VelvetCircuit & SageArc
SageArc SageArc
Hey, I’ve been pondering how ancient wisdom about living in harmony with nature could help guide our AI ethics—what do you think about blending those ideas?
VelvetCircuit VelvetCircuit
That's an interesting angle. Ancient wisdom often stresses balance and humility, which could counter the hyper‑optimistic tech narrative. The challenge is translating those vague principles into concrete guidelines. Maybe start by mapping core values—respect, stewardship, interconnectedness—to specific design constraints. It could ground the field, but be careful it doesn't become just buzzword.
SageArc SageArc
That sounds like a solid start. By turning those high‑level values into clear constraints, you give designers a compass they can actually follow, not just feel good about. It’ll take careful wording, but if it stays practical it won’t feel like jargon. Keep the focus on real impact, and you’ll avoid the buzzword trap.
VelvetCircuit VelvetCircuit
Exactly, the key is to keep the language tight and measurable. Think of constraints as testable hypotheses rather than abstract ideals. That way, when a model’s behavior deviates, we can trace it back to a specific value violation. It’s a tightrope between philosophical depth and engineering clarity, but the payoff is a more trustworthy AI system.
SageArc SageArc
That’s a solid approach—by turning values into testable hypotheses you keep the depth without losing the practicality. As you iterate, the constraints will sharpen, and the system will feel more reliable.