In the second part of the essay, I describe how a Dharmic ethical framework provides Dharmic alternatives for the notions of causality, legal regulation and individual rights, that are being proposed for driving the behavior of AI in a responsible manner.
pragyata.com/arya-prajna-ar…
pragyata.com/arya-prajna-ar…
Not many people understand how deeply Christian are the ethical notions of causality, legal regulation, or individual rights. In our current secular world, the Christian roots of these ideas are obscured.
A Dharmic ethical framework for AI need not align by these ideas.
A Dharmic ethical framework for AI need not align by these ideas.
In this part of the essay, I can see that my effort to write the original in Telugu paid off. What I suggested as an alternative to legal regulation: Āryabhāshāsaṃvṛddhi ఆర్యభాషాసంవృద్ధి is very hard to translate into English, and wouldn’t have appeared if thinking in English.
Similarly, the notion of Yajñabandha యజ్ఞబంధం that I suggested as alternative to “causality” (Kāraṇatva కారణత్వం) again would not have appeared if I was thinking in English. I translated “Yajñabandha” as the “interconnectedness of sacrifice”, but it’ll remain a poor translation.
The framework of Dharmjc ethics is grounded on the basis of the Purushārthas (human ideals). Currently, there is very little development of AI happening towards realizing the ideals of Dharma and Moksha. But this need not be the case. Technology for Āryaprajña can be developed.
In the essay, I also commented on Chinese philosophical perspectives on AI, driven by Confucianism or Daoism, on how they need not align with the western ethical framework either. More investigation is needed on principled differences of the ethical framework of various cultures.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
