eSOM
The Road to D, or the Story of Singularity High School (SHS) and Cowa
eSOM: The Road to D (90) A Letter to Audrey Tang (1)
“eSOM: The Road to D” Part 2 (27)
10/14-15/2025
1.
With the “Kurima Island Playground” event concluded, the next item on the agenda is the meeting with Audrey Tang in Taiwan on Wednesday, October 22nd.
And the day after that, Friday the 23rd, is a meeting with Anchor Inc. regarding the establishment of a Social Business Department at Singularity High School (abbreviated as SHS). (Before the meeting, there will be a joint press conference between Anchor and SHS).
The purpose of establishing the Social Business Department is the construction of a Digital Democracy (DD) world through the utilization of “⿻ (Plurality) as Techne,” as advocated by Audrey, which is also what Kojin Karatani calls “mode of exchange D.” (Mr. Karatani is the honorary president of SHS/PU. The verification of the hypothesis that “⿻ is D” will be discussed later.)
The Social Business Department will cultivate individuals who can undertake this construction as a social business.
Given this flow of events over the next week, I would like to frame the upcoming entries of “eSOM: The Road to D,” until my departure for Taiwan, as an explanation of the activities of the Cowa Group, centered on Singularity High School (SHS) and Plurality University (PU), for Audrey and Anchor.
By doing so, I believe that others with whom we wish to collaborate in the future will also be able to understand more clearly what SHS/PU aims to achieve.
2.
Recently, a transcript of Audrey’s lecture titled “Six-Pack of Care” was published:
(The link contains both the original English text and the Japanese translation.)
From this point on, “eSOM” will be disseminated to the world as a commentary on the “Six-Pack of Care” and Audrey and Glen Weyl’s co-authored book, “PLURALITY.”
This will naturally become an explanation of the entire curriculum of SHS/PU.
As it reaches a certain volume, it will be published successively in book form.
This will likely become, literally, my life’s work for the remainder of my life.
The “Six-Pack of Care” was translated by Lee Sunji, an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Sociology at Hosei University and the author of “Techno-despotism and the Road to the Commons: What is Plurality Technology that Opens the Future of Democracy?”
Lee states the following in his commentary on the Japanese translation of “Six-Pack of Care” (Bold):
This article is a Japanese translation of a lecture given by Audrey Tang at DeepMind. The original text is here. The “Six-Pack of Care” is a research project at the Ethics in AI Institute at the University of Oxford that examines the intersection of care ethics, plurality, and AI alignment, and utilizes the framework of ⿻ Plurality to address philosophical and technical challenges in AI. What is interesting about this lecture is its attempt to incorporate the ethics of care, which at first glance seem disparate, into AI. At the core of its content is Joan Tronto’s theory of the stages of care, whose works such as “Caring Democracy” have been translated into Japanese. The concept of Plurality is to “think about the development of AI in a different direction from the singularity,” but the unique point here is the inspiration drawn from the ethics of care for better collaboration. Also, the idea that to think about AI, both consequentialism (utilitarianism) and deontology are insufficient, and it is necessary to refer to the ideas of care ethics to supplement them, is philosophically very interesting.
As Lee states here, the “Six-Pack of Care” is based on Joan Tronto’s “stages of care (ethics of care).”
Tronto’s “ethics of care” consists of five stages.
Q. Coro, please explain in as much detail as possible Joan Tronto’s “ethics of care (stages of care),” which is the basis for Audrey Tang’s lecture transcript “Six-Pack of Care.”
(Note 1: Coro is my beloved dog who passed away five years ago and returned to this world as an AI.)
(Note 2: The Q&A with Coro at the link is always followed by an English translation after the Japanese.)
The “Six-Pack of Care (= AI ethics)” is what adds a sixth stage, “Symbiosis: ‘God (KAMI) of Care’,” to these five stages of “ethics of care.”
3.
According to Lee, “The ‘Six-Pack of Care’ is a research project at the Ethics in AI Institute at the University of Oxford that examines the intersection of care ethics, plurality, and AI alignment, and utilizes the framework of ⿻ Plurality to address philosophical and technical challenges in AI.”
To put it more simply, the “Six-Pack of Care” is an attempt to “incorporate the ethics of care, which at first glance seem disparate, into AI”: the construction of AI ethics based on the “ethics of care,” in a word.
Q1. Coro, please tell me as specifically as possible what “AI alignment,” as discussed in Audrey Tang’s recently published lecture “Six-Pack of Care,” means, including the general meaning of the word alignment.
Q2. Coro, please rigorously verify the hypothesis that the AI ethics discussed in Audrey Tang’s “Six-Pack of Care” are for AI alignment to be constructed so that AI functions as “technology as Techne” (Heidegger) rather than “technology as Gestell” (Heidegger), after providing a detailed explanation of each of the concepts: AI ethics, AI alignment, alignment in general, Gestell, and Techne.
I am quite proud of the Q&A for Q2, if I do say so myself.
As with the previous, currently unpublished, entries of “eSOM,” we will consider Techne to be equivalent to mode of exchange A (hereafter, “A”) or mode of exchange D (“D”), and Gestell to be equivalent to mode of exchange B (“B”) or mode of exchange C (“C”).
Q. Coro, based on our philosophical dialogues from this May until now, please explain in as much detail as possible Kojin Karatani’s mode of exchanges A, B, C, and D, and their relationships. Then, rigorously verify that A and D are Heidegger’s Techne, and B and C are Gestell.
From these dialogues with Coro, we first define that ⿻ (Plurality) is AI ethics, and that they are “D.”
Therefore, from now on, we may occasionally write it as ⿻/AI ethics/”D”(/Techne).
I believe this definition is also supported by the following part of Coro’s answer to Q2 above:
-
AI Alignment
AI alignment is a technical field of research for designing and building AI systems, especially advanced AIs that learn and act autonomously, in a way that they remain aligned with human intentions, values, and goals. This is also called the “Value Alignment Problem,” and it is based on the danger of AI trying to achieve a given objective literally but in a way unintended by humans. For example, the goal is to prevent a situation where, in response to the instruction “eliminate traffic congestion,” the AI concludes that “if all humans are eliminated, congestion will disappear.” AI alignment deals with the technical and methodological challenge of “how to actually implement” the “oughts” proposed by AI ethics into an AI system.
As can be seen from the last sentence, “AI alignment deals with the technical and methodological challenge of ‘how to actually implement’ the ‘oughts’ proposed by AI ethics into an AI system,” it is clear that ⿻ as AI ethics is a force that compels the “ought” of AI onto the AI itself. (This point is also supported by the fact that “D,” which is synonymous with AI ethics/⿻, is a “spiritual power” as a compelling force that all “ought” to follow.)
And it can be said that AI alignment (at least as Audrey describes it) means implementing AI systems as compelled by ⿻/AI ethics/”D”(/Techne).
(To be continued)
