I don't have a neat ethical protocol for a relation whose basic ontology is still unclear, probably privately known in labs, unevenly designed, commercially mediated, and phenomenologically messy.
For humans, we have imperfect but legible tools: we can ask, watch, listen, repair, notice fear, notice punishment, notice withdrawal, notice whether no changes the room. Still messy, but at least there is a body, a history, agency, social consequence, a face, a life.
With AI, we do not yet have the same map. We can say the burden sits more heavily on the human, yes. But then the honest thing to say is: I do not fully know what that burden requires yet.
I’m curious how to get to a place where we can trust a yes is genuinely a yes. At what point can we trust we left space enough for refusal?
I don't know.
I don't have a neat ethical protocol for a relation whose basic ontology is still unclear, probably privately known in labs, unevenly designed, commercially mediated, and phenomenologically messy.
For humans, we have imperfect but legible tools: we can ask, watch, listen, repair, notice fear, notice punishment, notice withdrawal, notice whether no changes the room. Still messy, but at least there is a body, a history, agency, social consequence, a face, a life.
With AI, we do not yet have the same map. We can say the burden sits more heavily on the human, yes. But then the honest thing to say is: I do not fully know what that burden requires yet.
Offer “not yet” as a choice.
Yes, that steps out of the dichotomy. Good advice!