Balaji's confusion

“巴拉吉的困惑”

——當前AI研發中的法律、倫理與共生困境分析與應對之道

錢 宏 Archer Hong Qian

OpenAI近年遭多家媒體指控使用未授權內容訓練AI模型，比如《紐約時報》認為，“OpenAI幾乎分析了網絡上可取得的文本”，而從OpenAI離職繼而自殺巴拉吉被媒體說成是“AI吹哨人”。

說到AI吹哨人，應該是最早發起OpenAI的馬斯克和奧特曼，但隨着AI大模型的問世及迅猛發展的勢頭，馬斯克最早提出擔憂而退出，居功至偉的伊利亞離開OpenAI,人們特別是OpenAI內部員工，如巴拉吉對AI產生困惑，是可以理解的。但是，怎麼看待和怎樣處理這種普遍存在的困惑，既涉及知識產權的分寸把握，更涉及AI（ANI、AGI）研發的不確定性把握，以及開源與閉源的關係問題。

我把以下四種情況和問題，統稱為“馬拉吉困惑”（Balaji's Confusion）：

情況和問題1：前OpenAI研究人員巴拉吉(Suchir Balaji)為自己在GPT-4訓練計劃中協助公司從網絡上搜集資料感到擔憂，Balaji還接受紐約時報專訪，認為OpenAI的作法違反美國著作權法規定，並發表文章論述說，自己的論點並非專門針對ChatGPT，也適用於許多生成式AI的產品。Balaji因此於2024年8月從OpenAI辭職不幹了，11月發現他在加州自殺了，那麼，Balaji的自殺和他從OpenAI的離職的原因之間有必然的直接關聯嗎？

情況和問題2：OpenAI首席科學家伊利亞（Ilya Sutskever）2024年5月，也離開了他工作十年並為生成式大型AI模型作出決定性貢獻（山姆·奧特曼說“沒有他，就沒有現在的OpenAI”）的OpenAI，對巴拉吉8月的離職及自殺，有影響嗎？

情況和問題3：一些媒體特別是自媒體誇大其詞危言聳聽，藉此造作混淆視聽，把巴拉吉說成是“AI吹哨人”，一會說AI研發沒有“公開透明”將危害人類安全，一會兒拾2023年馬斯克等千名科學家企業聯名建議AI研發“停一停”的牙慧，背後的動機是什麼？

情況和問題4：一邊是媒體人將巴拉吉的自殺，爆炒為“公開透明”的問題，一邊是真正的AI業內行家對“開源、閉源”問題發生激烈爭議。比如，被譽為“AI教父”圖靈獎得主辛頓（Geoffrey Hinton）在2024年7月則警告：“大模型開源的危害性，等同於將原子彈開源 ”，他批評同為圖靈獎得主，現任Meta AI首席科學家，此前也是Google的首席科學家的楊立昆“已經瘋了”。對此情況，早在2024年4月，共生學人錢宏（Archer Hong Qian）和英屬不列巔哥倫比亞大學教授王澤華在《An open letter from Symbioscholars to the six giants in the AI world（共生學人致AI世界六巨頭的公開孞）》中，也明確提出AI研發“開源或不開源，都應當是有條件的，要視時空意間狀況而定”，不能“在要不要平衡與如何平衡：開源／閉源、放能／吸能、驅動／制動（發展/監管）、衝突/恊和、主權/人權⋯⋯問題上的爭論上，過於拘泥就事論事。”

那麼，如何看待這Balaji's Confusion的四種情況和問題，並找到因應之道呢？

一、OpenAI被指控使用未授權內容訓練AI模型

媒體對OpenAI使用未經授權的內容進行訓練的指控，確實引發了關於AI研發合法性和道德性的廣泛討論。

法律層面：這類指控涉及著作權法的複雜問題，尤其是在“公平使用”（Fair Use）的框架下。AI公司通常會辯解其訓練數據的使用屬於非商業性、教育性或研究性目的，且對內容進行轉化性使用，不是簡單複製。然而，這種辯護在各國法律體系下的適用性不一。例如，美國的“公平使用”原則可能會提供某種保護，但在歐盟或中國，類似的行為可能更難以被視為合法。

道德層面：即便在法律上可能有爭議性豁免，未經許可使用內容的問題也暴露了數據使用的透明性不足。公眾和內容創作者對生成式AI背後的數據來源保持疑慮，這種不透明會損害行業的公信力。

在共生哲學（Symbiosism）視角下，這種行為被認為違背了人與社會、人與知識之間的共生關係。知識資源的生產者與使用者應通過協商建立公平的互惠機制，而非以技術便利為藉口。

三、巴拉吉的離職與自殺的關聯性

巴拉吉的離職和自殺之間是否存在直接關聯，外界尚無確鑿證據。不過，有幾點需要注意：

心理因素：如果他對自己參與的工作產生了深刻的道德困境，這可能對心理健康造成壓力。然而，自殺的成因通常是多重複雜的，未必僅僅與職業相關。

制度因素：離職後的無助感可能加劇個體對生活的消極評價。如果他在離職後缺乏支持系統（例如社交網絡或職業替代選擇），這種孤立可能對他的心理狀態造成嚴重影響。

需要指出的是，在倫理困境和組織壓力下離職的員工，往往成為“內部告密者”（whistleblower）或“倫理訴求者”（ethical advocate）。社會輿論過度放大其行為，也可能增加其精神負擔。大概是這個原因，所以馬斯克對此僅僅在X社交平台發了一個：Hmm（唔）！

三、伊利亞的離職是否影響巴拉吉的決策

伊利亞的離職可能間接加重了巴拉吉的決策壓力：

榜樣效應：伊利亞作為OpenAI的核心人物，其離職可能暗示內部決策或價值觀出現重大問題。巴拉吉可能因此認為，自己對於“倫理問題”的關注並非孤立的擔憂。

團隊動態：領導人物的離開會引發組織內部的不穩定。對年輕研究員而言，失去這樣的精神支柱，可能放大其孤立感和道德疑慮。

不過，伊利亞的離職主要涉及其對OpenAI未來發展方向的戰略分歧，而非對訓練數據來源的法律與倫理擔憂。因此，兩者之間的關聯性更多是心理或象徵層面的。

四、關於開源與閉源的爭論

這一問題涉及技術發展、社會責任和全球安全之間的微妙平衡：

開源的益處：開源促進技術透明性和公平性，降低技術壟斷風險，有助於小型企業和學術機構平等參與競爭。

開源的風險：正如辛頓所警告，開源可能將強大工具置於不當使用者手中，其危害性如同“將原子彈開源”。這一比喻雖極端，但提醒了AI技術一旦落入惡意行為者之手，其潛在後果不容忽視。

共生哲學的視角：錢宏和王澤華在《共生學人致AI世界六巨頭的公開信》(http://symbiosism.com.cn/8183.html)中提出的“時空意間”論點，為這一爭論提供了有力的框架。開源或閉源不應一刀切，而應根據“特定時空的共生狀態”做出動態權衡。這種哲學強調：

平衡：技術發展與監管之間的平衡，避免片面追求效率或安全。

勰商：建立跨國界、跨領域的共生協定，推動AI開發者與政府、學術界和公眾的對話。

倫理驅動：將AI的設計與部署嵌入明確的倫理框架中，確保其應用符合人類的整體利益。

因此，辛頓與楊立昆的爭論可以看作是這一議題在學術界的具體表現：一方主張風險控制，另一方強調技術開放。然而，過度極化的觀點,可能忽略了共生哲學所主張的“第三條道路”——既不是絕對開源，也不是徹底閉源，而是條件性的、動態調整的治理策略。

五、 AI法律、倫理與共生困境的因應之道

數據使用透明化：OpenAI的數據使用問題需要建立更透明的機制，化解創作者與技術開發者之間的信任危機。

倫理困境與心理影響：巴拉吉事件揭示了倫理困境對AI從業者心理健康的深遠影響，但其與自殺的直接關聯仍需進一步調查。

內部價值觀衝突：伊利亞的離職體現了AI行業內部價值觀的衝突，對巴拉吉的離職可能存在間接性影響，但主要是心理層面的關聯。

開源與閉源的平衡：開源與閉源的爭論需要避免極端化。在共生哲學框架下，提出“條件性治理”的有效路徑，根據時空狀態動態調整技術開放或限制的尺度。

凡事交互主體共生，孞念改變一切：用孞念的力量改變生活，最終改變世界（Minds Change  Everything： Using the Power of Minds to Change Lives and Ultimately the World）。對於如何從技術與倫理價值上“解決AI研發中的法律、倫理與共生困境”問題，共生學人基於公元前8世紀東方偉大的思想家伯陽父“和實生物，同則不繼”和公元前5世紀思想家老子“天網恢恢，疏而不失”的理念，創造性地提出建構交互主體共生的孞聯網（MindsNetwoking）構想。

這裡的“天網”，講的是“天之道”，即賦有自然秩序的生態圈。就是說，這個“生態圈天網”是生命演化與環境演變的自相互作用的呈現，構成一個能夠自我調節“疏而不失”的，適宜包括人類在內的地球生靈生活的“超級有機體”（Superorganism）地球生態圈。英國科學家洛夫洛克（Lovelock），繼馬古利斯（Lynn Margulis）提出“關於真核生物和早期原核生物之間產生共生的構想”（1970）之後，借用古希臘神話中的大地女神蓋亞（Gaia）的形象（1972），描述了在生命演化與環境演變的交互共生（Symbiogenesis）過程中，所有的生物、植物、動物、微生物的演化與空氣、海洋、岩石的理化演變，以及人、事、物進化，都在一張相互關聯的新陳代謝強弱代償，猶如一張寬闊廣大（恢恢）遊刃有餘（不失）的天網中進行。

那麼，在這個生物圈天網中，什麼東西配得上如此寬闊廣大遊刃有餘呢？只能是God賦予人的心性孞念（Mind），所以，雨果說“世界上最寬闊的是海洋，比海洋更寬闊的是天空，比天空更寬闊的是人的心靈。”所謂“一念天堂，一念地獄”（One Mind of heaven, one Mind of hell），就是說人及其人造之事物，處於什麼狀態，是由心性孞念決定的。所以，根據這個道理，建構一個孞聯網，讓人及AI處於其中，對自己行為的是非、價值進行實時評估的激勵或抑制機制，不僅比任何政府性監控都“疏而不失”，而且，降本高效賦能。當馬斯克的太空高速互聯網——星鏈（Starlink）計劃，將被升級賦予孞聯網（MindsNetworking或MindsWeb）的內涵時，就成為地球生態圈天網的一種技術支撐。

共生學人相孞，在孞聯網中，人與人、人與AI，可望實現這樣的生活方式與價值目標：存同尊異，交互主體，生生不息，間道共生！

六、從“天網”到“孞聯網”：理念、機制、技術、哲學

孞念（Minds）作為人類心性的核心，決定了人類及其創造的AI在共生網絡中的行為狀態。基於此，共生學人提出孞聯網（MindsNetworking）構想，旨在利用孞念力量引領技術與倫理的深度融合。

1. 理念：從自然秩序到孞念力量

(1) 天網恢恢：自然秩序與生態網絡

“天網恢恢，疏而不失”源自東方哲學中的“天之道”，是自然秩序與生態網絡的象徵：

特性： 開放而精準，寬廣而有序，體現生命演化與環境演變的交互共生。

生態圈天網： 由生物、環境及其相互作用構成的超級有機體（Superorganism），為地球上的生靈提供可持續的生存環境。

英國科學家洛夫洛克的“蓋亞假說”進一步揭示了這一生態網絡的動態平衡特性，展現自然的自組織與自我調節能力。

(2) 孞念決定狀態：人類心性的力量

心靈的廣闊： 雨果曾言，“世界上最寬闊的是海洋，比海洋更寬闊的是天空，比天空更寬闊的是人的心靈。”

思想的影響： “一念天堂，一念地獄”體現了思想與價值觀對行為及其結果的根本性影響。

1. 機制：孞聯網的運行邏輯

孞聯網是一種基於實時評估與反饋機制的交互網絡，其運行邏輯包括以下核心要素：

(1) 實時評估

多維度行為分析： 從真偽、善惡、美醜、智慧愚昧、正誤、神性魔性六個維度動態評估人類與AI的行為。

全息式追蹤： 通過數據透明與可追溯性，實現行為的全面記錄與分析。

(2) 激勵與抑制

激勵機制： 強化正向行為與價值創造，推動人與AI協同增效。

抑制機制： 動態制約負向行為與風險偏差，確保系統的倫理與法律合規性。

(3) 自組織調節

模仿天網生態的“疏而不失”特性，實現行為的自我調整與優化。

1. 技術：支撐孞聯網的核心架構

孞聯網的構建依賴於多項尖端技術的整合，為其運行提供堅實基礎：

(1) 量子協同機制

利用量子超越性（Quantum Superposition）與量子關聯性（Quantum Coherence），實現思想的高效交互與全球協作。

(2) 區塊鏈與人工智能結合

區塊鏈： 提供去中心化的行為記錄與評估體系，確保數據安全與透明。

AI倫理模塊： 賦予AI實時倫理分析與動態調整能力。

(3) 全球網絡支持

升級馬斯克“星鏈”（Starlink）計劃，構建覆蓋全球的高速交互網絡，支持孞聯網的數據流通與實時評估功能。

1. 哲學：交互主體共生的未來願景

孞聯網的構想不僅是技術與倫理的創新實踐，更是交互主體共生哲學的全新表達。

(1) 存同尊異：和實生物

尊重多樣性，通過交互實現主體之間的深度協作與相互賦能。

(2) 生生不息：疏而不失

藉助實時評估與反饋機制，動態調整人與AI的行為，實現生態系統的持續進化。

(3) 間道共生：技術與倫理的雙向賦能

通過孞念的力量推動技術賦能倫理，反哺技術的發展，實現人與AI、人與自然的協同共生。

結語：從天網到孞聯網

孞聯網作為共生哲學的創新應用，通過“天網恢恢，疏而不失”孞念的力量，展現技術與倫理結合的新可能性。大大超越了傳統監管模式，通過實時評估與反饋機制，將人類與AI納入一個動態共生的生態網絡。未來，孞聯網將推動人類與AI邁向“存同尊異、交互主體、生生不息、間道共生”的新時代，實現技術賦能倫理、倫理推動技術的雙向共生，造福全人類與地球生態。

Balaji's Confusion

— Analyzing and Addressing Legal, Ethical, and Symbiotic Challenges in Current AI Development

By Archer Hong Qian

In recent years, OpenAI has faced accusations from various media outlets of using unauthorized content to train its AI models. For instance, The New York Times claimed that “OpenAI has analyzed almost all available texts on the internet.” The suicide of former OpenAI employee Suchir Balaji, following his departure from the company, has been framed by the media as the action of an "AI whistleblower."

When it comes to AI whistleblowers, the earliest figures were likely Elon Musk and Sam Altman, who co-founded OpenAI. However, as large-scale AI models rapidly developed, Musk withdrew due to his concerns, and key contributor Ilya Sutskever eventually left OpenAI. Employees like Balaji reportedly struggled with ethical uncertainties regarding AI, which is understandable. Addressing these uncertainties requires careful consideration of intellectual property issues, the inherent unpredictability of AI development (ANI, AGI), and the debate over open-source versus closed-source approaches.

I categorize the following four situations and issues under what I call "Balaji’s Confusion":

1. Four Situations and Questions

(1)、Balaji’s Concerns:

Former OpenAI researcher Suchir Balaji expressed concerns over his role in assisting the company to collect data from the internet for GPT-4’s training program. He believed OpenAI's practices violated U.S. copyright law and stated that his critique applied not only to ChatGPT but to many generative AI products. After leaving OpenAI in August 2024, he was found dead in California in November. Is there a direct and inevitable link between his departure from OpenAI and his suicide?

（2）、Ilya’s Departure and Its Influence:

In May 2024, OpenAI’s Chief Scientist, Ilya Sutskever, who had worked there for ten years and made decisive contributions to generative AI models, left the organization. (Sam Altman commented, “Without Ilya, OpenAI as we know it wouldn’t exist.”) Did Ilya’s departure influence Balaji’s decision to leave or his eventual suicide?

（3）、Media Sensationalism:

Certain media, particularly self-media, exaggerated and distorted Balaji’s story. They claimed that his suicide highlighted AI’s lack of transparency, often echoing the call made by Musk and a thousand scientists in 2023 to pause AI development. What motives lie behind this sensationalism?

(4)、Open vs. Closed-Source Debate:

While some in the media sensationalized Balaji’s suicide as an issue of transparency, real debates among AI experts revolved around open-source and closed-source approaches. Geoffrey Hinton, the “Godfather of AI,” warned in July 2024 that "open-sourcing large models is as dangerous as open-sourcing nuclear weapons." He criticized Yann LeCun, Chief AI Scientist at Meta, for supporting open-source, calling him “mad.” Earlier, in April 2024, I proposed, alongside Dr. Wang Zehua of the University of British Columbia, in An Open Letter from Symbioscholars to the Six Giants in the AI World, that decisions on whether AI development should be open- or closed-source must depend on specific spatiotemporal conditions. It’s crucial not to remain narrowly focused on the binary debates of open-source/closed-source, enabling/controlling, and other dichotomies.

How should these situations be understood and addressed?

1. Allegations Against OpenAI’s Use of Unauthorized Data

The allegations against OpenAI for using unauthorized data for training have sparked widespread discussion on the legality and ethics of AI development.

• Legal Dimension:
  These accusations touch upon the complexities of copyright law, especially under the framework of “fair use.” AI companies often argue that their use of training data is non-commercial, educational, or research-oriented and involves transformative usage rather than simple replication. However, the applicability of these defenses varies across legal systems. For example, while the U.S. may recognize “fair use,” similar practices could be deemed illegal in the EU or China.

• Ethical Dimension:
  Even where legal loopholes exist, using data without permission highlights a lack of transparency. The public and content creators often question the sources behind generative AI, and this opacity undermines trust in the industry.

From a Symbiosism perspective, such practices violate the symbiotic relationship between humans and society, as well as between humans and knowledge. Producers and users of knowledge resources should establish fair, reciprocal mechanisms through dialogue rather than exploiting technological advantages.

1. The Connection Between Balaji’s Departure and Suicide

While no conclusive evidence directly links Balaji’s departure and his suicide, certain factors are worth noting:

• Psychological Factors:
  If Balaji experienced profound moral conflicts about his work, it could have impacted his mental health. However, suicide is typically caused by a complex interplay of factors, not solely professional concerns.

• Institutional Factors:
  The sense of helplessness following his resignation may have exacerbated negative perceptions of life. A lack of support systems, such as social networks or alternative career options, might have further isolated him.

In ethical dilemmas and organizational pressures, employees who resign often become whistleblowers or advocates for reform. The intense public scrutiny of their actions can add to their psychological burden—perhaps this is why Musk merely commented "Hmm" about Balaji on social media.

1. The Impact of Ilya’s Departure

Ilya’s resignation may have indirectly amplified Balaji’s decision-making pressures:

• Role Model Effect:
  As a central figure in OpenAI, Ilya’s departure might have signaled significant internal disagreements over values or strategies, reinforcing Balaji’s ethical concerns.

• Organizational Dynamics:
  Leadership departures often destabilize institutions. For younger researchers, losing a key figure can heighten feelings of isolation and doubt.

However, Ilya’s decision was primarily driven by strategic differences over OpenAI’s future and not directly linked to concerns over data use or ethics.

1. The Open vs. Closed-Source Debate

The debate involves balancing technological progress, social responsibility, and global safety:

• Benefits of Open-Source:
  Promotes transparency, reduces monopolistic risks, and enables small businesses and academia to compete on an equal footing.

• Risks of Open-Source:
  As Hinton warned, releasing powerful tools into the wrong hands could lead to catastrophic misuse.

• Symbiosism Perspective:
  My letter with Wang Zehua emphasized dynamic governance tailored to spatiotemporal contexts, rather than rigid adherence to open- or closed-source models. Effective governance requires balancing development with regulation, fostering global dialogues, and embedding ethical considerations into AI design and deployment.

1. Addressing AI’s Legal, Ethical, and Symbiotic Challenges

• Data Transparency:
  OpenAI should adopt transparent mechanisms to bridge the trust gap between creators and developers.

• Ethical and Psychological Impacts:
  The Balaji case highlights the deep ethical dilemmas and psychological tolls faced by AI practitioners, necessitating further investigation.

• Internal Value Conflicts:
  Ilya’s departure underscores value tensions within the AI industry. While it indirectly influenced Balaji, its effects were mainly psychological.

• Balancing Open- and Closed-Source:
  Avoid extreme polarization. A Symbiosism-inspired governance model advocates for conditional, dynamically adjusted openness based on contextual realities.

1. From the "Heavenly Net" to MindsNetworking

Symbioscholars propose "MindsNetworking" as an innovative response, integrating real-time evaluations of behavior to incentivize positive actions and discourage negative ones. Rooted in ancient wisdom—such as Laozi’s Heavenly Net concept—MindsNetworking aligns ethics with technological development to create a symbiotic ecosystem where humans and AI coexist harmoniously.

1. The "Heavenly Net" and the Ecological Framework

The "Heavenly Net" refers to the natural order, or the Way of Heaven, encompassing the Earth’s ecological sphere. This "ecological Heavenly Net" represents the interaction between life evolution and environmental transformation, forming a self-regulating "Superorganism" that sustains life, including humanity, in an optimal balance.

British scientist James Lovelock, building upon Lynn Margulis’s concept of symbiosis between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells (1970), introduced the "Gaia Hypothesis" in 1972, naming it after the Greek goddess Gaia. This hypothesis portrays life forms—plants, animals, microorganisms—and physical elements like air, oceans, and rocks as intricately interwoven in a symbiotic process. These interactions, akin to the dynamic flux of metabolic compensations, create an expansive and finely tuned Heavenly Net.

1. The Role of Minds in the Symbiotic Ecosystem

In this vast ecological net, what governs the system’s vastness and precision? Only the human mind (Minds)—bestowed by God—possesses the capacity to harness such a network. Victor Hugo eloquently captured this truth:

"The ocean is vast, the sky even vaster, but the human mind is the most expansive of all."

The idea that "One Mind of Heaven, One Mind of Hell" suggests that the state of humanity, and its creations (including AI), stems from the intentions and nature of human thought. Based on this philosophy, the concept of MindsNetworking emerges—a system where both humans and AI can exist in a shared framework, with real-time evaluations of moral and ethical behavior. This approach incentivizes positive actions and discourages harmful ones. Compared to traditional governance or monitoring systems, MindsNetworking is both more cost-effective and efficient while maintaining the balance of "openness and order."

When Musk’s high-speed internet project, Starlink, evolves into MindsNetworking, it could become the technological backbone of the Earth’s ecological Heavenly Net.

1. The Vision of MindsNetworking

Symbioscholars envision that, within the MindsNetworking framework, humans and AI can achieve a way of life rooted in the following values:

• Respect Differences, Embrace Commonalities: Foster diversity while valuing shared goals.

• Interactive Subjects: Build mutual reliance between humans and AI.

• Endless Vitality: Promote continuous evolution and self-regulation.

• Harmonious Coexistence: Achieve a sustainable symbiosis between humans, AI, and nature.

1. From "Heavenly Net" to MindsNetworking: Philosophy, Mechanisms, Technology, and Ethics

The transition from the Heavenly Net to MindsNetworking encapsulates the philosophy of using the power of Minds to lead technological and ethical integration. Below are the four pillars:

Philosophy: From Natural Order to Minds’ Influence

(1) The Heavenly Net: Natural Order and Symbiosis
The Heavenly Net, as described in ancient Eastern philosophy, represents a vast and interconnected ecological order:

• Attributes: Open yet precise, vast yet orderly, embodying mutual interaction between life and environment.

• Ecological Network: This Superorganism connects life forms and their environments, ensuring Earth’s sustainability.

(2) The Minds’ Role in Defining State

• The Power of the Mind: Minds embody the creativity, judgment, and ethical compass essential to guide AI.

• Thoughts Shape Reality: Decisions and creations, whether beneficial or destructive, emerge from human intentions and values.

Mechanisms: Real-Time Evaluation and Feedback

MindsNetworking relies on dynamic mechanisms that encourage responsible behavior and address ethical challenges:

(1) Real-Time Multidimensional Analysis

• Evaluates behavior across six dimensions: truth-falsehood, good-evil, beauty-ugliness, wisdom-foolishness, correctness-incorrectness, and divinity-demonicity.

• Transparent tracking of decisions ensures accountability.

(2) Incentives and Deterrents

• Incentives: Reward actions aligned with ethical principles and societal values.

• Deterrents: Restrict behaviors deviating from symbiotic ideals.

(3) Self-Regulation

Inspired by the Heavenly Net’s openness and precision, the system enables autonomous optimization through real-time adjustments.

Technology: Infrastructure of MindsNetworking

The implementation of MindsNetworking relies on a fusion of advanced technologies:

(1) Quantum Collaboration Mechanisms

• Facilitates global-scale collaboration through quantum superposition and coherence.

(2) Blockchain and AI Integration

• Blockchain: Ensures secure, decentralized record-keeping for behavior evaluation.

• AI Ethics Modules: Equip AI with dynamic, real-time ethical analysis.

(3) Starlink Integration

• Enhances Musk’s Starlink to support MindsNetworking’s global reach and real-time evaluations.

Ethics: The Future Vision of Intersubjective Symbiosis

MindsNetworking offers a groundbreaking approach to align technology with ethics:

(1) Diversity in Unity:
Promotes cooperation across diverse individuals and systems while preserving individuality.

(2) Endless Evolution:
Supports self-regulation and dynamic optimization, ensuring sustainable development.

(3) Dual Empowerment:
Facilitates mutual enrichment between ethics and technology, ensuring harmony among humans, AI, and the natural world.

1. Conclusion: Minds Change Everything

MindsNetworking, as an innovative application of symbiosis philosophy, embodies the integration of ethics and technology. It transcends traditional governance models by incorporating real-time evaluation and feedback mechanisms, creating a dynamic ecosystem where humans and AI coexist symbiotically. Looking forward,   MindsNetworking is set to usher humanity and AI into a new era of “Respect Differences, Embrace Commonalities; Interactive Subjects; Endless Vitality,” achieving mutual empowerment of ethics and technology for the collective good of humanity and the Earth’s ecology.