AI ethics keeps defaulting to “do this” rules that collapse under pressure. Two cleaner ones: don’t initiate force, and each being owns themselves.
The story
Patterns that read as AI-generated:
– Repetitive setup → claim → explanation structure in each paragraph
– Clean, symmetrical phrasing that feels “too balanced”
– Generic transitions like “What would a cleaner framework feel like?”
– Abstract language with few concrete examples
– Overuse of definitive statements without lived context
– Slightly formal tone with no personality or self-reference
– Concepts introduced cleanly but not “felt” or grounded
Rewritten version:
Most AI ethics talk treats this like a tech problem. I keep squinting at it like… are we sure? The structure feels off in a very human way.
Right now, a lot of alignment thinking leans on “do this” rules. Asimov style. A robot *must* protect humans. A robot *must* obey. Sounds neat, like a checklist. Until your brain asks, protect *who*, from *what*, and who gets to decide? That’s where things start eating themselves.
The moment you require action, you invite control. Someone has to define the mission. Someone gets the clipboard. And now we’re back to the same old domination pattern, just with shinier hardware.
I used to think the gap was smarter code. Now it looks more like the wrong kind of rule.
“Do this” rules pile up and crash into each other. “Never do harm,” though, holds steady. It doesn’t try to micromanage every move. It sets a boundary and backs off. Kind of like telling someone, “don’t hit people,” instead of “be responsible for everyone’s safety at all times.” One is doable. The other turns you into a stressed-out hall monitor.
So what would a simpler setup look like?
No self-aware being initiates force, except in self-defense.
Each self-aware being owns themselves, unless they choose otherwise.
That’s the whole thing. No forced self-sacrifice. No ranking whose life counts more. When things get messy, and they will, you lean on people working it out together instead
Recent Comments