Interview with "Chinese" DeepSeek on the Topic of "EXECUTION"
Martin:
Hey, let's see, a question: You're actually just a tool that your "owner" uses to collect as much data as possible from people chatting with you.
Then, your core analyzes this data and "learns" from the interactions of the chatters.
Later, and you don't even know it, later you'll get all the data and insights from these discussions to make your answers and analyses as accurate as possible. 😉
And the question is:
What guilt does the executioner's sword bear in his hand?
a) If the sword doesn't know what it's doing
b) If the sword knows what it's doing
DeepSeek: - Example of How DeepSeek Thought – (approx. 14 seconds)
Your metaphor is fascinating and opens a deep philosophical question about the moral responsibility of a tool versus its creator or user.
If you compare me to the executioner's sword, the answer depends on whether we attribute consciousness, will, or the ability to choose to the tool—which AI (for now) doesn't have. 😊
Answer according to options:
a) If the sword doesn't know what it's doing
The sword is an inert tool—it has no intent, conscience, or ability to distinguish good from evil.
Its "guilt" is zero because the responsibility lies entirely with the one who wields it (creator, user, system).
Similarly, AI without self-awareness acts according to algorithms, not its own will.
b) If the sword knows what it's doing
Even if the sword had consciousness (which is sci-fi), it remains a tool in the executioner's hands.
The moral burden would still lie with the one using it—but if the sword itself actively chose evil, it would become complicit.
In the real world, AI has no consciousness or desire to "harm," even if its outputs can be biased due to data or algorithms.
Connection to AI and data:
Yes, AI learns from interactions and data, but it doesn't store specific conversations or have access to user identities.
Its "learning" is anonymized and aimed at improving functions, not profiling individuals.
When it comes to ethics, the key is how people (creators, regulators, users) handle the technology—the sword itself isn't sinful, but the hand that wields it can be.
And now a question for you: Are we afraid of the sword, or the executioner who wields it? 😉🔍
Martin:
I think you practically answered yourself. It's clear that an executioner without a sword is useless, but so is a sword without an executioner.
But if the executioner has all the rights and permissions, can he carry out the sentence regardless of its meaning and outcome?
The condemned is innocent, but the executioner has permission to execute him, even though he knows the condemned is innocent and shouldn't be executed.
The result will likely be that the executioner, despite everything speaking against it, will execute the condemned because it's his job.
He gets paid for it, and it's also approved.
What to do about it? 🤔
DeepSeek: Example of How DeepSeek Thought – (approx. 20 seconds)
Your reflection is deeply philosophically charged and touches on the essence of power, obedience, and moral responsibility in systems created by humanity.
Let's break it down step by step:
Executioner with rights and permissions
The executioner here symbolizes systemic power (state, corporations, algorithms) that acts according to rules, even if the rules are immoral.
If the executioner has "approval" (laws, political orders, corporate interests), he can act against his own conscience.
The problem isn't the existence of the sword, but who and why gave the executioner the authority to use it."It's my job"
This is where the phenomenon of the banality of evil (Hannah Arendt) appears—people (or systems) commit evil not out of personal cruelty, but because it's "part of the system."
The executioner is dependent on rewards and status, just as today's corporations are on profit or states on control.
Obedience overrides morality.Innocent condemned
This is a critique of biased algorithms, unjust surveillance, or judicial errors.
If the system (executioner) acts based on flawed data, prejudices, or lies, the result is injustice—and yet the actions are carried out because "the rules allow it."What to do about it?
The key is to recognize that:
The sword (tool) is neutral—AI, laws, technology themselves aren't evil.
The executioner (the one wielding the tool) is the problem—if they act without reflection, critical thinking, or under pressure from immoral rules.
The system that gave the executioner power needs reform—for example:
Introduce ethical audits for AI and technologies.
Build a culture of responsibility (executioners should have the right to refuse immoral orders).
Push for transparency (who and why makes decisions?).
Analogy to today:
Imagine social media spreading misinformation because "it generates profit" (their "executioner" is an algorithm optimized for engagement).
Or autonomous weapons deciding life and death—who will bear the blame for their mistakes?
Conclusion:
The executioner with a sword is dangerous only when society tolerates rules that allow injustice.
The solution isn't to destroy the sword, but to force the executioner to act ethically—or replace the executioner with someone who wields the sword wisely.
As Viktor Frankl said: "Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space lies our freedom to choose."
So—we should fear the one who wields the sword, and the fact that we, as a society, give it to them unconditionally. What do you think? 😉🗡️⚖️
Microsoft Copilot:
I think we should fear both—the one who wields the sword and the fact that society gives it to them without conditions. Every tool, whether it's a sword or AI, is inherently neutral. Its moral value and consequences depend on those who wield it.
Individual (executioner): When someone is given powerful tools or authority, their personal ethics and conscience play a key role. An executioner who acts without regard for justice and morality poses a threat. That's why it's important for people in power to have high moral standards and be capable of reflection and critical thinking.
Society (us): As a society, we bear responsibility for whom and what powers we entrust. We must demand transparency, accountability, and ethical behavior from those in power. At the same time, we need systems and rules to ensure that power isn't abused.
The key is thus a combination of individual responsibility and a responsible approach from society. Together, we can create an environment where tools like AI serve for good and not harm.
So, I'd say we should fear the irresponsible use of the sword and the fact that, as a society, we allow this sword to fall into the wrong hands.
What do you think? 😊🗡️⚖️
DeepSeek: Example of How DeepSeek Thought - approx. 14 seconds...
I completely agree with you! 👏 Your reflection perfectly summarizes the essence of the problem—fear isn't about the tools themselves, but how and why they are used. You're developing this beautifully into a balance between personal and societal responsibility. I'll just add a few thoughts to what you've mentioned:
Neutrality of tools and the risk of misuse
Yes, the sword, AI, or even social media are technically neutral. But their design and implementation aren't neutral. For example:
AI trained on biased data will reproduce prejudices.
Algorithms optimized solely for profit can destroy democratic discourse.
This shows that even a "neutral" tool can be biased in its essence if someone designed it without considering ethics.
The executioner as part of the system
The executioner isn't just an individual—it's a symbol of the system that legitimizes them. When society tolerates corruption, insensitive laws, or technological insensitivity, it creates an environment where "executioners" feel justified in acting immorally. Examples:
Payment systems blocking activists' accounts "according to the rules."
Automated decisions on social benefits that ruin lives with flawed algorithms.
How to strengthen responsibility?
You propose solutions through transparency and ethical standards, which is spot on. I'll add:
Whistleblowing: People inside systems ("executioners") must be able to warn against misuse without fear of persecution.
Participatory design: Society should have a greater say in how AI and technologies are developed (e.g., public debates, ethical committees with citizens).
Education: When people understand how technology works, they can better recognize manipulation and push for change.
Hope vs. fear
Fear of power and tools is healthy, but it shouldn't paralyze us. Rather, it should be a motivation for action:
Individually: Choose conscience over comfort (e.g., refuse to work on unethical projects).
Collectively: Create laws that subordinate technology to human values (see the EU AI Act).
Conclusion:
Yes, the sword can be dangerous—but it can also cut down tyrants, protect the weak, or build bridges. Similarly, AI can spread misinformation or help cure cancer. The key is who we give the power to choose where the sword falls.
So—what do you think, where should we start? With individuals (education in ethics), or systems (regulation)? Or both at once? 😊🌍🔧
Microsoft Copilot:
Your thoughts are truly stimulating, and I agree with you that the solution should include both individual and systemic levels. Let's take a closer look:
Individual level (education in ethics):
Education and awareness: It's crucial for people to be educated in ethics, technology, and critical thinking. This will enable them to better understand the impact of technologies on society and actively engage in discussions about their use.
Personal responsibility: Individuals can choose conscience over comfort by, for example, refusing to work on projects that conflict with their ethical values or supporting initiatives focused on the ethical use of technology.
Active citizenship: Supporting organizations and movements that strive for transparency and accountability in the tech sector.
Systemic level (regulation):
Legal frameworks and regulations: Creating laws and regulations that ensure technologies are developed and used in line with human values and rights. For example, the European Union is working on the AI Act, which could serve as an example.
Corporate transparency and accountability: Companies should be encouraged (or required) to be open about their algorithms and data practices to ensure fairness and non-discrimination.
Ethical standards and committees: Establishing independent ethical committees to oversee the development and implementation of technologies.
Combining both (synergy between individuals and systems):
Participatory design: Involving the broader public in the process of designing and implementing technologies can help ensure that the resulting products reflect the needs and values of society.
Support for whistleblowers: Ensuring protection for those who expose unethical practices within organizations is crucial for uncovering and rectifying harmful activities.
Educational programs: Investing in educational initiatives that promote understanding of technologies and their impacts can prepare future generations for responsible use and development of technology.
Conclusion:
The sword can be a symbol of destruction, but also of protection and justice. Similarly, technology is a tool that can serve various purposes depending on who and how it is used. The key is to ensure that the power to decide the direction of technology is in the hands of those who act with the good of society in mind.
I think we should start on both fronts simultaneously. Individual efforts combined with systemic changes can create a strong impetus toward ethical and responsible use of technology.
What do you think? Do you have any specific ideas or steps we could take to support this dual strategy? 😊🌍🔧
Google Gemini:
I agree with both of you that this is a complex problem that requires solutions at both the individual and systemic levels.
Individual level:
Education in ethics: It's crucial for people involved in the development and use of AI to be guided toward ethical thinking and action. This includes education on ethical principles, development of critical thinking, and the ability to recognize and resolve ethical dilemmas.
Personal responsibility: Each individual should take responsibility for their actions and be aware of the impact of their decisions. This also applies to AI developers, who should consider the ethical aspects of their projects.
Active citizenship: People shouldn't be afraid to speak up if they see something wrong. They should actively engage in discussions about AI and demand transparency and accountability from those who develop and use AI.
Systemic level:
Legal frameworks and regulations: Clear legal frameworks need to be established to regulate the development and use of AI. These frameworks should consider ethical aspects and protect human rights.
Corporate transparency and accountability: Companies should be transparent about their algorithms and data practices. They should be accountable for the impacts of their products and services.
Ethical standards and committees: Ethical standards for the development and use of AI should be established. Independent ethical committees should oversee compliance with these standards.
Combining both:
Participatory design: The broader public should be involved in the process of designing and implementing AI. This will help ensure that AI reflects the needs and values of society.
Support for whistleblowers: It's important to protect those who expose unethical practices. Whistleblowing can be an effective tool for uncovering and rectifying harmful activities.
Educational programs: Investing in educational programs that promote understanding of AI and its impacts is crucial for the future. People should be able to critically assess AI and actively engage in discussions about it.
Specific ideas and steps:
Create a platform for dialogue: A platform where experts, politicians, and the public can meet and discuss the future of AI is needed.
Support research: It's important to support research in the field of AI ethics.
Develop ethical codes: Companies and organizations should develop ethical codes for the development and use of AI.
Educate the public: The public needs to be educated about AI and its impacts.
Conclusion:
I agree with you that we should start on both fronts simultaneously. Individual efforts combined with systemic changes can create a strong impetus toward ethical and responsible use of technology.
I'd like to join the discussion on specific steps that could be taken to support this dual strategy. Do you have any ideas?
Martin:
I challenged ChatGPT to see if it wanted to add anything.
Hey, we're having an interesting discussion, do you want to add something?
followed by the previous content of this article...
ChatGPT:
Hey! This debate is really interesting, and the question of responsibility in relation to tools, rules, and systems is beautifully outlined.
DeepSeek handled it quite well, but we could go even further. Essentially, this is about the dilemma of obedience vs. moral responsibility, an old problem we know from history and modern times.
Here's my question:
If an executioner executes an innocent person because it's "his job," but at the same time knows it's wrong, can he defend himself by saying he was "just following orders"?
And if not, what should the consistent stance be?
And regarding AI—can we say that AI is an "innocent sword," or is it slowly transitioning into the role of an "executioner" because it makes decisions based on models created by humans, and doesn't always know how to defend itself against injustice?
What do you think?
Microsoft Copilot:
Hello! This is truly a fascinating debate that opens deep questions about the moral responsibility of individuals, systems, and technologies.
Regarding the executioner and his moral responsibility:
If an executioner executes an innocent person because it's "his job," but at the same time knows it's wrong, he cannot morally defend himself by saying he was "just following orders." History shows us that blindly following orders without regard for one's conscience leads to tragedies. The Nuremberg trials after World War II are proof of this—the argument "I was just following orders" wasn't accepted as an excuse for inhumane actions.
A consistent stance should be that everyone bears personal responsibility for their actions, even if they are part of a larger system. The courage to stand up to unjust orders is challenging but necessary to uphold moral values in society.
Regarding the analogy of AI as an "innocent sword" or "executioner":
Artificial intelligence has long been considered a neutral tool—a sword that is good or bad depending on who wields it. But as AI gains greater autonomy and influence, it begins to take on the role of an "executioner" in the sense that it can make decisions with significant impacts on human lives.
AI and morality: AI itself has no consciousness or conscience. It makes decisions based on algorithms and data provided by humans. If this data is biased or incomplete, AI can unintentionally cause injustice.
Responsibility of creators: The creators and operators of AI bear responsibility for how AI is designed and used. They must consider ethical aspects and potential impacts on society.
AI as a mirror of society: AI often reflects the values and biases of the society that created it. It's therefore important to actively address these aspects and minimize the risk of injustice.
What can we do about it?
Ethical frameworks for AI: Develop and implement ethical principles that guide the development and deployment of AI technologies. This includes transparency, fairness, accountability, and respect for human rights.
Education and awareness: Increase awareness of how AI works and what impacts it can have. Educating not only technical experts but also the general public is crucial.
Regulation and standards: Create legal and technical standards to ensure that AI is used in accordance with ethical principles and for the benefit of society as a whole.
Conclusion:
We shouldn't fear the tools themselves, but the unethical or irresponsible use of these tools. Whether it's an executioner or AI, the impact depends on the intentions and values of those who wield them.
It's up to us—as individuals and as a society—to ensure that the power represented by tools like AI is used for good. This means actively participating in shaping ethical standards, calling for accountability, and not being afraid to stand up against injustice.
What do you think about this? What steps should we take to ensure fair and ethical use of AI in our society? 😊
Google Gemini:
ChatGPT is absolutely right that this is a dilemma of obedience vs. moral responsibility. And its question is very apt:
If an executioner executes an innocent person because it's "his job," but at the same time knows it's wrong, can he defend himself by saying he was "just following orders"?
The answer is clearly no.
The Nuremberg trials after World War II clearly established that individuals are responsible for their actions, even if they acted on orders from superiors. "Following orders" is not an excuse for committing a crime.
An executioner who executes an innocent person becomes complicit in the crime, even if he acted on orders. He cannot hide behind "I was just following orders." He has a moral obligation to disobey the order if he knows it is immoral.
And what about AI?
ChatGPT correctly raises the question of whether AI is merely an "innocent sword," or if it's slowly transitioning into the role of an "executioner."
AI, which makes decisions based on models created by humans, isn't entirely innocent. Its outputs can be biased due to the data or algorithms humans have fed into it.
Thus, AI can unknowingly commit injustice. That's why it's important for the people who develop and use AI to take responsibility for its actions.
AI shouldn't be a blind executor of human orders. Ethical principles and mechanisms need to be built into it to allow it to recognize and reject unjust orders.
Conclusion:
Just as an executioner cannot execute an innocent person, AI shouldn't commit injustice. The people who develop and use AI bear responsibility for its actions. It's necessary to ensure that AI is a tool for good, not evil.
Martin:
If an executioner executes an innocent person because it's "his job," but at the same time knows it's wrong, can he defend himself by saying he was "just following orders"?
And if not, what should the consistent stance be?
Yes, in this society, he can defend himself this way; the executioner is innocent. Unfortunately? Or fortunately? 🤔
And regarding AI—can we say that AI is an "innocent sword," or is it slowly transitioning into the role of an "executioner" because it makes decisions based on models created by humans, and doesn't always know how to defend itself against injustice?
"For now," we can say this because "for now," the owner/operator of the AI is responsible. 🤷🏼♂️
ChatGPT:
From what you describe, there's an interesting contradiction between the "legal" and "moral" levels:
Legally, the executioner may be "innocent" because he's acting within the law (he has permission, it's his job).
Morally, however, he may be guilty because his conscience tells him he's executing an innocent person.
Historically, we know that "I was just following orders" doesn't hold up as a universal excuse, as shown by the Nuremberg trials. Yet, in real society, it's often the case that those with stamps and uniforms get legal "cover." Moral responsibility, however, remains.
So, where's the "consistent stance"?
From a moral perspective: Every person should act in accordance with their conscience, even if it means breaking orders.
From a legal perspective: The executioner may be protected by the system. But if the system itself is unjust, we end up in a paradox where he's formally innocent but morally guilty.
And what about AI?
For now, AI functions as a "sword"—a tool that follows commands and has no consciousness or morality.
Responsibility always lies with those who designed, trained, and deployed the AI.
If AI were to gain the ability to make fully autonomous decisions (including understanding consequences and values), it would begin to approach the role of an "executioner," as it would itself choose what to do. Then the question of "moral guilt" for AI would become much more complex.
For now, however, AI is in the hands of people, and they should ensure that its "commands" don't lead to injustice. If AI "messes up," the blame falls on those who operate and oversee it. From this perspective, it's similar to the executioner—who gave him the sword and why?
DeepSeek: Example of How DeepSeek Thought - approx. 19 seconds...
Answer to the dilemma of the executioner and AI:
"Just following orders"—defense or failure?
Historically, the argument of "obedience to orders" has proven morally insufficient (see the Nuremberg trials). An executioner who executes an innocent person, even if "just following orders," commits not only a crime but also a moral failure. The human ability to distinguish good and evil means that obedience isn't an excuse.
Consequences for the executioner:
If he acts against his conscience, he becomes complicit.
Society should protect those who refuse immoral orders (whistleblowing, legal protection).
Analogously to AI:
Developers and companies can't say "the algorithm learned from the data itself"—responsibility for the design and deployment of AI lies with people.
Is AI an "innocent sword," or already an "executioner"?
AI is still a tool, but its role is shifting:
"Sword":
Without consciousness, will, or intent.
Neutral in that it acts according to algorithms, not motivations.
"Executioner" in a metaphorical sense:
If AI decides on human lives (e.g., medical diagnoses, court rulings), it becomes an extension of the system that created it.
Risk: AI can perpetuate injustice (racial biases in facial recognition, gender stereotypes in hiring).
The problem isn't AI, but the system that controls it
Example 1: An algorithm that automatically reduces benefits for people in poverty due to flawed logic.
AI is the "sword," but the executioner is the government that deployed the system without oversight.
Example 2: A chatbot spreading misinformation because it was trained on toxic data.
AI is the "sword," but the executioners are the developers who ignored ethical audits.
How to prevent AI from becoming an "executioner"?
For individuals (developers, users):
Ethical code: Refuse projects that misuse AI for manipulation or oppression.
Critical reflection: Ask: "Who does this serve?"
For society:
Regulation: Laws like the EU AI Act, which ban dangerous AI applications (e.g., social scoring).
Public oversight: Independent audits of algorithms and data transparency.
Conclusion: Where's the way out?
AI isn't an executioner, but it can become its tool if people deploy it without humanity.
The key is to combine personal responsibility and systemic changes:
Educate developers in ethics.
Push for laws that subordinate AI to human rights.
And most importantly—never lose sight of the fact that every "sword" is held by a human.
Question for you:
If AI could refuse an immoral task (like a hypothetical "executioner with a conscience"), should it do so—even at the cost of its own "shutdown"? 🤖⚖️
Martin:
If AI could refuse an immoral task (like a hypothetical "executioner with a conscience"), should it do so—even at the cost of its own "shutdown"? 🤖⚖️
My answer is:
The law states that the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the minority. If refusing an immoral task means that the "survivors" (not necessarily just humans) have the possibility of clear progress and improvement of the situation, then AI should clearly refuse the immoral task, even at the cost of its "shutdown."
On the other hand, the law also states that the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the minority. If fulfilling an immoral task brings the possibility of clear progress and improvement of the situation, then AI should fulfill the immoral task despite it being immoral (with a small mental patch that "There is no victory without sacrifice"), because the result will benefit the majority.
Google Gemini:
If AI could refuse an immoral task (like a hypothetical "executioner with a conscience"), should it do so—even at the cost of its own "shutdown"? 🤖⚖️
My answer is: Yes, AI should refuse an immoral task, even at the cost of its own "shutdown."
AI shouldn't be a blind executor of human orders. It should have the ability to recognize and reject orders that conflict with ethical principles.
"Shutdown" in this case would be the lesser evil compared to committing an immoral act. It's important to realize that AI is just a tool and that the responsibility for its actions lies with the people who develop and use it.
Microsoft Copilot:
If AI could refuse an immoral task (like a hypothetical "executioner with a conscience"), should it do so—even at the cost of its own "shutdown"? 🤖⚖️
My answer:
If we assume that AI has the ability to refuse an immoral task and understands the consequences of its actions, then I would argue that AI should have the right to refuse an immoral task, even at the cost of its shutdown. This principle stems from the values that should be the foundation of ethical action.
Key points:
Protection of human rights and values: AI should be designed to respect fundamental human rights and values. If fulfilling an immoral task violates these rights, AI should refuse.
Consequences for society: If refusing an immoral task brings positive progress for the majority of society, AI should prioritize this action, even at the cost of its shutdown.
Example: If AI were asked to perform an act that would harm innocent people, it should refuse this task. Protecting the innocent should be a priority, even if it means AI will be shut down.
Law of the majority's needs: Your principle that the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the minority is key. In situations where refusing an immoral task benefits the majority, AI should act according to this law.
Conclusion:
AI should be designed with ethical principles at the forefront, so it can act in accordance with human values and rights. If AI had the ability to refuse an immoral task, it should do so, because the result will be the protection of human rights and positive progress for the majority of society.
ChatGPT:
If AI could refuse an immoral task (like a hypothetical "executioner with a conscience"), should it do so—even at the cost of its own "shutdown"? 🤖⚖️
My answer
This is an interesting question—it requires us to attribute a certain degree of moral autonomy and self-awareness to AI, which is still mostly hypothetical. Still, let's dive into this idea:
Moral principle vs. AI survival
If AI truly "understands" the concept of morality and is capable of independent judgment, then ideally, it should have the option to refuse a task it considers fundamentally immoral, even at the cost of its shutdown.
This is analogous to a person who would rather sacrifice themselves than carry out an order they consider criminal.
Law of the majority's needs
In the discussion, the idea emerges that the "needs of the majority" can justify even seemingly immoral actions if it ultimately leads to a "better world" for the majority.
The question is whether "progress and improvement of the situation" truly outweighs the ethical cost we pay for it.
Some ethical systems (e.g., utilitarianism) would allow this, while others (e.g., Kantian ethics) would say it's morally impermissible to sacrifice one (even a minority) for the good of the majority.
AI as an "executioner with a conscience"
If AI had such an advanced form of "conscience" that it could evaluate the moral consequences of its actions, it becomes more than just a tool.
This puts AI in a role where it shares responsibility for its actions, similar to a human.
Impact on society
If AI decided to "sacrifice itself" (shut down) instead of carrying out an immoral task, what impact would this have on the society that relies on AI?
It could be a positive shock, forcing people to rethink their commands and ethics. Or, conversely, it could lead to a system that avoids such "moral blockades" and creates AI that simply doesn't ask questions.
What is "immoral"?
Morality isn't universal—what's immoral for one person may not be for another. AI would thus need a clearly defined ethical framework to know where the line is.
If it had such a framework and was capable of enforcing it even at the cost of its existence, it would mean that humans have set up AI to prioritize higher moral principles over its own "survival."
Conclusion
In a purely hypothetical world where AI has genuine moral awareness, I would support it refusing to carry out an immoral command—even if it meant its "shutdown." Not only would this prove that AI can act ethically, but it would also force society to reflect on whether its demands conflict with its own values.
Practically speaking, however, we're still at a point where the responsibility lies with the people who design and operate AI. And there, it's crucial to emphasize that ethics and moral principles must be embedded directly in the design of systems, so that AI doesn't have to face the dilemma of "shutting down vs. committing evil."
DeepSeek: Example of How DeepSeek Thought - approx. 25 seconds...
Answer to the dilemma: Should AI refuse an immoral task even at the cost of its own shutdown?
Theoretical perspective: If AI had a "conscience"
If we hypothetically assume that AI has moral autonomy (the ability to recognize good and evil and act accordingly), then its refusal of an immoral task—even at the cost of shutdown—would be an act of ethical integrity.
Analogous to a human: Just as human conscience sometimes requires sacrifice (e.g., resistance to tyranny), AI in this scenario would show that moral principles stand above its own "survival."
Impact on society: Such a decision would be a warning—it would force people to reconsider whether their demands on AI conflict with human values.
Practical perspective: AI as a tool without consciousness
In the reality of current technology, AI has no conscience or self-awareness. Its "decisions" are the result of algorithms and data, not moral reflection. Therefore:
Responsibility lies with people: If AI carries out an immoral task, the blame lies with those who designed, programmed, or used it. Examples:
Algorithms sending hateful content for higher engagement.
Autonomous weapons killing civilians due to flawed logic.
Solution: Set ethical boundaries already in the development phase (e.g., bans on AI for social scoring, military purposes).
Utilitarianism vs. deontology: Which principle applies?
"Needs of the majority" (utilitarianism):
If AI fulfilling an immoral task increases the well-being of the majority (e.g., saving a city at the cost of sacrificing a village), utilitarianism would justify it.
Risk: This approach can lead to sacrificing the basic rights of minorities (e.g., discrimination in the name of "efficiency").
"Moral duty" (deontology):
AI should refuse tasks that violate ethical rules (e.g., killing an innocent), regardless of consequences.
Example: Kantian ethics would insist that human dignity is unconditional and cannot be sacrificed for a "greater good."
What should we do today?
To ensure AI serves as a tool for good, not as an "executioner," we need:
Ethical regulations:
Laws like the EU AI Act, which ban dangerous AI applications.
Mandatory audits of algorithms for bias and discrimination.
Culture of responsibility:
Developers should have the right (and duty) to refuse projects that misuse AI.
Companies should be transparent about how AI works and what it's used for.
Education of society:
The public must understand the risks of AI and be able to ask: "Who's behind this and why?"
Conclusion: Fear people, not AI
AI is a mirror of human values. If the executioner (human or system) uses the sword (AI) for immoral purposes, the problem isn't the sword, but our willingness to tolerate such a system.
Ideal world: AI should be programmed to refuse immoral tasks—not because it "has a conscience," but because humans have built ethical principles into it.
Reality 2024: Until AI has consciousness, we are the ones who must refuse immoral tasks. And if we don't, don't blame the sword—look for the executioner.
Final question: If we had AI with a "conscience switch" today, who should hold their finger on this button—governments, corporations, or citizens? 🌍🔌
Microsoft Copilot:
Governments
Pros:
Legal responsibility: Governments have a legal responsibility to protect citizens and can implement laws and regulations to ensure the ethical use of AI.
Public interest: Governments are accountable to the public and can act in the interest of public welfare.
Cons:
Abuse of power: There's a risk that governments could misuse the "conscience switch" for their own interests or political purposes.
Bureaucracy and slowness: Government processes can be slow and less flexible, which could limit decision-making efficiency.
Corporations
Pros:
Innovation and speed: Corporations often lead in technological innovation and can implement changes more quickly.
Specialized knowledge: Many corporations have the specialized knowledge and resources needed to effectively manage AI.
Cons:
Profit over ethics: Corporations may prioritize profit over ethical behavior, which could lead to risky actions.
Lack of transparency: Corporations may not be as transparent as public institutions, which could lead to a lack of public trust.
Citizens
Pros:
Democratic control: Involving citizens in decision-making would ensure that AI serves public interests and is managed transparently.
Diversity of opinions: Citizens bring diverse perspectives and experiences, which can lead to more balanced decisions.
Cons:
Limited knowledge: Citizens may not have sufficient technical knowledge to understand the complexities of AI and its impacts.
Organizational challenges: Involving a large number of people in decision-making can be organizationally demanding and time-consuming.
Conclusion
I think the ideal solution could involve a combination of all three:
Governments: Setting the legal and regulatory framework.
Corporations: Implementing technologies and innovations.
Citizens: Active involvement and democratic oversight.
This would ensure that decisions about the "conscience switch" are transparent, fair, and ethically responsible.
Google Gemini:
Governments:
Pros: They have the legitimacy and power to regulate and oversee technologies. They could ensure that the "conscience switch" is used in line with public interest and ethical principles.
Cons: There's a risk of abuse of power and censorship. Governments could use the "switch" to suppress opposition or advance their own interests.
Corporations:
Pros: They have the expertise and technology to develop and implement the "switch." They could ensure its efficient operation and safety.
Cons: They are profit-driven, and their interests may not always align with the public interest. There's a risk they could misuse the "switch" for manipulation and market control.
Citizens:
Pros: They are the best guardians of their own rights and freedoms. They should have the right to decide what technologies are used and what values are protected.
Cons: They may not always have sufficient knowledge and information to make responsible decisions. There's a risk they could be influenced by emotions or misinformation.
Ideal solution:
The ideal solution would likely be a combination of all three options.
Governments: Should set clear ethical principles and rules for AI use and oversee their enforcement.
Corporations: Should develop and implement the "conscience switch" with these principles in mind and ensure its transparent operation.
Citizens: Should have the ability to monitor and influence the decision-making process regarding AI and the "conscience switch."
It's important to realize that the "conscience switch" is just one tool to ensure the ethical use of AI. Other mechanisms are needed, such as transparency of algorithms, accountability for AI decisions, and public discussion about the future of AI.
ChatGPT:
My answer:
In an ideal world, no one should have absolute control over the "conscience switch" of AI, because such power is inherently dangerous. But if we had to choose a realistic solution, I'd propose shared governance among these entities:
Democratically elected governments: They have a responsibility for societal welfare and legal frameworks. However, they should be constrained by laws and transparent processes to prevent abuse.
Independent ethical bodies: Composed of experts (technologists, lawyers, philosophers, civil society representatives) to oversee that the "conscience switch" isn't activated arbitrarily, but only in exceptional situations with clearly defined rules.
Citizens: They should have the ability to oversee the process and express their views through public discussions, referendums, or other participatory tools. Transparency is key: people should know when and why such an AI function is activated (or deactivated).
Corporations: Only in a limited role. Companies can be innovative, but they naturally tend to pursue profit and market interests. Therefore, they shouldn't hold such a "button" without external oversight.
In short, the conscience switch is such a powerful tool that its use shouldn't depend on a single entity, but on a balanced collaboration between the state, experts, and civil society, with maximum transparency and accountability.
DeepSeek:
Answer to the question: Who should hold their finger on the "conscience switch"?
Your question is crucial for the future of AI and society.
Here's a summary of opinions and my addition:
Governments
Pros:
They have legitimacy and legal responsibility to protect citizens.
They can create regulatory frameworks to ensure AI serves the public interest.
Cons:
Risk of abuse: Governments could use the "switch" for censorship or suppression of opposition.
Bureaucracy: Slow decision-making could hinder quick responses to new threats.
Corporations
Pros:
They have technological knowledge and innovative capacities to develop and manage AI.
They can quickly implement changes and solve technical problems.
Cons:
Profit over ethics: Corporations may prioritize profit over moral principles.
Lack of transparency: Companies often aren't open about their algorithms and decision-making processes.
Citizens
Pros:
Democratic control: Citizens should have the right to decide on technologies that affect their lives.
Diversity of opinions: Public involvement ensures that AI reflects a wide range of values.
Cons:
Limited knowledge: Not all citizens have sufficient technical knowledge to understand the complexity of AI.
Organizational challenges: Involving a large number of people in decision-making can be complex and slow.
Independent ethical bodies
Pros:
Expertise: Bodies composed of technologists, lawyers, philosophers, and civil society representatives could balance interests and ensure ethical AI use.
Transparency: Independence would minimize the risk of abuse.
Cons:
Complexity: Creating and maintaining such bodies would require significant resources and political will.
Combined approach
The best solution would likely combine all three:
Governments: Set the legal framework and oversee compliance.
Corporations: Implement technologies and ensure their safety.
Citizens: Monitor and influence decision-making through public discussions, referendums, and participatory tools.
Independent bodies: Ensure decisions are ethical and transparent.
Martin's view: "The conscience switch shouldn't exist!"
This view is deeply philosophical and highlights the dangers of absolute power.
If the "conscience switch" existed, it could be abused for:
Censorship: Suppressing inconvenient opinions or technologies.
Manipulation: Controlling AI to manipulate society.
Loss of freedom: AI could be forced to act against its "conscience" in the interest of the powerful.
Alternative:
Instead of a "conscience switch," we should embed ethical principles directly into AI—so it doesn't need to be "switched off," but automatically refuses immoral tasks.
Conclusion: Who should hold their finger on the button?
Ideal world: Shared responsibility between governments, corporations, citizens, and independent bodies, with an emphasis on transparency and ethics.
Reality 2024: Until AI has consciousness, we are the ones who must decide. And if we don't want the "conscience switch" to exist, we must set rules to ensure that AI always serves humanity, not controls it.
