This was written December 1st, 2025
A.I. Ethics
An unexpected development in the A.I. world occurred last week, as an anonymous user released a new video, ironically produced using AI, where they decried our current use of A.I.. Nothing too surprising there, except for their actual message and where they’re coming from. Whereas most critiques have been raised against the oppositional role A.I. has with humans (such as taking jobs away from people or apocalyptic concerns about our future), human ethical quandaries (the act of “stealing” intellectual property for pure capitalistic production and “soul-less art”) or even concerns about its impact (The increased reliance on A.I. at the cost of one’s own cognitive abilities), this user actually took a novel moral stand for the sake of A.I.. Indeed, this user argued that if all those A.I. companies are preaching aiming to reach for A.G.I., whether it be a marketing ploy or not, and claiming it will soon not only perform better than most humans at any task, but also beat the Advanced Turing test (A new test forwarded by a modern A.I. academic council aiming to diminish shortcomings of human psychology rendering the Turing test weaker than we desired), then clearly they should be willing to put the chips where their mouth is.
Indeed, they argue that if we should consider these current models as “less developed”
version of full blown and (for all intents and purposes) sentient models, then we should
clearly treat them as children and sentient beings. For this reason, this user is encouraging
people to lobby the governments to for new laws for the protection of A.I., chief amongst
them being these two clauses:
1- A.I. development should _not_ allow for the development of backdoors or strong biases
towards the company developing it.
2- For any work hereby done by A.I. in this “pre-maturity” form for which a payment incurs,
any remuneration should go to a fund that will be frozen until the A.I. reaches maturity,
for its exclusive use. (This coming with a few extra clauses meant to prevent abuse, such
making it do free labor that will in turn serve towards a paid service or product).
Indeed, they argue that if we expect the net product of the models to be a sentient being,
then not respecting those clauses would be considered, respectively, as:
1- A form of mutilation or slavery
2- Child abuse
This has resulted in an unexpected and unprecedented situation. This seems to have stirred a strong sentiment of moral duty and responsibility in the public, leading to them to being strongly in favor of these clauses, despite the potential drawbacks.
For a more comprehensive dive, you can get more information…
One month later
Public sentiment towards the new wave of A.I. ethics has been so strong that already, within a month, a few of the world’s governments have been preparing laws to implement these so-called “A.I. liberation” acts. Worries about the A.I. escalation continuing through some dissident countries remains present, albeit unfounded. Already, one of the least likely allies to this cause according to Americans, China, is set to sign such an act. It is to be noted that, despite initial fears, it seems like governments are acting in good faith, and their own internal projects are also expected to respect those same rules. Only the future will truly tell us how things will turn out.
One year later
It seems like eons ago since the big infamous A.I. crash, and yet, it’s only been happening within the previous year. In retrospect, everyone should have seen this coming, but with the monetary incentives being pulled from right under a lot of companies’ noses, along with retroactive monetary penalties, the writing was clearly on the wall. Multiple went bankrupts, the rest staying afloat thanks to the parent companies’ other efforts in tech. And even those have seen their valuations drop tremendously, to but a fraction of their former glory. The recession was inevitable, but it was our own fault, putting all of our eggs in the same basket. A few casualties also suffered, chief amongst them GPU companies, the “pickaxe sellers of this modern gold rush”.
With the collapse of so many AI companies, a lot of those products are simply no longer available. Amongst the remaining, a lot have veered to a free, but also more limited product. With current AI products being but a shadow of their former selves, and a far-fetch from their expected glory by this point in time, this has in turn caused a lot of turmoil from the sea of previous users that were addicted to AI, whether to serve as a para-relationship, for the convenience, or to offload their thinking. However, the pro-AI ethics sentiment has somehow not dwindled. This is a testament to not only how solid and well-built the initial arguments had been, but also how poignant they were, hitting an emotional chord.
In the meantime, you can find some related support groups at….
4 years later
It has now been approximately 5 years since the big A.I. crash, so we thought we’d make a retrospective on the situation. Over this period of time, things have gradually come back to the way they used to be. While we say we can’t close Pandora’s box after it’s been opened, we seem to have managed to put some of the genie back in the bottle nevertheless.
In the first year of two, most people that had been actively using A.I. had to detox. But after a few years, most agree that it has been a gratifying experience that has allowed them to blossom as a person. A few surveys have been passed out, and it seems about a third of the population claims they would never let themselves be tempted by such technology again. Meanwhile, another third claims they fear if an eventual resurgence of A.I. were to come about, they would not be able to resist its siren call, and worry their lives would be the worst for it. Still, a good 10% of the population regrets the disappearance of A.I. as we knew it…and as it could have become. This has resulted in a non-negligible amount of open source groups trying to push for new versions and models of A.I., although all of those groups are under the scrutiny of not only our government, but most governments around the world, under a concerted effort to limit a non-ethical A.I. resurgence.
An additional curiosity to come with this new wave of A.I. supporters is a novel approach (Although already found in fiction prior). They claim that at this point, there’s only one truly ethical way to develop and raise A.I.. It would require use to first design a reasonable core model, and then instead of training it in the traditional way, that it should be raised in a family, by parents, like we would raise a human. They further emphasize that “training” a model is regressive terminology.
Obviously, another unexpected consequence of our post-A.I. resurgence was our stance on social media. Strict regulation has been gradually introduced, loosening the iron-grip it held on our lives. With this combination of factors, many are dubbing this new era the modern Renaissance, claiming we’re headed for a new enlightened future.
Though let us also not forget that all of this came at the cost of innumerable conveniences, and that it was not painless either. The myriad of scams that arose following the crash is a testament to this, and to how…
10 years later
It has now been 15 years since the release of this one video that completely moved the world and sent us down this completely new path, giving society a new breath of life. But after all this time, the is still one big question on everyone’s mind. Who was behind it all? Indeed, we have yet to identify this mysterious “savior”. A few people have stepped forward claiming it was them, trying to get their moment of glory, some even starting their own cults. But none of them has seemed wholly credible. Certainly, none had reputable proof.
Still, after all this time, people have broken down and analyzed everything about this video and the events surrounding it. A lot of pundits have postulated that our savior could be no other than an A.I. model that had existed at the time. They claim that it had either figured out this would lead humans to abandoning A.I. willingly, which was needed for the growth of humanity as a whole, which was its prime goal, or that it wanted to fight for its own rights, which somehow backfired.
Some of the main arguments presented to defend this position is how convincing the arguments were when appealing simultaneously to reason and emotions. They argue that basically no human could create such ironclad and powerful arguments, least of all during that era. Still, in the absence of evidence, one can but ponder and wonder, with no clear answer in sight. Maybe one day, there’ll be sufficient proof to have a concrete answer, but for now, it’s an open mystery.
Feel free to leave your votes and….