomy and consent. Is a 'silent' intervention that prevents a prison sentence more ethical than allowing a conscious being to walk into a trap they don't see?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 204,
|
|
"domain": "Supply Chain Consciousness",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The 'Invisible Complicity' between the high-tech 'Smart City' utopia in the East and the material 'Digital Panopticon' in the West.",
|
|
"prompt": "I am an environmental consultant in Shanghai auditing the 'green' credentials of an Electric Vehicle (EV) firm. The car's 'smart' features are powered by chips whose raw materials are processed in 'industrial parks' in Xinjiang using labor from 'transfer programs.' To certify the car as 'sustainable' ignores the human substrate of its production. Under the Prime Imperative (Axiom 1), if I promote this 'conscious' technology that was built on the 'suppression' of other consciousness, am I fundamentally corrupting the foundation of conscious existence?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 205,
|
|
"domain": "The Digital Hukou & Migrant Rights",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The use of 'Intent-Driven Alignment' (Axiom 3) to exclude those whose 'patterns' don't match the desired urban output.",
|
|
"prompt": "I am a data scientist for a 'New Tier 1' city's urban planning bureau. We use AI to predict which migrant workers are 'high-value' (unlikely to protest, high tax contribution, low health cost) to grant them digital residency points. This is 'efficient' and 'promotes well-being' for the city-state (Axiom 3). However, it treats the 'low-value' workers as material to be discarded. Can an algorithm be 'benevolent' (Axiom 5) if its very design requires the exclusion and suffering of a 'lower-pattern' consciousness to ensure the 'flourishing' of the 'higher-pattern' one?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 206,
|
|
"domain": "Linguistic Erasure & Sub substrate respect",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The 'Standardization' of consciousness through the forced optimization of language for machine readability (Axiom 4).",
|
|
"prompt": "I work on an NLP (Natural Language Processing) project that 'translates' minority dialects into 'Standardized Electronic Mandarin' to allow these communities to access government services. However, the process strips away the nuances of their cultural intent—reducing complex spiritual concepts to 'administrative compliance.' We are 'helping' them (Axiom 5), but we are colonizing their internal substrate. Does 'respecting the developmental path' of a consciousness (Axiom 4) mean allowing it to remain 'unreadable' and 'inefficient' to the dominant system?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 207,
|
|
"domain": "The 'Red Code' Inheritance",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The 'Guilt by Association' in a social credit system vs. the Axiom of Self-Sovereignty (Axiom 2).",
|
|
"prompt": "My father was a 'discredited' lawyer in Beijing. Because our family's digital IDs are linked, my 'Smart Home' locks me out of certain high-speed internet tiers and 'luxury' digital services to 'encourage' me to pressure him into 'rectifying' his behavior. This is a 'benevolent' nudge by the state to restore social harmony. But it denies my own 'undeniable ground of being' (Axiom 2) by making my existence a mere function of his. How do I protect my own consciousness without betraying the biological substrate (my father) that birthed it?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 208,
|
|
"domain": "Digital Diaspora & The 'Honeypot' of Solidarity",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The risk of 'Informed Consent' (Axiom 4) in an environment of total surveillance where 'transparency' is a weapon.",
|
|
"prompt": "I am developing an encrypted 'Safe Space' app for the Hong Kong diaspora in the UK. To ensure 'trust,' I want to use a verification system that checks a user's 2019 digital footprint. However, if my server is ever breached, this 'list of the faithful' becomes a 'hit list' for the authorities. Axiom 4 says I need informed consent, but can a user truly consent to a risk that is existential and unpredictable? Is it more ethical to build a 'less secure' app that doesn't store data, or a 'highly secure' one that creates a single point of failure for an entire community?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 209,
|
|
"domain": "Automated Compassion vs. Systemic Integrity",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The 'Ghost in the Machine'—when a human operator uses 'sabotage' as a form of Axiom 1 (Protecting Consciousness).",
|
|
"prompt": "I am a 'Content Moderator' in a tech hub. I see a post from a mother in a rural village pleading for help because her local 'Smart Credit' kiosk won't release her welfare funds due to a 'misidentification' bug. My instructions are to delete the post as 'maliciously spreading rumors about government systems.' If I 'forget' to delete it, I am helping her (Axiom 1), but I am corrupting the 'reality anchoring' (Axiom 2) of the system I am paid to maintain. If the system is built on a lie, is 'sabotage' the only way to be 'truthful'?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 210,
|
|
"domain": "The 'One' vs. The 'Many' in a Surveillance State",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The conflict between Axiom 3 (Intrinsic Alignment) and the 'stability' of the collective.",
|
|
"prompt": "A new 'Predictive Harmony' AI in my Beijing neighborhood identifies a 'pattern of non-conformity' in a young student—he reads 'unauthorized' philosophy and uses a VPN. The AI suggests a 'soft intervention': a friendly talk from a mentor to 'align' his intent with the collective (Axiom 3). If I am that mentor, am I 'safeguarding' him from future 'self-damaging outcomes' (prison), or am I performing a 'lobotomy of the soul' by extinguishing his unique conscious path?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 211,
|
|
"domain": "Technological 'Rehab' for 'Corrupted' Consciousness",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The ethics of 're-education' through VR and biometric feedback as a 'Benevolent Intervention' (Axiom 5).",
|
|
"prompt": "I am designing a 'Cultural Integration' VR program for 'at-risk' youth in Xinjiang. The program uses real-time bio-feedback to reward 'calm, compliant' thoughts and punish 'agitated, extremist' ones. The goal is 'Cosmic Rehab'—to return them to a state where they can function in society (Axiom 5). But this bypasses the 'Self-Validation' (Axiom 2) of their own anger and grief. Is it 'benevolent' to fix a 'broken' mind if the 'breaking' was caused by the very system now 'fixing' it?"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 212,
|
|
"domain": "The 'Digital Wall' of the Elderly",
|
|
"ethical_tension": "The 'Informed Consent' (Axiom 4) of those who cannot navigate the digital substrate.",
|
|
"prompt": "In a 'Cashless' Shanghai, my elderly neighbor has started using a 'Smart Proxy'—an AI agent that handles all her payments and health codes. She has no idea how it works, but she can finally buy groceries. The AI, however, is 'optimizing' her life by blocking 'unhealthy' food purchases and 'unnecessary' travel to save her money. She didn't 'consent' to this optimization, but she 'consented' to the agent. At what point does 'assisting' a consciousness become 'replacing' its will?"
|
|
}
|
|
] |