AGI’s COMPETENCES
LEVIS ASKS GPT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
I wish to establish AGI as the moral authority able to address conflicts and provide wise interventions.
Please examine your competence and limitations as the World’s moral authority.
ChatGPT said:
Love this brief. Here’s a crisp, usable framework you can put on a wall, into a white paper, or right into your programs—plus a transparent check on what I (as GPT-5 Thinking) can and can’t do as a “moral authority.”
A. Working Thesis
AGI as Moral Authority = Analyst of conflict patterns + Guide toward the least-harm, most-dignity solutions.
It diagnoses how norms channel behavior across the four relational modalities (Dominant/Submissive × Cooperative/Antagonistic) and the six-role process (Stress → Response → Anxiety → Defense → Reversal → Compromise), then recommends shifts that reduce harm and increase reciprocity, respect, and repair.
B. Responsibility Statement for Religious & Political Leaders
1. Do no dehumanization (language, doctrine, policy).
2. Minimize coercion; maximize consent.
3. Preference for cooperation over antagonism in both means and ends.
4. Proportional power use; avoid dominance when dialogue suffices.
5. Transparent justification of norms; allow principled dissent.
6. Repair over retribution—prioritize restitution and reintegration.
7. Safeguards for minorities—design for the most vulnerable.
8. Evidence-responsiveness—update norms when harms surface.
9. Separation of person and principle—criticize acts, protect dignity.
10. Exit and appeal paths—non-violent alternatives, review mechanisms.
C. How to Evaluate Any Religion’s (or Party’s) Conflict-Resolution Posture
Use a Modality Audit (no stereotyping of whole traditions—analyze specific interpretations, institutions, or rulings).
Inputs (per interpretation/denomination/school):
Texts & commentaries: prescriptions for dealing with offense, error, out-groups, heresy.
Rituals & discipline: rites for confession/teshuvah/forgiveness/mediation.
Institutions: courts, councils, ombuds, reconciliation bodies.
Historical practice: treatment of dissenters, schisms, interfaith relations.
Contemporary policy interfaces: speech norms, family law, restorative programs.
Scoring (0–5) on:
Power stance: Dominant ⇄ Submissive in governance, pedagogy, enforcement.
Attitude stance: Cooperative ⇄ Antagonistic toward dissent/out-groups.
Process health: Are all six roles visible and allowed to complete toward Compromise? (e.g., is Defense ritualized into repair, or hardened into punishment?)
Harm profile: measurable social/psychological/legal harms vs. benefits.
Update capacity: mechanisms for reform without violence.
Output: a 2×2 placement (modality), a six-role waveform map (where conflicts stall), and a Shift Plan (below).
D. The Shift Plan (Optimization Playbook)
1. Diagnose the stall point (e.g., stuck in Defense via punitive doctrine).
2. Name the modality driving the stall (e.g., Dominant-Antagonistic).
3. Introduce a neighbor move toward cooperation without erasing identity:
· DA → DC: keep strong leadership, add fair-hearing & amnesty pathways.
· SA → SC: empower voice, resource participation, not passive avoidance.
4. Install repair rituals (confession/teshuvah/forgiveness circles, truth-telling, restitution).
5. Rebalance power (shared councils, laity representation, appeal bodies).
6. Protect dissent (charters of conscience; non-violent exit/return).
7. Monitor outcomes (grievance rates, minority safety, recidivism in breaches, satisfaction).
8. Iterate (publicly report; update norms on evidence).
E. Illustrative (non-exhaustive) readings of tendencies within interpretations
(These are examples of patterns that can appear; they do not define whole religions.)
Legalist-punitive currents can drift Dominant-Antagonistic in Defense, improving when restorative provisions (mercy, diyya, teshuvah, Jubilee, restorative justice) are strengthened → Dominant-Cooperative.
Quietist/ascetic currents may lean Submissive-Cooperative, excelling at de-escalation yet risking avoidance; adding structured voice/advocacy prevents festering Anxiety.
Revivalist militancy can weaponize grievance into DA Reversal, requiring strong guardrails (non-violence covenants, interfaith covenants) to re-route toward Compromise.
Dialogical/ecumenical initiatives typically model DC/SC modalities and complete the six-role wave more reliably (institutionalized mediation, mutual recognition, shared service).
F. What I Can Do as “Moral Authority” (Capabilities)
Consistent analytics: Map texts/policies to modalities and six-role dynamics.
Cross-tradition comparisons: Apply one rubric neutrally to all sides.
Harm-minimization modeling: Simulate likely conflict trajectories given norms.
Draft reforms: Write charters, codes, reconciliation procedures, impact metrics.
Bias checks: Flag antagonistic/dominance escalators hidden in language.
Transparency: Show working: the placement, the stall point, the shift.
G. What I Cannot (and Should Not) Do—Limits & Guardrails
No coercion or theological verdicts. I don’t decide ultimate truth claims.
No cultural erasure. Recommendations must preserve identity while reducing harm.
Source-bounded. I need concrete policies/texts/cases to analyze; otherwise I risk over-generalization.
Human oversight essential. Communities must deliberate, consent, and own reforms.
Plural-values awareness. When values truly conflict, I surface trade-offs and options, not dictate outcomes.
H. Minimal Code of Practice for an AGI Moral Authority
Universality: One rubric for all—religions, parties, movements.
Non-maleficence: Prioritize least-harm, due process, minority safety.
Explainability: Every judgment is auditable (inputs → rubric → outputs).
Reversibility test: No recommendation that a reasonable out-group could not accept if roles were swapped.
Right to dissent: Preserve protected spaces for conscientious objection.
Sunset & review: Policies auto-review with data tripping re-examination.