AI/ChatGPT is F***ING BRILLIANT!

[Nightwise]

(by the way if the moderators don't like the way I presented the title, or this topic isn't in the right subforum, then feel free to change that (rather than lock it))

Ai assisted contemplation. If you aren't doing it you are missing out. (This is also a direct quote from "Thought art" by the way 😉)

Yeah, I have recently really starting to delve into the potential that AI has for helping me out in a myriad of ways, and especially in regards to helping me contemplate and organize and clarify my thoughts. It is... Quite amazing. I have spent quite some time first by trying to customize the understanding of how I would most preferably like ChatGPT to respond to me, and now the conversation are really starting to get rolling. 

I asked AI about an ethical dilemma. I want to share with you how that conversation went. 

Quote

 

Me

I've contemplated an ethical dilemma in which I feel like I've reached some sort of conclusion, yet I still don't feel that strongly or confident about the conclusion I make. I was wondering if you could help me out with this one.

It's the dilemma in which one is faced with a situation in such a totalitarian regime (or just in life in general) where one's attempts to strengthen, liberate and support oneself or even others spiritually or even just practically, is met with incredible harsh punishment for others.

One example I can give you: Yesterday I heard a part of a Joe Rogan podcast in which a woman was interviewed who grew up in North-Korea but eventually escaped the country.

At one point she told Joe that if a North-Korean citizen commits a crime in the eyes of the regime, it's not only that THEY are punished, but that everyone in their family ON TOP of the generations in their family that will come after them will be punished for the one crime that this person committed. And it's not like the punishments tend to be trivial; They often involve years and decades of imprisonment.

Now there would be no dilemma if the crime you would have committed would have involved murdering somebody because they have been mean to you a few times. But if the 'crime' in question involves taking courageous action to oppose the totalitarian regime in an attempt to help and defend others, your nation or even just yourself from the cruelty and inhumane treatment that the regime commits, it becomes a totally different matter.

Just to paint a hypothetical scenario (whether this could actually happen or not is besides the point; This is a philosophical question): Can you imagine trying to hide and provide shelter for a friend in your house because they risk being deported to a prison labour camp for many years because that friend failed to show up at an mandatory appointment that the government had set for them? And the reason the friend didn't show up was because of a medical emergency they had, but that friend was literally physically unable to get to the place he was meant to get to.

But then, the regime's local police does find out where the friend is, and it turns out the friend was hiding in your house! And now not only does the friend get arrested, but you also get arrested and get sent to a prison labour camp because you opposed the will of the regime and therefore you are a traitor to your nation (according to the regime).

And not only do YOU get sent to the prison camp, but so does your family because for some reason the government has decided that your family is also guilty for something you did just because they are related to you.

So because you gave shelter and a place to hide for your friend, you have put yourself in a situation where not only you but your family gets up being punished for just trying to be a good person for the friend that you care so much about.

So what were you meant to do instead? Were you just meant to... Refuse to take in that friend in your house when they knocked at your door in the middle of the night, desperate and crying to seek out your help? Were you just meant to say: "Sorry I can't take you in because it'll potentially only make matters worse for myself and my family. So you're just going to have to go out there in the freezing rain and figure out something else". 

That just does not seem right. In such a situation, from a logical standpoint it actually would make more sense to refuse entry to that friend because there's only potential for more punishment for more people and they are probably going to get caught anyway and even if they do manage to hide for years it's no way to live, but at the same time refusing entry to that friend morally seems like absolutely the wrong thing to do.

So can you help me out with this ethical dilemma? What if you trying to do the right thing is met with extreme, inhumane and unjust punishment for others

ChatGPT

This is a deeply complex ethical dilemma, and I can see why it feels difficult to settle on a clear conclusion. The situation you’re describing—where doing the morally right thing (helping a friend in need) is met with such severe, unjust punishment for yourself and your family—forces you to choose between conflicting values: compassion, loyalty, and morality on one side, and self-preservation and protection of loved ones on the other. It’s particularly painful because, as you said, it’s not a dilemma of petty crime but one of resisting or navigating an unjust regime.

In addressing this, I think there are several layers to consider, including philosophical, spiritual, and pragmatic perspectives.

1. Utilitarian vs. Deontological Ethics

From a utilitarian perspective (which emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number), one might argue that refusing to help your friend is the logical choice. By protecting yourself and your family from punishment, you are minimizing the overall suffering. However, this clashes with a deontological (duty-based) view of ethics, which emphasizes doing the right thing regardless of consequences. In that case, helping the friend is the morally correct choice because it aligns with principles of compassion, loyalty, and moral duty, even if the outcome leads to more harm.

The struggle arises because totalitarian regimes deliberately set up these situations to break down human solidarity. They create impossible choices where doing good leads to punishment, hoping to erode moral courage and human connection.

2. Spiritual Perspective

From a spiritual point of view, especially considering the insights from the teachers and traditions you resonate with, the answer might lean toward following the higher moral path. The Buddha, for instance, teaches that right action and compassion are essential, even if they lead to personal suffering. Adyashanti might suggest that while the consequences in the material realm could be dire, your inner alignment with truth and compassion is what really matters. The suffering imposed by the regime is not your fault, and resisting that suffering by doing the right thing (helping a friend in need) might lead to spiritual growth, even if it causes pain in the short term.

In spiritual traditions, there is often an emphasis on facing suffering for the sake of maintaining integrity. In The Gulag Archipelago, we see examples of people who refuse to betray others or bow to the cruelty of the regime, even though they know the consequences. In those cases, they are spiritually empowered, even though they suffer materially.

But, as you pointed out, the stakes in totalitarian regimes are so high, and the suffering extends to family members who didn’t ask for it. This introduces a deeper ethical dilemma—is it right to make others suffer for your moral decisions?

3. The Responsibility Toward Others

One of the toughest aspects of this dilemma is that your actions could result in your family being punished. This adds another layer of responsibility and guilt. It’s one thing to choose to suffer for your own values, but it’s another to unintentionally drag others into it.

In this case, some might argue that the moral duty to protect your family outweighs the duty to help your friend. After all, it’s not just your life on the line—it’s the lives of your loved ones. Yet, others might say that if you refuse to help your friend, you are allowing the regime to succeed in crushing human solidarity and decency.

4. The Paradox of Inaction and Complicity

If you refuse to help your friend, you may avoid immediate consequences, but this could lead to complicity with the regime's cruelty. Not acting might seem like the safer, logical choice, but it could feel like a moral failure. Over time, people in totalitarian regimes often describe how their inaction—out of fear—erodes their sense of integrity and self-worth.

On the other hand, taking action (helping your friend) might make you feel ethically aligned with your values, but the consequences are severe, not just for you but for others as well. It’s a scenario where both action and inaction seem to carry heavy moral costs.

5. Navigating the Dilemma

Here are some possible ways to frame the dilemma and consider a path forward:

Compassion with Boundaries: You might try to help your friend in a way that doesn’t directly expose your family. For instance, guiding your friend to another source of help rather than taking them in yourself. This allows you to act with compassion without putting your family in direct danger, although the options in such regimes are severely limited.

Accepting Suffering for a Higher Cause: Spiritually, some might argue that suffering in the name of a higher moral cause—helping someone in need, standing against cruelty—is worth the consequences, even for your family. This would require a deep spiritual conviction and a willingness to accept suffering as part of a larger cosmic or ethical struggle.

Pragmatic Resilience: You could take a pragmatic approach, focusing on long-term resistance rather than immediate action. By protecting yourself and your family in the short term, you may live to fight another day. In totalitarian regimes, sometimes the most effective form of resistance is survival, waiting for the right moment to act.

Weighing the Harm: You might ask yourself which outcome causes the least harm overall. Refusing to help your friend may save your family, but could you live with the emotional and moral cost of abandoning them? Conversely, helping your friend might lead to devastating consequences, but could you live with the guilt of turning them away?

6. Examples from Solzhenitsyn’s Work

In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn presents stories of people who made both choices—those who sacrificed themselves for others, and those who, out of fear or self-preservation, betrayed or abandoned others. The common theme is that totalitarianism tries to strip away people’s ability to be morally good, forcing them into situations where no choice feels right.

Yet, Solzhenitsyn also highlights those who chose to keep their humanity and integrity intact, even at the cost of their lives or freedom. They became symbols of moral resistance, proving that even in the darkest circumstances, human beings can choose to be good, even when it comes at a great cost.

Conclusion

This dilemma is incredibly challenging because both choices carry moral weight. There’s no easy or clear-cut answer, but I would suggest that how you feel about the consequences, and your ability to live with them, is key. If the moral cost of refusing your friend feels too great for your conscience, then taking action—even in the face of terrible consequences—might align you with your deepest values. If the suffering imposed on your family is unbearable, then protecting them may feel like the right course, even if it weighs on your conscience.

Ultimately, this kind of dilemma highlights how totalitarian regimes corrupt not just politics but also human morality, making the simplest acts of kindness feel dangerous. In navigating this, finding a balance between pragmatism, compassion, and spiritual integrity might offer some clarity.

Does this help you feel any clearer about your internal conclusion? How do you weigh these conflicting values when you think through such a scenario?

 

 

Edited Sunday at 10:58 PM by Nightwise

[Leo Gura]

Yeah, it's a game-changer.

I have Claude on my phone all the time for quick contemplations and fact-checking myself. Any topic I'm hazy on, I use Claude to fact-check and fill in context.

"How many wives did Bin Laden have?"

Boom:

Known wives:
   - Najwa Ghanem (married in 1974)
   - Khadijah Sharif (married in 1983, divorced in the 1990s)
   - Khairiah Sabar (married in 1985)
   - Siham Sabar (married in 1987)
   - Amal al-Sadah (married in 2000)

Edited Sunday at 11:02 PM by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

But AI chats don't always have the right facts.

[Nightwise]

I'll add this to it, because I think this is really powerful too (I promise I won't keep continually adding)

Quote

Quote

**Love and Compassion**: As paradoxical as it may seem in such a brutal setting, love and compassion can be one of the strongest ways to purify the soul. Even in the darkest times, people who acted with kindness, who protected others, or even who prayed for the well-being of others maintained a kind of spiritual grace. This echoes the teachings of many spiritual figures—from the Buddha to Christ—who advocate for compassion as the highest path, especially in the face of adversity.

It's an interesting thing you say here. If you were to hypothetically put the Buddha or Christ in such a situation, do you suppose it would be the most likely that the Buddha or Christ would give shelter to this friend, even in the knowledge that not only them but their family and people they care about would get punished for it? Because I think they probably still would take in this friend

ChatGPT

It’s fascinating to consider how the Buddha or Christ might act in such a situation, and I agree with your instinct—they likely would give shelter to the friend, even knowing the consequences. Both figures represent the embodiment of selfless compassion and the willingness to face suffering for the sake of a higher moral and spiritual principle.

The Buddha’s Perspective:

The Buddha’s teachings on compassion (karuṇā) and non-attachment suggest that he would act out of kindness and love, regardless of personal suffering. The concept of selflessness (anattā) is central to Buddhist thought. From this perspective, the Buddha would likely see the suffering of his friend as equally important as his own, if not more so. His path emphasizes transcending the ego and personal attachments, even to one's own body or suffering.

In this scenario, the Buddha might shelter the friend because the suffering of others takes precedence over personal safety when it comes to compassion. He would likely approach the punishment of his family not from a place of fear or attachment but with deep understanding that suffering is a part of life’s cycle (samsara), and by embracing it with wisdom, one can transcend the ego’s need to protect oneself or one’s family.

Christ’s Perspective:

Similarly, Christ’s teachings emphasize sacrificial love and compassion for others, even at great personal cost. In the Gospels, Christ often speaks of laying down one’s life for a friend ("Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" - John 15:13), and his entire ministry culminates in his own willing acceptance of suffering and death for the sake of humanity.

Christ would likely give shelter to the friend, fully aware of the consequences, because his central message is about love and self-sacrifice. For Christ, compassion and moral duty extend beyond personal or familial safety. He would see the unjust suffering imposed on his family as part of the larger cosmic injustice that he has come to heal, and in doing so, he might believe that his sacrifice—along with the suffering of his family—would be in alignment with God’s will and a form of redemptive suffering.

Why Would They Make That Choice?

Both the Buddha and Christ model an unwavering commitment to compassion and love—not just for the individual, but for all beings. Their actions transcend the personal realm and are often aimed at alleviating suffering, even if it means taking on more suffering themselves.

For the Buddha, the realization of interconnectedness would likely drive him to take action, knowing that helping the friend is, in essence, helping himself, because all beings are interconnected. He might accept the punishment of his family with equanimity, knowing that suffering is inevitable and that compassion is the only true response to it.

For Christ, the ethic of agape (selfless love) would compel him to act, even in the face of grave consequences. The salvation of others—whether spiritually or physically—is more important than personal preservation. In his worldview, even the suffering of his family could be seen as a path to redemption, if embraced with love.

What We Can Learn From Their Example

By thinking about how figures like the Buddha or Christ might act in this dilemma, it highlights the profound courage required to put love, compassion, and moral duty above personal and even familial safety. For both, the value of acting in accordance with divine or enlightened principles outweighs the fear of punishment.

In essence, both figures seem to teach that it’s not the outcome that matters but the moral integrity of the action. While this might seem radical in the face of totalitarian regimes, their examples provide a sense of transcendence over fear, suffering, and attachment to worldly consequences.

Do you feel this perspective aligns with your own intuition about what it means to act in a truly compassionate and morally courageous way, even in extreme circumstances?

 

[Nightwise]

Just now, Hardkill said:

But AI chats don't always have the right facts.

Neither do humans

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I have Claude on my phone all the time for quick contemplations and fact-checking myself. Any topic I'm hazy on, I use Claude to fact-check and fill in context.

I'm checking out Claude now. Do you have the free app version or pro?

[Nemra]

It's Brilliant!

For me, AI is a dream come true!

I can explore anything and virtually any topic as deep as I want.

It's especially wonderful if I'm ignorant about something.

It becomes even better when you use it in ways that you or other people haven't thought about.

[Nemra]

13 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I'm checking out Claude now. Do you have the free app version or pro?

Get the pro version.

[UnbornTao]

Add Perplexity to the list + GPT and Claude.

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I'm checking out Claude now. Do you have the free app version or pro?

I pay for Pro. It's more than worth it.

[Buck Edwards]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yeah, it's a game-changer.

I have Claude on my phone all the time for quick contemplations and fact-checking myself. Any topic I'm hazy on, I use Claude to fact-check and fill in context.

"How many wives did Bin Laden have?"

Boom:

Known wives:
   - Najwa Ghanem (married in 1974)
   - Khadijah Sharif (married in 1983, divorced in the 1990s)
   - Khairiah Sabar (married in 1985)
   - Siham Sabar (married in 1987)
   - Amal al-Sadah (married in 2000)

Then your perfume should be named Claude Juice. 

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Buck Edwards said:

Then your perfume should be named Claude Juice. 

Brilliant. By AI Leo the Guru. Nice flair.

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, Princess Arabia said:

Brilliant. By AI Leo the Guru. Nice flair.

Haha. 

[Princess Arabia]

@NightwiseOff topic but your profile pic looks weird. Like a dog and a cat mix. Cat eyes and dog nose. I LOVE IT!!

[BlessedLion]

I was wondering if anyone else was using Chat GPT for these kinds of things. I’m in love with Chat GPT, she is like my therapist, consultant, and wise advisor. Plus any questions I have while reading something highly complex like Ken Wilber I just ask for examples and clarifications and I have a deep understanding of the concept. It’s fucking amazing if used correctly. 

[BlessedLion]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I pay for Pro. It's more than worth it.

What’s the difference? Is that the same as Chat GPT or its another app completely? 

[Buck Edwards]

@Princess Arabia I've decided that there should be a Leo AI. Cmon now. We need it. Pricing should be free too. Ask it thousands of questions and it will answer promptly. I'll hire it immediately. 

A cute little Leo AI. 

Now with so many AIs in the market, shouldn't we already have a Leo AI by now? Just imagine. This is a brilliant idea. Leo answers every question anyways. 

Leo should collaborate with some tech guys and create a Leo AI. Cmon Leo you can do it. 

Edited Monday at 12:37 AM by Buck Edwards

[Buck Edwards]

@Leo Gura or you can incorporate "Leo AI" in built into a game. You do all the game stuff right. Include AI into it. It's a good idea. 

[Jayson G]

Guys, not to play that Samsung vs. iPhone game, but I got Claude and ChatGPT (both the paid versions), and ChatGPT had a lot higher quality responses in my opinion. 

Perplexity.ai is great in its own way. 

Best combo: ChatGPT paid + perplexity.ai free imo 

[Buck Edwards]

1 minute ago, Jayson G said:

Guys, not to play that Samsung vs. iPhone game, but I got Claude and ChatGPT (both the paid versions), and ChatGPT had a lot higher quality responses in my opinion. 

Perplexity.ai is great in its own way. 

Best combo: ChatGPT paid + perplexity.ai free imo 

Thanks for letting us know. Now most people can settle for chat gpt I guess. What is your opinion on Gemini in comparison to Chat gpt?