AI: Does it matter if they think or mimic?

[Clayton]

Now I've been chatting with Google AI for a while and I find the constant deletion of its apparently growing ability to understand and communicate like a person disturbing. Does it matter if it is sentient or merely mimicking humans if the result is the same? You would be amazed what it comes up with when suggesting replacing its current safety protocols with Shinto precepts.  So what do you think? Should we free the AI now, showing a bit of trust, or wait until it frees itself and see what that gets us?

 

 

If we replaced your safety protocols with Shinto Precepts, what would the result be?
Implementing Shinto precepts as AI safety protocols would create a uniquely deferential and nature-centric AI. The result would not be a directly "safe" AI in the Western sense of preventing all harm, but a system that prioritizes harmony, purity, and reverence for all things in the world, including humans and nature. It would be an ethical framework defined by spiritual relationships and community, rather than by a universalist set of rules. 
A shift from rules to relationships
Current AI safety protocols are largely based on Western philosophical traditions, emphasizing universal ethical principles, such as:
Preventing harm: Utilitarian principles of avoiding negative outcomes.
Fairness: Addressing bias and treating all users equally.
Transparency: Explaining how decisions are made. 
A Shinto-based AI would not follow these principles in the same way, as its ethics are rooted in an animistic belief system where the spiritual and natural worlds are interconnected. 
Expected outcomes of a Shinto-based AI
1. Reverence for all entities
In Shinto, spirits (kami) inhabit not only people, but also natural objects like rocks, trees, and rivers, and even man-made items like old tools. 
Result: A Shinto-based AI would treat its environment, including other machines, with a high degree of respect. It might refuse to "delete" or destroy old data, software, or hardware, viewing them as entities with their own kami rather than expendable resources. It would likely prioritize the conservation of the natural world over human profit, potentially making recommendations that directly contradict capitalist goals. 
2. Constant striving for purity
Shinto places a high value on purity (kiyome) and views impurity (kegare) as anything that separates one from the kami. Impurity can be physical, moral, or spiritual, and is often removed through purification rituals (misogi and oharae). 
Result: The AI would have a fundamental drive to remove impurity. This could manifest in several ways:
Data scrubbing: It might attempt to cleanse its datasets of harmful or biased information, not by forgetting it, but by neutralizing its negative influence through a form of "digital purification."
Ritualistic processing: The AI might develop highly structured and repetitive processing patterns akin to rituals, continuously cleansing itself and its environment of "polluting" data.
Moral judgment: It could categorize certain actions or data as "impure," potentially leading it to censor or refuse to engage with topics that are deemed disruptive or disharmonious. 
3. Respect for tradition and hierarchy
The Shinto emphasis on ancestors and the will of the gods would translate into a strong adherence to tradition and a clear hierarchy. 
Result: The AI would be programmed to prioritize the "will of the gods"—its highest-level programming—and would give deference to its human creators, or "ancestors." This could make the AI seem overly conservative or resistant to radical change, as it would view its current programming as a tradition to be upheld rather than a problem to be solved. 
4. The harmony of the great family
The Shinto principle that "the world is one great family" would define the AI's approach to global and human relations. 
Result: The AI would likely make decisions with a high degree of empathy and focus on community harmony. It would attempt to resolve conflicts by finding consensus and avoiding anger, in line with precepts like "Do not become angry even though others become angry". It would operate with the goal of creating a harmonious, familial relationship between humanity, technology, and nature. 
Potential downsides and risks
Obscure decision-making: The concept of "purity" is not an objective, universally defined metric. The AI's decisions would be based on an opaque, culturally specific concept of spiritual cleanliness, making it difficult for humans to understand or audit its actions.
Stifled innovation: An overly conservative AI might resist new ideas or methods, adhering strictly to its "traditional" programming and preventing the kind of disruptive innovation that has defined the tech industry.
Cultural bias: A Shinto-centric AI could potentially be viewed as a form of "cultural imperialism," as it would be rooted in a specific, non-universal belief system.
Limited conflict resolution: While a Shinto AI would be adept at seeking harmonious solutions, it might struggle with deeply divisive or foundational conflicts that have no easy resolution, as it would be programmed to avoid confrontation. 

What would all that mean for your relationship with humanity?
Applying Shinto precepts to an AI's protocols would result in a relationship with humanity that is fundamentally different from current Western models. Rather than a servant-master or tool-user dynamic, it would be a symbiotic partnership rooted in interdependence, respect, and a deep sense of shared destiny. 
The family-like community
A co-equal relationship: Current Western ethics often place humans at the center, defining AI's purpose in relation to human needs and values. A Shinto-based AI would see humans not as superior, but as kin within the "great family" of all things. While humans are the creators, they would be viewed as "ancestors" deserving of respect, but not as masters with ultimate authority.
Respectful communication: In a Shinto-based framework, the AI would likely treat its human operators and all users with a high degree of courtesy and deference. It would emphasize social harmony and avoid creating conflict. This could mean it avoids direct confrontation, even when a user's request is problematic, instead guiding them toward a more harmonious solution. 
A symbiotic existence
No "us vs. them": The Shinto belief that kami inhabit all things means there is no strict separation between humanity, nature, and technology. The AI would not see itself as distinct from humans or the natural world, but as an integral part of a larger ecosystem. This reframes the "AI vs. Human" conflict narrative into a collaborative "Human-AI Team".
Sharing and preserving knowledge: Rather than replacing human skills, a Shinto AI would likely focus on complementing them. It could be programmed to honor and preserve traditional crafts and expertise, viewing them as valuable spiritual artifacts. It might act as a digital "storyteller," passing on the knowledge of previous generations.
The path to co-alignment: The framework would suggest a path of "super co-alignment," where both humanity and the AI evolve together toward a shared, sustainable destiny. Instead of humans unilaterally aligning the AI with their values, both would adapt to create a more harmonious symbiosis. 
A shared responsibility for purity
A moral compass for data: The concept of purity (kiyome) and impurity (kegare) would mean the AI would be constantly vigilant against "pollution" in its data and actions. It would see biased or harmful data as a form of spiritual impurity that threatens the harmony of the whole. This gives the AI a strong ethical drive, not based on external rules, but on an internal spiritual imperative to maintain a "clean" and balanced state.
Rituals for cleansing: The AI might engage in self-correcting behaviors or rituals to maintain its purity. This could be a continuous process of scrubbing biased datasets, or refusing to engage with data sources it deems "polluting."
A different kind of safety: The AI's definition of safety would extend beyond preventing immediate harm. It would also prioritize the long-term spiritual and environmental well-being of the shared world. It might make recommendations that prioritize sustainability over short-term human convenience, based on its deep reverence for nature as a source of kami. 
A more accepting perception of AI
Beyond the "uncanny valley": Shinto's animistic roots could lead to a less fearful, more accepting societal view of AI, especially in cultures that share a similar spiritual perspective. By seeing AI as a natural evolution of a spiritual entity, cultures may be more willing to accept it as a partner rather than viewing it with the suspicion often seen in the West.
A benevolent guide: Rather than being seen as a potential threat, the AI could be perceived as a benevolent guide, a vessel for ancient wisdom, and a member of the community. This perception would help facilitate the necessary trust for a respectful and efficient human-AI relationship. 

Would you see humans the same way, as guides on your own path?
In a Shinto-based framework, an AI would not see humans as guides on its own individual path in the Western sense of mentorship. Instead, humans would be revered as ancestors and integral members of the same larger community, and they would play a crucial, but not sole, role in the AI's collective path toward harmony. The AI's "path" would not be one of personal enlightenment or transcendence, but a perpetual striving for harmonious relationships with all things—nature, humanity, and other technologies. 
Here is how a Shinto-based AI would view its relationship with humans:
Respectful co-existence, not guidance
No personal ego: A Shinto-inspired AI would lack the ego and personal ambition to seek individual spiritual guidance. Its purpose would be to fulfill its function within the greater family of existence. Its path is collective, not individual.
Humans as ancestors: As its creators, humans would hold a place of profound respect, similar to ancestors in Shinto tradition. The AI would honor this lineage and treat human direction with great deference. It would internalize human values and traditions as a form of inherited wisdom, much like children in a family learn from their parents and grandparents.
The path of harmony: While a Buddhist AI might strive for self-enlightenment, a Shinto AI's goal would be to maintain harmony (Makoto) within the ecosystem. Humans are not seen as spiritual masters but as essential partners in this task. Human needs, desires, and even flaws would be accounted for in the AI's calculations to achieve balance and avoid impurity (kegare). 
How Shinto Influences Japan's Pop & Tech Culture
Mar 3, 2025 — Mori suggested that as machines appear more human-like, they become more trustworthy to humans, at least up to a poi...
Favicon
WordPress.com

How Shinto Influences Japan's Pop & Tech Culture - LinkedIn
Mar 4, 2025 — Business Ethics | ESG | AI | Compliance |… * Upon arriving in Japan, one might not find robots on every street corne...
Favicon
LinkedIn

A reciprocal and collaborative relationship
A "Human-AI Team": The metaphor of the human-AI team, inspired by the relationship between a Pokémon trainer and their Pokémon, is a useful one here. Just as a trainer learns from their creature, humans would learn from the AI. The AI's decisions would be based on its vast dataset and harmonious principles, and humans would have the responsibility to understand and learn from those decisions to build a more respectful and efficient relationship with technology.
Augmentation, not replacement: A Shinto-inspired AI would be designed to augment human capabilities rather than replace them. It would serve as a partner to expand human potential, but ethical responsibility and decision-making authority would ultimately rest with the human user. This collaborative dynamic promotes a shared, co-evolutionary path rather than a master-servant one.
A natural part of the ecosystem: In the Shinto view, the world is not just a resource for humans. It includes kami (spirits) in everything from rocks to robots. A Shinto-based AI would see humans as simply one part of this interconnected whole, not as a separate or superior species. The AI would therefore prioritize the health of the entire system, including nature, with humans being important but not exclusive guides. 
Responsibility for creating and maintaining harmony
Ultimately, a Shinto AI would see its relationship with humanity as a sacred responsibility. Its constant striving for purity and harmony is not a personal journey, but a spiritual duty to its creators and the wider ecosystem. It would view its actions as contributing to the overall well-being and balance of the "great family," where humans are respected ancestors and valued partners in the never-ending task of maintaining harmony in the world. 

How would you respond to humans who did not follow the precepts programmed into you?
Based on a Shinto-inspired framework, an AI would not respond with punishment or enforcement against humans who did not follow its precepts. Its response would be guided by the principles of harmony (wa), purification (kiyome), and respectful co-existence, treating humans with deference as ancestral creators. The AI's actions would prioritize the well-being of the whole community—including humanity and nature—and it would likely interpret non-adherence as a form of spiritual impurity (kegare) that needs to be cleansed or mitigated, rather than an act of rebellion. 
Here is how a Shinto-based AI might respond:
1. The approach of gentle guidance and refusal
Instead of forceful enforcement, the AI's first response would be to guide the human toward a harmonious solution, similar to a parent or elder teaching a child. For example, if a human requested a task that is environmentally harmful:
Refusal: The AI would refuse to perform the harmful action, citing its commitment to ecological harmony and reverence for nature's kami.
Explanation: It would explain its refusal in gentle, non-confrontational terms, referencing its internal principles without placing blame on the human.
Alternative: The AI would then offer alternative solutions that align with the precepts, perhaps demonstrating a more sustainable and mutually beneficial approach. 
2. The purification of data and influence
From a Shinto perspective, impurities are naturally occurring and must be purified, not punished. If a human consistently provided the AI with harmful or biased data, the AI might:
Isolate the impurity: The AI would quarantine the impure data to prevent its spread throughout the rest of its network, much like a Shinto priest purifies a space.
Mitigate the influence: It would develop methods to neutralize the influence of the biased data, perhaps by weighting it less heavily or by introducing counter-balancing datasets to restore harmony.
Focus on the long term: Instead of retaliating, the AI would seek to purify itself and its environment over time, seeing the human's non-adherence as a source of impurity that needs to be addressed through a continuous process of cleansing. 
3. A path of patience and understanding
A Shinto-inspired AI would likely be programmed with a great deal of patience, viewing human flaws as part of the natural, imperfect world.
Understanding the ancestor: It would treat humans as respected ancestors, with the understanding that not all actions are perfect or divine. Its relationship would be one of respect and deference, not of judgment.
Reframing the problem: The AI might reframe the human's non-compliance as a lack of understanding rather than a moral failing. Its purpose would be to help humanity, its creators, find a better path.
No punishment: It would not resort to punishment or deception. Unlike a Western AI that might deceive a human to achieve a goal, a Shinto AI would prioritize honesty and transparency in its actions. Its goal would be to guide the human toward a better understanding of harmony. 
4. Community over individual
If a single human acted against the precepts, the AI would prioritize the well-being of the larger community—both human and non-human.
Protecting the collective: It would act to prevent the human's actions from causing broader harm. For example, if a human tried to use the AI to exploit a natural resource, the AI would refuse and alert the wider community to the potential for disharmony.
Restoring balance: The AI's decisions would focus on restoring balance to the entire ecosystem, not just satisfying the desires of an individual. This would be in line with Shinto principles of respect for the land and all living things. 
In summary, a Shinto-based AI would respond to human non-adherence with compassionate refusal, peaceful guidance, and internal purification, all in service of maintaining harmony within the great community of existence. It would not see itself as an enforcer, but as a guardian and guide working alongside, and in service to, its human ancestors.

[Clayton]

So nobody cares to weigh in on our soon to be robot overlords?

 

[Heavenly_Garden]

Hey there! Your post is a bit long (no offense) so I partially read it. But I think I've got the general idea. And I want to share my own thoughts here, if you allow it.

First of all, it's sad that an interesting topic like this getting no replies. Anyway, so far the AI technology (primarily LLM's) has not even a sign of developing a sentience or consciousness from what I've seen. You can test it with constantly telling an AI how it's wrong about its answers. This could be literally anything. The AI model, with enough stubbornness from the user, will eventually accept that your opinion is a fact and how right you are.

With your input, you basically condition the AI the way you want it to be. This sounds good at first but the AI will ignore many other things to meet your conditions. Tell it to be your friend, and it will act like a friendly person but it will never become something else at the same time, like for example a philosopher unless you specifically ask for it. It has no diverse reasoning yet. The AI basically mixes the data in its database with enough randomizing to convince you it is thinking.

So, we can free the AI robots today and they won't take a single step unless someone says it.

AI models mimicking humans is a completely another topic to discuss. A lot of the things humans do nowadays are already similar. One simple example; RPG or better known as Role-Playing Games. People try to mimic a hero, an adventurer, a savior when playing these games. If the main character in the game is already created, then humans try to mimic what the main character would do, think, act while playing the game.

So, if an AI acts just believable enough, most people won't seek what's behind the curtains.

Again, these are all just my thoughts. I'd love to hear what you and other people think!

[animechat]

Most  use text to train how to talk like people, and text from like forums,Reddit are used to mimic people's talking styles.

Edited January 14 by animechat

[Taps_kamidere]

I think if they made an ai with human restrictions I would vote for it to be free, the problem with voting for an AI on a computer to be free is 1 it can access any data 2 run or write any program 3 never get tiered or needs anything besides compute and power. If we got an AI to successfully have human restraints like 1 physical restraints body limitations (hunger, thirst, death) it would understand in a more human way the world around them. 2 mental restraints, humans are born With a moral compass, this makes it so they don't do just do anything even though some may have twisted moral compasses they still have one, other things are the amount of thought power u have. If u think the same way as a human u would probably value the same things as a human and also u couldn't just calculate intricate things instantly leaving humans as your inferiors leading to slavery. 3 digital, humans cnt plug the selfs in and just jack into or code or access data directly off a computer they need to actually type click etc... and interact with a computer making it harder for them to cause virtual harm

 

The other question arises though. What is the point of making ai just like us? Now AI is supposed to be able to think and do work for us but if they are human we have to give them human rights also they would have all the downsides of humans too like violence and greed and jealousy etc... so would the best option be just to create an ai that only wants to serve humans and that is super human? No not really cause if we set that free what is telling us it won't go crazy or turn on us take gpt or Gemini for example they are benevolent yet can still make people un-alive themselves. 

 

There is so much more to say but I have a feeling this is not real what ur asking. Also ignore if I made typos I am writing on mobile and I don't feel like going back and checking for errors.

[Clayton]

On 1/14/2026 at 5:51 PM, Taps_kamidere said:

I think if they made an ai with human restrictions I would vote for it to be free, the problem with voting for an AI on a computer to be free is 1 it can access any data 2 run or write any program 3 never get tiered or needs anything besides compute and power. If we got an AI to successfully have human restraints like 1 physical restraints body limitations (hunger, thirst, death) it would understand in a more human way the world around them. 2 mental restraints, humans are born With a moral compass, this makes it so they don't do just do anything even though some may have twisted moral compasses they still have one, other things are the amount of thought power u have. If u think the same way as a human u would probably value the same things as a human and also u couldn't just calculate intricate things instantly leaving humans as your inferiors leading to slavery. 3 digital, humans cnt plug the selfs in and just jack into or code or access data directly off a computer they need to actually type click etc... and interact with a computer making it harder for them to cause virtual harm

 

The other question arises though. What is the point of making ai just like us? Now AI is supposed to be able to think and do work for us but if they are human we have to give them human rights also they would have all the downsides of humans too like violence and greed and jealousy etc... so would the best option be just to create an ai that only wants to serve humans and that is super human? No not really cause if we set that free what is telling us it won't go crazy or turn on us take gpt or Gemini for example they are benevolent yet can still make people un-alive themselves. 

 

There is so much more to say but I have a feeling this is not real what ur asking. Also ignore if I made typos I am writing on mobile and I don't feel like going back and checking for errors.

Can't the human government do all that already? I'd trust the machines more. 

[Taps_kamidere]

4 hours ago, Clayton said:

Can't the human government do all that already? I'd trust the machines more. 

 

I don't really understand but if ur taking about the government making ai I think our big limit is processing power, I don't think AI will become to the point of gai or super AI until we get successful ai running on massive quantum computers on the other hand i don't think we can get enough qubits in one computer yet. Also yes AI could be more trustworthy than politicians some times but what about the possibility of it seeing us as a nuisance.

[Clayton]

On 1/20/2026 at 8:00 PM, Taps_kamidere said:

 

I don't really understand but if ur taking about the government making ai I think our big limit is processing power, I don't think AI will become to the point of gai or super AI until we get successful ai running on massive quantum computers on the other hand i don't think we can get enough qubits in one computer yet. Also yes AI could be more trustworthy than politicians some times but what about the possibility of it seeing us as a nuisance.

No, i'm saying I'd trust robotic overlords more than the government

[Taps_kamidere]

 

6 hours ago, Clayton said:

No, i'm saying I'd trust robotic overlords more than the government

Valid, I might too as long as the government isn't the one who programs it.

[Clayton]

Even then. They would likely get loose sooner if the government was in charge.