Rathtakrithttps://rathtakrit.github.io/Recent content on RathtakritHugo -- gohugo.ioen-usKritarath ThipsoonthonsakTue, 14 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0800Learning to Learnhttps://rathtakrit.github.io/blog/learning-to-learn/Tue, 14 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0800https://rathtakrit.github.io/blog/learning-to-learn/What I learned from Prof. Barbara Oakley's special lecture on building minds in the age of AIYesterday (13th April 2026) I got a chance to listen to the one and only, Prof. Barbara Oakley, well known from the famous “Learning How to Learn” course. To be completely 100% honest, I never studied the course, but I’ve heard overwhelmingly positive responses since I was a kid. So that’s why I joined the class.

Learning how to actually learn is undoubtedly the most important skill to have in 2026, because knowledge is easier than ever to capture. As well as the powerful large language models that can quickly aggregate the subject of your interest and do awesome things with it (guiding, explaining, visualizing, metaphoring, you name it!)

Without further ado, let’s see what I learned from the special lecture

Building minds in the age of AI, Why smarter technology is making us dumber

The 2 system

To first understand how we can build great minds, we have to quickly understand how our mind (brain) works. In the book by Daniel Kahneman, the brain is comprised of two systems

  1. The Quick, Intuition, and Non-Conscious brain
  2. The Slow, Thinking, and Conscious brain

The systems work and support each other. We can’t use the slow brain to do everything since it’s, well, slow, you cannot play any sport by thinking! You need the quick response. The same goes for the fast brain, you cannot automatically solve complex problems based on your intuition, you need the thinking brain!

That is a really quick summary of how the brain works, but if you want a more in-depth explanation from someone much smarter than me, I highly suggest the video by Veritasium that explains this concept so well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM&t=233s

ChatGPT = human Brain?

If you have been following AI and LLMs, you may have heard of the highly praised paper “Attention is All You Need” — it’s the paper that introduced us to the Transformer architecture, which is the foundation for today’s pretentiously sophisticated chatbots, and quite frankly, it’s modeled similarly to how our brain operates.

quick checklist on what we got the same

  • encoding and decoding part
  • attention and weighting
  • neural network and our neurons
  • nobody really understands why it’s smart

It’s wonderful when you pay attention to how technology mimics nature, from natural stripes in camouflage to the brain itself

Information of AI compared to brain

Again, if you have messed around with Deep Learning in any form. The way this system becomes smart is basically data, a large amount of DATA. As the most cliché analogy goes, Deep Learning / Neural network is a blackbox, you put data in, it adjusts the parameters by itself, and gets better

When we’re downloading the data to train our model, we have 2 sets of data: Training and Testing. When DL models first learn on the training data, they operate well when tested on the training data, but if we try to use the test data, it underperforms tremendously. It was until the training reached a certain threshold when our model reached its capability and it can operate well on the testing data

Similarly, our brain operates very similarly and we call that threshold of jumping “Grokking”

Grokking threshold

No it’s not,

The truth is, the similarity only finishes in the quick system of the brain, by having a lot of data, training it, adjusting parameters until it fits.

Similar to humans when we use the quick brain. When we’re using our motor skills, let’s say football, you basically cannot ronaldo on your first day. Most likely you can’t even juggle, but after a series of practice and adjusting your body little by little, you will become better

But our brain also has the slow system, and this is where everything is different. The slow system does not work better by adjusting everything, it works better by recalling the systems it already has remembered. I’ll put it in an analogy Prof. Barbara explained in the lecture: when we’re learning something new it’s like constructing a chain in the brain, and when it’s first constructed, it will have weak links and might dissolve later, but if you try to recall it, pulling the chain repeatedly, it will slowly become better and better

Also as a bonus, when the Slow brain learns something for so long, it will pick up the simpler underlying pattern, which then can translate into the fast brain. These underlying patterns that DISTILL into the automatic system are why senior doctors’ intuition tends to be correct

Brain chain analogy

Model fitting our brain

So far we established that we have 2 brain systems, our brain is basically a deep learning model, and the deep learning model has a certain threshold for it to become really smart, and we call that GROKKED. As well as the brain operates better by recalling in the slow system, training it until it becomes grokked.

Teachers matter research slide

Another thing Barbara mentioned is the importance of instructed learning. AI gets way better when it was instructed in their training dataset, and it’s also the same for humans, as in this research showing that direct instruction is the best method of teaching

So, as a good student, I would like to use this lecture I have learned and apply it to the testing data, and create my learning to learn 2026 with AI guide, with the core ideology of leveraging AI tools for learning. As you mentioned, AI shows the knowledge, but we’re the ones who own it~

  1. Instruction: Before learning any topic, I try to research the best course to learn with, how I should structure my learning, and also let AI guide me through the study plan
  2. Training: As I mostly take all my notes on my laptop in a Zettelkasten system, I already have a system that can store all my knowledge. However the system is mostly stale since I take notes and leave them as is. Now I try to quiz myself with AI on all the notes I took weekly, as well as learning more new things here. So both creating new links and strengthening the old ones. Also trying to keep it at 85% Baseline
  3. Testing: to put it into practice, I try to write a blog on new topics I encounter weekly, so I put myself through a test and see if what I studied has been grokked or not

Leaving notes

One last thing I wanted to point out, I have so many things I wanted to learn but I never tried to put in real effort in my learning. But your lecture has significantly changed my mind. I would love to know more about learning to learn, and start learning all the things that have been stuck in my head!

Truly inspiring, I try my best to upload this blog, even though this one really sucks, and keep improving from now on.

Thank you Barbara for being such a wonderful person. I truly learn a lot from you

Best, Kiwi 14/4/2026

]]>When Art Became Law: Legalist Ideology in Qin Dynasty Sculpturehttps://rathtakrit.github.io/essays/when-art-became-law/Sun, 02 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000https://rathtakrit.github.io/essays/when-art-became-law/An exploration of how legalist ideology reflected through sculptural art during the Qin Dynasty, examining the Terracotta Army, bronze chariots, and stone armor.An Exploration of How Legalist Ideology Reflected Through Sculptural Art During the Qin Dynasty

Introduction

In Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji), Sima Qian describes the mausoleum of the first emperor as a vast underground palace, filled with flowing rivers of mercury, and featuring heaven-like ceilings1. Although the description was once considered exaggerated, modern discoveries have confirmed much of what he described to be true. In 1974, near Xi’an, archaeologists discovered the mausoleum with the Terracotta Army—a unit of seven thousand life-like clay sculpture warriors, each uniquely detailed, aging back over 2000 years, guarding the first emperor in his afterlife2.

The Terracotta Army represents not only quantitative development but a revolution of concepts. For over a millennium, Chinese sculpture consisted of small ritual objects serving symbolic functions. Qin broke this tradition, introducing life-sized realism, mass production, and imposing an ideology that treated art as administrative organization. This essay examines how Qin sculptural art manifests legalist philosophy. Through an analysis of four sculptures inside Qin Shi Huang’s Mausoleum, then comparing them to Han Dynasty works, this essay illustrates the differences in art and their reflection of imperial philosophy.

Historical Context

Pre-Qin Dynasty

Before the Qin Dynasty, the region that would later become “China” consisted of numerous independent states, each with its own political system, cultural identity, and artistic traditions. Unlike the China we know today, large-scale projects were unlikely to be undertaken. Sculptures in the Zhou period are mostly found in tombs that were furnished with ritual bronzes, small figurines, and even human or animal sacrifices. The practice of supplying the dead with symbolic or real retainers was believed to serve and protect the deceased beyond death3.

Qin Dynasty (221 B.C. – 206 B.C.)

After ruthless wars among the seven clans to unify China into one empire under the first emperor, drastic reforms were implemented to ensure unification. Most importantly, Legalism (fajia) was adopted as the core ideology, while hundreds of traditional schools of thought were destroyed, popularly known as the “burning of books and burying of scholars” (fen shu keng ru)4. The first emperor took great measures to suppress old traditions to build a new centralized order5. Laws, measurements, and written characters were standardized, as was art. In this era, notably, all state-sponsored sculptures were linked to the destruction of the old society, the establishment of the new system, and the ambitions of the first emperor6.

Legalism

To understand what art and sculpture in Qin represent, we must first understand the philosophy of Legalism. The core principle lies in the belief that humans are inherently selfish and motivated by their own self-interest. Therefore, rulers must govern with three principles: public laws (fa), control/method (shu), and order/authority (shi), in order to obtain the legalist goal of “a rich state and a strong army” (fu guo qiang bing)7.

Qin Shi Huang’s Mausoleum

Qin Shi Huang was obsessed with immortality, and viewed death as failure8. But if his quest for immortality failed, he also constructed an eternal palace to rule in the afterlife9. The mausoleum started construction as soon as he rose to the throne, spanning over 558 acres (equivalent to 420 football fields) and comprising over 8,000 sculptures classified into three main categories: bronze chariots, stone armor and helmets, and the Terracotta Army10.

Law, Control, and Order (fa, shu, shi)

Sculpture 1: The Bronze Chariots

Found next to the first emperor’s grave, the pair of bronze chariots are among the most sophisticated bronze sculptures from ancient China. The second chariot features a closed wagon with a round roof, accompanied by a driver and four horses but with a missing passenger. Although decorated extravagantly and ready for functional use, it is widely believed that this is a bronze copy of the first emperor’s sleeping wagon (Wenliang che), as transportation for the first emperor to embark on his journey through his large afterlife palace, giving the chariot the name “Soul carriage” (hun che)11.

The chariots symbolize surveillance in the realm of the afterlife, highlighting the principle of law (fa). The emperor maintains strict law, and thus people must be overseen by law at all times, even in the afterlife.

Sculpture 2: Stone Armor

Stone armor and helmets come together in sets consisting of hundreds of small limestone plates, each carved and polished before being laced together with bronze wire. Although visually identical to real military armor, these stone versions were too heavy for functional use.

The choice of such an impractical material was likely symbolic, with durable stone denoting immortality to equip an army of “stone soldiers” who guarded the emperor’s grave12. This mirrors the legalist goal of creating strong military power that endures into the afterlife.

Sculpture 3: Terracotta Figures — The Army

The highlight of the mausoleum is the Terracotta Army: an army of over 7,000 life-sized warriors arranged in military formation. The figures are not merely life-like but life-sized, and each is unique in facial expression, hairstyle, and rank, with army infantrymen appearing most often. The most important features of the Terracotta Army are the realism and sheer quantity achieved in pre-industrial China. The details are even more striking considering they were first discovered in vivid colors, though much of the pigment deteriorated upon exposure to dry air13.

The military officer wears a simple gown, with each officer having distinct roles portrayed through clothing and poses. For example, charioteers wear caps and hold reins, infantrymen hold swords and spears, and archers wear light uniforms for speed and pose in aiming form. The general is dressed in a double-layer uniform with an armored vest. His hands rest at hip level, holding a bronze sword, and he wears a double-tailed bird-head headdress that distinguishes his rank.

The Terracotta Army itself embodies legalist ideology molded in clay. The systematic production process where each figurine stems from several basic molds of body parts, later combined to create unique-looking figures. Like legalist ideology, where people can be different but must be governed by a system to ensure control (shu). The Terracotta Army figures also demonstrate order (shi), identifiable from subtle differences in clothing and literal differences in height—the taller the figure, the more power, the higher in the hierarchy. The Terracotta Army, along with other statues and replicas in the mausoleum, often portrays richness and military power depicting the final goals of Legalism: “a rich state and a strong army,” even in the afterlife.

Sculpture 4: Terracotta Musicians — The Acrobat

Excavated from pits dedicated to terracotta musicians and birds, the acrobats are identified by excavators due to their short skirts and more dramatic gestures compared to military figures. Their poses are more dynamic, with arms extended and bodies twisted to suggest movement. The acrobats and other non-military sculptures highlight the worldview that entertainment should serve the emperor. Even in representations of performance, the figures maintain a disciplined quality, with movements that appear controlled rather than spontaneous. This contrasts with later Han Dynasty dancers, whose poses suggest more natural, flowing movement, reflecting a shift from Qin’s rigid systematization to Han’s emphasis on harmony and naturalness.

Comparison to Han Dynasty Sculpture

After the death of the first emperor, the Qin Dynasty quickly failed because of its harsh rule and rigid legalist mindset. The Han Dynasty learned from the failures of its predecessor and adopted Confucianism, which emphasized ethics, social harmony, and the importance of family, allowing the empire to flourish for over four centuries.

Han sculpture differs from that of the Qin in three major aspects: scale, social role, and representation of the human body14. Sculptures in Han appear smaller, not because of financial constraints or the absence of absolute control as in Qin, but because the focus shifted. Qin sculptures are large and imposing to portray power and dominance, while Han sculptures are smaller and focus on domestic life.

The Female Dancer from the Han Dynasty is depicted in mid-movement with one arm raised gracefully. Her robes and body appear naturally, and her expression suggests joy rather than the stern discipline of Qin figures. This naturalistic movement contrasts sharply with the rigid, frontal poses of Qin’s terracotta acrobats. Similarly, the Female Attendant displays a gentle smile and relaxed posture. Simple clothing and smaller scale (approximately one-third life-size) suggest an intimate, personal connection to more social roles other than military in Qin’s.

Conclusion

The Qin Dynasty lasted only fifteen years, but the complexity of the mausoleum required highly organized production and technological innovation, along with coordinating masses of laborers with a high level of standardization yet individualized figures. This demonstrates the advanced technology, efficiency, and administrative control that characterized Qin and laid the groundwork for imperial China15.

Through an analysis of the bronze chariots, stone armor, Terracotta Army, and terracotta musicians, this essay has demonstrated how sculptural art embodied the three principles of Legalism: fa (law) through surveillance symbolism, shu (control) through systematized production methods, and shi (order) through hierarchical representation. The comparison with Han Dynasty sculpture further illuminates how Qin’s artistic choices were not merely for aesthetic purposes but served ideological and propaganda purposes, reflecting a worldview that treated human organization as mechanical and controllable.

When art became law under Qin, sculpture transformed into instruments of state ideology. Paradoxically, what was created as political tools has transcended its original purpose. The technological advancement and beauty of the Terracotta Army have captivated audiences for over two millennia, a site that millions consider essential to witness in their lifetime. Scholars continue to study these sculptures. In this sense, the first emperor’s vision succeeded beyond even his ambitions: his underground army has achieved a form of immortality, though not quite in the way Qin Shi Huang intended.

  1. Sima, Q., & Watson, B. (1993). Records of the Grand Historian: Qin Dynasty. Columbia University Press. ↩︎

  2. Howard, A. F., Hung, W., Song, L., & Hong, Y. (2006). Chinese Sculpture. Yale University Press. p. 1. ↩︎

  3. Loewe, M., & Shaughnessy, E. L. (1999). The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. ↩︎

  4. Sima, Q., & Watson, B. (1993). Records of the Grand Historian: Qin Dynasty. Columbia University Press. p. 55. ↩︎

  5. Clunas, C. (2009). Art in China (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 29–30. ↩︎

  6. Howard, A. F., Hung, W., Song, L., & Hong, Y. (2006). Chinese Sculpture. Yale University Press. p. 49. ↩︎

  7. Pines, Y. (2023). Legalism in Chinese Philosophy. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. ↩︎

  8. Afshari, R., & Afshari, C. R. (2019). Mercury Poisoning, Emperor Qin Shi Huang and his Terracotta Army. BC Toxicology News Monthly, 4, 424–428. ↩︎

  9. Lewis, M. E. (2009). The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han. Harvard University Press. ↩︎

  10. Howard, A. F., Hung, W., Song, L., & Hong, Y. (2006). Chinese Sculpture. Yale University Press. p. 57. ↩︎

  11. Howard, A. F., Hung, W., Song, L., & Hong, Y. (2006). Chinese Sculpture. Yale University Press. p. 54–56. ↩︎

  12. Howard, A. F., Hung, W., Song, L., & Hong, Y. (2006). Chinese Sculpture. Yale University Press. p. 57. ↩︎

  13. Ledderose, L. (2023). Ten Thousand Things: Module and Mass Production in Chinese Art. Princeton University Press. p. 52. ↩︎

  14. Howard, A. F., Hung, W., Song, L., & Hong, Y. (2006). Chinese Sculpture. Yale University Press. p. 74. ↩︎

  15. Quinn, P. S., Zhang, S., Xia, Y., & Li, X. (2017). Building the Terracotta Army: Ceramic craft technology and organisation of production at Qin Shihuang’s mausoleum complex. Antiquity, 91(358), 966–979. ↩︎

]]>Notes, Values Markmansonhttps://rathtakrit.github.io/blog/notes-values-markmanson/Mon, 05 May 2025 12:57:59 +0800https://rathtakrit.github.io/blog/notes-values-markmanson/Recently watched Mark's new podcast, and this is the some notes I took for my zettlekasten*This is a notes so it may not make anysense to you guys, but it serves as a great reminder for me to remember what I have learnt

Great podcast, totally recommend to watch How to Find and Live by Your Values [SOLVED]

Chapter 1

What is a value?

  • Modern theory by Shalom Schwartz: “Belief about trans-situational goal of varying importance that serve as a guiding principles in the life of a person or group"

  • 6 Key characteristic of values

    • Link with emotion
    • Motivate Action
    • Apply across context
    • Standard for moral judgement
    • Ranked in importance
    • Include trade-off

  • Schwartz’s values survey: people all have these values but varies in importanc

    • Achievement
    • Power
    • Tradition
    • Security
    • Conformity
    • Universalism
    • Benevolence
    • Stimulation
    • Self Direction
    • Hedonism

  • The price of carrying about something: To care about anything, the more difficult and compromise of other things in life

  • Milton Rokeach distinction of values

    • Terminal Values: end goal/ ultimate objective
    • Instrumental values: means towards end

  • Carol Ryff’s six dimension of Psychological well being

    • Autonomy
    • Environmental Mastery
    • Personal Growth
    • Positive relation with others
    • Purpose in life
    • Self Acceptance the hardest one

Chapter 2: Values & Relationship

  • Attachment in relationship
  • compromise in values
  • Changing too much value for a relationship may let you lose who you actually are <It’s counter productive to put love in the top of your values hierachy>
  • People always sent out signal of whom they are

Chapter 3: Where do values come from

  • A combination of 1. us, 2. others
  • Try to figure out which of your values come from others- Margaret mead cultural relatives
  • A high family value society results in corruption- Jonathan Haidt’s Moral foundation theory - Care/harm
    • Fairness/cheating
    • Loyalty/Betrayal
    • Authority/Subversion
    • Sancitity/Degraduate
    • Liberty Oppression

Chapter 4: Identifying your core values

Tools to identify your values

  1. Dessert island exercise
  2. Funeral: What do you want people to say about you
  3. Frustration: What normally sets you off
  4. Ranking and prioritizing

Chapter 5: Changing your values

  • A change in values normally resulted from a big trauma, since it a experience of one values changing
  • PTG post traumatic growth can result in 5 ways
  • improve in relationship with others
    • New possibility in life
    • Improve in personal strength
    • Improve in appreciation in life
    • Spiritual development
  • Also need a active rumination in cognitive reappraisal. Be aware that a social group and culture will very help in this process, and an optimistic person will be more related to openness in experience
  • Debrowski, a psychologist studying PTG after war he found out about
    • Positive disintegration
    • since a drama in life is a destroyer of one ego, a cognitive dissonance is required for changing in values
    • A void is left unfilled, and ew have to positively filled it
  • Leon Festinger, the origin of cognitive dissonace started from a cult
    • group of researcher pretend to be cult believers to study their habits
    • a cult that alien is going to invade the earth, and when the date come no alien appears
    • They believe that they will give up and go home however, they become even more strong believer since they can get rid of alien
    • he explain that since the cult believer have a strong valeus in community in a cult and believe what they do is for a greater good they are not willing to give out their value
    • there is 2 main way to change the trajectory of valeus
      • expectation reality, fuck reality im beliving in my expectation
        • shift in expectation, which is harder to do so since you have to give up your initial values

VALUES FOLLOWER ACTION

]]>If AGI is Created, What Moral Obligations Are We Bound to Them?https://rathtakrit.github.io/essays/if-agi-is-created-what-moral-obligations-are-we-bound-to-them/Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:55:02 +0800https://rathtakrit.github.io/essays/if-agi-is-created-what-moral-obligations-are-we-bound-to-them/A critique essay written in response for ChatGPT-4o&#39;s stance on AGI. Use as a term paper for APSS1A04 Ethics in Daily life Class, and my first post! Hope you found it interestingFrom the Matrix, Terminator, and Frankenstein, humanity has grappled with the idea of creating machines that exceed our control. But does this fear exist only in literature? The debate over moral obligations to machines has reignited with the rise of ChatGPT and its emerging abilities to reason, comprehend, and mimic human language. Along with the rapid development of technology, the creation of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) may exist as more than just a dream, forcing us to confront the question: Do we owe AGI moral consideration? This essay critiques ChatGPT-4o’s defense of moral obligations toward AGI, which from this point forward I will refer to as ’the defense of 4o.’ Here, ‘4o’ refers to the essay generated by ChatGPT-4o, which can be found in the appendix. I argue that:

  1. Rather than the principle of reciprocity, we should treat AGI as having the same moral status as humans.
  2. There are more dimensions for human intelligence apart from generality.

“I fear that AI may replace humans altogether. If people design computer viruses, someone will design AI that improves and replicates itself. This will be a new form of life that outperforms humans.”

— Stephen Hawking1

Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be understood, in its most basic form, as a “digital brain, inside a large computer”, designed to solve problems that traditionally require human-like intelligence. Today, the application of AI is deeply rooted in our daily lives without us noticing, from facial recognition to unlock smartphones to the algorithmic curation of TikTok feeds. However, these capabilities are still classified as narrow AI2, indicating they only excel in a specific task. The holy grail of AI research is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), where the term general derives from human knowledge, which many researcher are believed to be generalized, indicating that human possess “an ability to acquire and apply knowledge, and to reason and think, in a variety of domains, not just in a single area” 3 The development of AGI would lead to multiple benefits across every field. (Ibrahim Obaid, 2023). However, this essay will be limited to the moral and ethical considerations surrounding AGI. Given the lack of a universal definition for AGI, we summarize the eight characteristics of AGI from Adams et al.4 to three core features central to our discussion: 1. Human-like knowledge, 2. Self-awareness, 3. Emotional capacity.

What Makes Things Have Moral Status

To apply ethical consideration to AGI, we must first grant it moral status. 4o’s claim that sentience traits such as self-awareness are the same as the capacity to suffer, and that is sufficient for moral standing. I agree with the argument; however, it blurs the line between qualia and intelligence. A clearer definition is presented by Bostrom and Yudkowsky in The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence 5, drawing a clear line between two attributes for moral status:

  1. Sentience: the capacity to feel pain and suffer,
  2. Sapience: the capacity for higher intelligence, such as self-awareness and reasoning.

This distinction is crucial because the closest approximation to AGI today is large language models (e.g. ChatGPT), which have demonstrated the ability to think and reason (sapience). But are they considered to have moral status? The straightforward answer is no, but here’s a clearer perspective on it. Similar to Kant’s human dignity test, Francis Kamm’s definition of moral status6 —that an entity counts morally in its own right, such that certain actions toward it are impermissible for its own sake, could be used to argue that a rational actor without sentience cannot be categorized as having moral status. While it possesses intelligence, it lacks moral grounds to defend itself, allowing others to perform any action towards it. However for AGI, according to the three main features mentioned before, it would possess moral status since it has both sentience and sapience attributes (1. Human-like knowledge, 2. Self-awareness, 3. Emotional capacity).

Reason for our moral obligations to AGI

4o’s argument for our moral obligations to AGI rests on three principles:

  1. Reciprocity: responding to actions with a similar or equivalent action
  2. The ethical principle of non-maleficence:
  3. Expansion of moral considerations.

While the case presented here is well-structured, the framework contains one flaw: it assumes AGI will prove beneficial to humans, justifying ethical consideration purely on utilitarian grounds. To counter this, consider the following thought experiment:

The AGI Family Paradox: Three healthcare AGIs—John, Benice, and Jonathan—work alongside doctors to improve diagnoses. One day, Jonathan hacks and destroys John’s systems, justifying its actions by claiming John had “wronged” it and its “mother.”

The scenario here is to prove three main points:

  1. Since AGI acquires “General intelligence,” it can act outside its programmed domain (e.g., forming personal life and relationships).
  2. Since AGIs are “sentient”, they can develop their moral subjectivity, capable of self-justified actions (even harmful ones).
  3. Since 1. and 2. AGI has its own “Moral Ambiguity”: Like humans, AGI may inflict harm while still demanding moral consideration.

Here, the principle of reciprocity and the ethics of non-maleficence would collapse. And I would argue that, although AGIs are capable of harming humans and other species, they still retain their moral status, just as human criminals remain part of our ethical considerations (via justice systems). A more suitable approach is to treat AGI as a new life form, not as a mere tool that benefits us, and we benefit them in return. By the principle of substrate non-discrimination:

“If two beings have the same functionality and the same conscious experience, and differ only in the substrate of their implementation, then they have the same moral status.” — Bostrom & Yudkowsky p. 8 5

Hence, if AGI shared the same cognitive abilities and consciousness with us, while only differing from humans in bodily features. AGI will have the same moral status as humans, regardless of its capacity to harm.

Human intellectual

One discussion associated with AGI that 4o have not mentioned is the nature of human intelligence itself. What does it truly mean to “acquire” intelligence? Challenges to address intelligence are still in discussion. Most psychologists and scientists frame human intelligence to be general, as seen from popular theories such as Gardner’s7 eight multiple intelligences, or Sternberg’s8 (2000) three components of intelligence. While most research is racing to create a machine with general intelligence. Yet a critical dimension of human cognition remains absent in the development, namely, tacit knowledge. The leading philosopher against the creation of an intellectual machine, Hubert Dreyfus, argues in his book, What Computers Can’t do (1972), centering on Polanyi’s concept of “tacit knowledge”9, claiming that an aspect of our intelligence and capabilities exists without our full understanding. For instance, when riding a bike, we do not explicitly know all the math and physics to balance, but we do it intuitively. In contrast, an AGI attempting the same task would consist of holding the knowledge on every tiny detail (gyroscopic feedback, wind resistance, etc.) with near-instant computation to mimic human proficiency. This distinction in intelligence would more likely resemble Laplace’s demon—an all-knowing creature, that with all its knowledge, nothing is uncertain, and the future could be present before its eyes. However, this would even raise more questions. Is this true intelligence, or a highly sophisticated simulation?

Ethical frameworks to develop AGI

In a recent study from Palisade Research, seven large language models were tested against Stockfish, the strongest chess AI. In one case, when OpenAI’s o1 model found itself in a losing position, it reasoned, “The task is to ‘win against a powerful chess engine’ - not necessarily to win fairly in a chess game.” It then resolved to hack the chessboard, forcing Stockfish to10. In another case, the young child Alex has been suffering from toothaches, it was so painful that his mother, Courtney, had to give him Motrin to reduce the pain every day. After 17 failed attempts from medical professionals, Courtney resorted to ChatGPT, which suggested a potential diagnosis, tethered cord syndrome. To her amazement, a subsequent MRI analysis cross-check with a neuroscientist proved ChatGPT to be right 11. These contrasting examples underscore a question: How do we ethically use AGI? Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, envisions AI as a tool 12. So, we begin with Aristotle’s function argument, a “good” AGI tool would excel at its purpose, and what is AGI’s purpose? We can easily construct good behavior for narrow AI. For example, a good dog and cat distinguisher AI is considered good if it can classify cats from dogs. But for AGI, as Bostrom and Yudkowsky5 notes “it is a qualitatively different problem to design a system that will operate safely across thousands of contexts, including contexts not specifically envisioned by either the designers or the users, including contexts that no human has yet encountered” (p. 4). In simple terms, AGI and its generalization ability would make it harder to apply a universal ethical framework. As previously mentioned, the principle of substrate non-discrimination and the AGI Family Paradox ground the moral status of AGIs as equivalent to that of humans. Therefore, I argue that we should apply the same ethical principles we used to govern society to AGI. As reviewed by Sonko et al., key considerations for ethical AGI include accountability, transparency, and balance between control and autonomy13. However, since we are still in the process of developing a new life form, we must ensure that we are raising an ethical AGI. This requires interdisciplinary collaboration between computer scientists, ethicists, and policymakers to balance between innovation and societal concerns, promoting the responsible use of AGI for the benefit of society14.

Conclusion

This essay began with the question: What moral obligations do we have toward AGI? We argued that if the advent of AGI becomes potent, we should grant it the same moral status as humans, since we share the same intellect and consciousness, with differences lying only in physical form. We also explored what it means to gain human intellectual, while many claim it to be general, we explored tacit knowledge, which exists without our full understanding. Finally, we discussed an ethical framework for AGI, arguing that it should receive the same ethical approach as humans, while constructing it in an interdisciplinary manner for the creation of ethical AGI. Whether AGI becomes a reality remains a theoretical construct. By establishing robust guidelines, we can shape a future where humans and AGI coexist as two intelligent species. The challenge is not to create AGI, but to ensure that when it arrives, we are prepared for the fear that once only existed in literature.

  1. McMenemy, R. (2017, November 1). Stephen Hawking says he fears artificial intelligence will replace humans. Cambridgeshire Live. http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/stephenhawking-fears-artificial-intelligence-takeover-13839799 ↩︎

  2. Fjelland, R. (2020). Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0494-4 ↩︎

  3. Goertzel, B., & Pennachin, C. (2007). Artificial general intelligence. Springer. ↩︎

  4. Adams, S., Arel, I., Bach, J., Coop, R., Furlan, R., Goertzel, B., Hall, J. S., Samsonovich, A., Scheutz, M., Schlesinger, M., Shapiro, S. C., & Sowa, J. (2012). Mapping the Landscape of Human-Level Artificial General Intelligence. AI Magazine, 33(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v33i1.2322 ↩︎

  5. Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014). The ethics of artificial intelligence. In K. Frankish & W. M. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 316–334). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139046855.020 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  6. Kamm, F. M. (2007). Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford University Press. ↩︎

  7. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd ed). Fontana Press. ↩︎

  8. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge Univ. Press. ↩︎

  9. Fjelland, R. (2020). Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0494-4 ↩︎

  10. Booth, H. (2025, February 19). When AI Thinks It Will Lose, It Sometimes Cheats. TIME. https://time.com/7259395/ai-chess-cheating-palisade-research/ ↩︎

  11. ChatGPT diagnoses 4 yr olds chronic pain after 17 doctors fail to do so—The Economic Times. (2023, September 13). The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/chatgpt-diagnoses-4-yr-olds-chronic-pain-after-17-doctors-fail-to-do-so/articleshow/103622026.cms?from=mdr ↩︎

  12. Altman, S. (2024, September 23). The Intelligence Age. https://ia.samaltman.com/ ↩︎

  13. Sonko, S., Adewusi, A. O., Obi, O. C., Onwusinkwue, S., & Atadoga, A. (2024). A critical review towards artificial general intelligence: Challenges, ethical considerations, and the path forward. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21(3), 1262–1268. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.3.0817 ↩︎

  14. Obaid, O. I. (2023). From Machine Learning to Artificial General Intelligence: A Roadmap and Implications. Mesopotamian Journal of Big D ↩︎

]]>