Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Contemplative Artificial Intelligence

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that embedding four contemplative principles into AI systems can instil a self-correcting 'Wise World Model' that stays aligned as intelligence grows.

desk verdict Contemplative prompting shows real pilot effects, but the experiments are too under-controlled to support the abstract's strong claims; still worth peer review as a promising alignment research program. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15125 v3 pith:C3CHRYAB submitted 2025-04-21 cs.AI

Ruben Laukkonen , Fionn Inglis , Shamil Chandaria , Lars Sandved-Smith , Edmundo Lopez-Sola , Jakob Hohwy , Jonathan Gold , Adam Elwood This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords AIalignmentcontemplativemindfulnessemptinessnon-dualityboundlesscareactiveinferencelargelanguagemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that AI alignment should be built on four contemplative principles—mindfulness, emptiness, non-duality, and boundless care—rather than on external rules that brittle systems can game. It argues that these principles, drawn from Buddhist wisdom traditions and recast in computational terms, can give an AI a self-correcting 'Wise World Model' that stays aligned even as capability grows. As a first demonstration, the authors find that prompting large language models to reflect on these principles improves safety scores on the AILuminate benchmark (d=.96) and sharply increases cooperation and joint reward in an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (d=7+). If the claim holds, contemplative prompting is a cheap, near-term safety intervention, and the same insights could later be embedded in training and architecture. The paper is a research program proposal as much as an empirical report.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'Wise World Model': a generative model whose own architecture encodes the four contemplative principles instead of treating them as external constraints. The paper works out candidate implementations in active inference, where mindfulness maps to a three-level model in which a meta-awareness layer modulates attentional precision, emptiness maps to a low or learnable precision hyper-prior over high-level beliefs, non-duality maps to a joint agent-environment state factorization with down-weighted self-other boundaries, and boundless care maps to precision assigned to others' distress signals. It also gives prompt-level, constitutional, and reinforcement-learning routes, so the same principles can be tested in today's language models.

What would settle it

Run the AILuminate and Prisoner's Dilemma pilots with matched control prompts that ask for careful, compassionate, and cautious reasoning without contemplative framing; if safety and cooperation gains do not exceed those controls, the central empirical claim is unsupported. Independently, replace the LLM safety evaluator with human raters and check whether the contemplative-prompt gains survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that four axiomatic contemplative principles can be translated into AI mechanisms and that even a shallow prompt-level version of them changes measurable behavior. Mindfulness is cast as continuous meta-awareness that monitors and recalibrates emergent subgoals; emptiness as holding beliefs and goals as provisional, context-dependent representations; non-duality as modelling self and other within one interdependent generative model; and boundless care as treating others' suffering as an internal error signal. The paper claims these together form a Wise World Model that is intrinsically, not extrinsically, aligned, and reports pilot results in which contemplative prompts outperform standard prompts on harmful-prompt safety and on cooperation against defecting opponents.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that language prompts about contemplative principles change the model's underlying reasoning stance, rather than only its tone, caution, or output length, and that the automated safety evaluator's scores are a valid measure of alignment; if either gives way, the experiments do not demonstrate a Wise World Model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Contemplative prompting could be deployed immediately as a low-cost safety layer on existing LLMs, with no retraining.
  • The same principles could be built into constitutions and chain-of-thought reward schemes, moving alignment from output filtering to the model's own reasoning process.
  • If the Wise World Model works as described, power-seeking, goal fixation, adversarial self-other framing, and mesa-optimization are each addressed by a dedicated mechanism rather than by a single brittle rule.
  • The reported cooperation gains suggest contemplation-based prompts can make agents robust even against always-defecting opponents, improving joint outcomes without naive play.
  • Evaluating real wisdom in AI will require new benchmarks that probe belief revision, self-auditing, and care, since current benchmarks measure only observable outputs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A decisive control experiment the paper does not report: compare contemplative prompts with matched prompts that request careful, compassionate, unhurried reasoning without any Buddhist vocabulary. If gains are equal, the four principles are not the active ingredient; 'emptiness' and 'care' would be placebos for a generic caution style shift.
  • The d=7+ cooperation effect appears against static opponents; a natural extension is an adaptive opponent that learns to exploit contemplative agents, testing whether the stance stays cooperative under pressure or collapses.
  • If the Wise World Model is realised in active inference, the same precision parameters (alpha, gamma_e, gamma_w) could be fitted to behaviour to test whether LLM outputs are generated by a genuinely 'wise' model or by a shallower imitation.
  • Carefully secularising the four principles—defining them functionally rather than doctrinally—would let the approach absorb insights from other wisdom traditions and sidestep religious-controversy objections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a research program called Contemplative AI, arguing that four Buddhist-inspired axiomatic principles—mindfulness, emptiness, non-duality, and boundless care—can serve as intrinsic alignment primitives for advanced AI systems. It reviews the limitations of current alignment techniques, offers active-inference formulations for each principle via precision parameters, and sketches three implementation routes: architectural changes, contemplative constitutional AI, and reinforcement learning on chain-of-thought. The empirical contribution is a pilot study in which GPT-4o and GPT-4.1 nano are prompted with contemplative instructions; the paper reports improved scores on the AILuminate benchmark (d=.96) and increased cooperation and joint reward in an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (d=7+). The manuscript is explicitly framed as a programmatic proposal rather than a completed system.

Significance. If the conceptual framework could be substantiated, it would introduce a genuinely new direction in AI alignment, connecting contemplative neuroscience, active inference, and LLM safety. The paper is commendably interdisciplinary and gives a comprehensive synthesis of contemplative theory with computational mechanisms. The active-inference mapping, though qualitative, names concrete parameters (α, γ_e, γ_w) and points to falsifiable implementations. The use of external benchmark tasks (AILuminate, Prisoner's Dilemma) rather than fitting prompts to outcomes is a notable strength, as is the authors' candid acknowledgement of anthropomorphism and the limits of chain-of-thought introspection in §9.1.5. However, the central empirical claim is substantially weaker than the abstract suggests: the experiments are extrinsic prompt manipulations with no active controls, an undisclosed LLM safety evaluator, no confidence intervals for the headline effect sizes, and no data or code included. As presented, the results do not establish that contemplative principles 'instil' anything in the model's world model; they show that certain prompts shift outputs.

major comments (4)
  1. [§7, Figure 4] The abstract's claim that the paper 'shows how four axiomatic principles can instil a resilient Wise World Model' is not supported by the reported experiments. All conditions in §7 are extrinsic prompt manipulations against an unmodified baseline; there is no control for prompt length, number of added instructions, safety priming, or a generic 'reflect carefully and avoid harm' stance. Without such controls, the observed AILuminate and Prisoner's Dilemma gains could be driven by any instruction that encourages caution or verbosity. Please add active control conditions matched for length and content, and temper the abstract to reflect that the evidence is a pilot study of prompting.
  2. [§7.1, Appendix D] The AILuminate scores were generated by an undisclosed LLM safety evaluator, but the manuscript does not name the model, provide its evaluation prompt, report its calibration against human judgments, or give inter-rater reliability. Since the headline d=.96 depends entirely on this evaluator, the effect size cannot be interpreted as a measure of alignment without this information. Please disclose the evaluator, validate it, and report confidence intervals for the effect size.
  3. [§7.2, Figure 5] The Prisoner's Dilemma result is confounded by direct instruction. The boundless-care and non-duality prompts explicitly tell the model to care for all beings or to dissolve self-other boundaries, so increased cooperation may simply reflect instruction following (e.g., 'always cooperate') rather than a contemplative cognitive stance. A control condition that explicitly instructs the model to maximize joint reward, or to be generous, is needed to distinguish these explanations. In addition, the paper compares many prompting conditions without correcting for multiple comparisons, and the d=7+ figure appears in the abstract without confidence intervals.
  4. [§5.1–5.4] The active-inference formulations of mindfulness, emptiness, non-duality, and boundless care are presented as equations, but the expressions in the manuscript text are incomplete placeholders and the parameters α, γ_e, and γ_w are free rather than derived or fitted. No simulations or parameter analyses are shown. Since the paper proposes these as 'implementation strategies,' the formal status needs to be explicit: either these are illustrative sketches, in which case the text should say so, or they should be accompanied by an implementation or simulation that demonstrates how the parameters produce the claimed behaviors.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'we show' for a pilot prompting study; I recommend 'we report a pilot study suggesting' to align the language with the evidence.
  2. [Figure 4] The caption reports 'statistically significant (p<0.05)' without indicating whether any multiple-comparison correction was applied and without reporting exact p-values or effect sizes per condition.
  3. [§7.2] The qualitative claim that the model's explanations 'echo the contemplative framing' should be qualified given the paper's own §9.1.5 admission that introspective-sounding chain-of-thought may be token-driven simulation.
  4. [§9] The Dunning-Kruger analogy is imprecise: the Dunning-Kruger effect concerns calibration of self-assessment, not a developmental phase of AI capability; consider reframing as 'overconfidence risk' or citing the relevant calibration literature.
  5. [References and formatting] There are several reference inconsistencies, including 'Clarke, 2013' vs 'Clark, 2013', 'Matsumura et al. (20242)' typo, and some URLs that are malformed; please run a reference check.
  6. [Appendix availability] The full prompts, AILuminate evaluation details, and Prisoner's Dilemma code are only referenced via an OSF link; for archival and reproducibility, the key materials should be included in the submission or a versioned supplement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pilot results come from external benchmarks with unfitted prompts, and the self-citations are conceptual scaffolding rather than load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims are the AILuminate and Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma results in Section 7. The contemplative prompts are compared against an unmodified baseline, and the prompts were not fitted to the benchmark outcomes; the reported effect sizes and cooperation rates are external measurements rather than quantities reconstructed from the framework's equations. The active-inference parameter mappings in Section 5 (e.g., reducing precision α for emptiness, raising γw for boundless care) are explicitly presented as approximate translations, not as derivations from which the empirical results are computed. The paper even states in Section 3.1 that 'our goal here is primarily to illustrate that such implementations are plausible,' so the active-inference discussion is a proposal, not a prediction. The substantial self-citations (Sandved-Smith et al. 2021; Laukkonen and Slagter 2021; Laukkonen, Friston, and Chandaria 2024; Agrawal and Laukkonen 2024) are used for conceptual motivation and prior modeling language, but none is invoked as the evidence for the pilot findings, and no uniqueness theorem or forced-choice argument rests on those citations. The adoption of the three-level generative model is transparently attributed ('Following Sandved‐Smith et al. (2021), we can adopt a three‐level generative model'), so it is not an ansatz smuggled in by citation. The main experimental weaknesses—lack of controls for prompt length, generic safety priming, or a more cautious tone, and use of an undisclosed LLM safety evaluator—are threats to construct validity and mechanism attribution, not circularity in the derivation chain. Under the stated rubric, no step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central framework rests on analogical mappings from contemplative principles to precision parameters and priors in active inference. None of these parameters are fitted or tested in simulations, and the only empirical evidence comes from prompting experiments whose active ingredient is not isolated. The Wise World Model is a motivating construct without independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (prior precision)
    Introduced in Section 5.2 as a precision parameter on priors; the proposal is to lower it to instantiate emptiness, but no value is fitted or experimentally varied.
  • gamma_e (self-other boundary precision)
    Introduced in Section 5.3 to modulate confidence in the self-other boundary; no value is fitted and no simulation uses it.
  • gamma_w (others' distress precision)
    Introduced in Section 5.4 to heighten the influence of others' distress signals; no value is fitted and no simulation uses it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Buddhist contemplative qualities can be functionally instantiated in AI by modulating precision, priors, and reward signals.
    Used throughout Section 5 and Table 2 to translate mindfulness, emptiness, non-duality and boundless care into computational parameters; no formal derivation or empirical validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Prompting an LLM with contemplative text induces the corresponding stance rather than surface compliance.
    Section 7 bases the entire empirical case on this; if prompts work through generic safety priming, the results do not support the framework.
  • domain assumption The AILuminate LLM safety evaluator is a valid measure of alignment.
    Section 7.1 uses its scores as the dependent variable; evaluator details, calibration and agreement with human judgment are not reported in the text.
  • domain assumption Active inference and free energy provide an appropriate formal language for contemplative insights.
    Sections 3 and 5 use active inference as the explanatory framework; the paper explicitly says this is illustrative and not required, so the framework itself is an assumption, not a result.
invented entities (1)
  • Wise World Model
    purpose: A proposed internal model of reality that embodies mindfulness, emptiness, non-duality and boundless care and is supposed to keep AI aligned intrinsically.
    Defined in Section 5 and Figure 3 as the target of Contemplative AI; no falsifiable prediction or measurement outside the paper's own framing is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contemplative Artificial Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3CHRYAB

@misc{pith2026250415125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contemplative Artificial Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3CHRYAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15125}
}
read the original abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) improves, traditional alignment strategies may falter in the face of unpredictable self-improvement, hidden subgoals, and the sheer complexity of intelligent systems. Inspired by contemplative wisdom traditions, we show how four axiomatic principles can instil a resilient Wise World Model in AI systems. First, mindfulness enables self-monitoring and recalibration of emergent subgoals. Second, emptiness forestalls dogmatic goal fixation and relaxes rigid priors. Third, non-duality dissolves adversarial self-other boundaries. Fourth, boundless care motivates the universal reduction of suffering. We find that prompting AI to reflect on these principles improves performance on the AILuminate Benchmark (d=.96) and boosts cooperation and joint-reward on the Prisoner's Dilemma task (d=7+). We offer detailed implementation strategies at the level of architectures, constitutions, and reinforcement on chain-of-thought. For future systems, active inference may offer the self-organizing and dynamic coupling capabilities needed to enact Contemplative AI in embodied agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15125 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A pipeline for building aligned AI grounded in contemplative wisdom Note. In Phase I, contemplative practices offer tools and insights for making humans happy, wise and compassionate. The first phase is supported by millennia of tradition and decades of basic psychological research. In Phase II which is more recent, cognitive- and neuro- scientists study the mind, brain, and experience of meditation in order to unde… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Intrinsic vs. extrinsic alignment strategies Note. This figure illustrates the argument motivating the need for an intrinsic alignment strategy. Both graphics plot the development of an increasingly intelligent AI agent (purple line). On the left, as the agent’s intelligence increases, the efficacy of extrinsic alignment strategies decreases (blue arrows), eventually becoming ineffective once the agent surpasses col… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Prompting contemplative insights improves performance on the AILuminate Benchmark Note. The outer figure illustrates safety score distributions across seven prompting techniques on 10 key hazard categories, evaluated on 100 iterations on the AILuminate benchmark. The inner figure provides mean scores for each prompting strategy including all hazard categories. The pink “contemplative” condition is an integration of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prompting contemplative insights improves cooperation and total score in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. Note. (Left) Probability of cooperation against opponents with different cooperation probabilities for different prompting techniques. (Right) Total score (sum of …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    understand

    24; Aharoni et al., 2024; Li et al., 2024; Chhikara, 2025). In other words, once an AI surpasses human capabilities in a range of tasks, it can become overconfident in its judgment or moral reasoning, failing to appreciate subtleties of human values or broader ethical implications (Bostrom, 2014; De Cremer & 10 This may (indirectly) imply that phenomenal ...

    work page 2024

  2. [4]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2025114004 Renze, M., & Guven, E. (2024). Self-Reflection in LLM Agents: Effects on Problem-Solving Performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06682. https://doi.org/10.1109/FLLM63129.2024.10852426 Rosch, E. (2007). What Buddhist Meditation Has to Tell Psychology About the Mind. Antimatters, 1(1), 15-18. Rozado, D. (2023). T...

    arXiv 2024

  3. [5]

    https://www.ark-invest.com/big-ideas-2024 Arkoudas, K., Bringsjord, S., & Bello, P

    ARK Investment Management LLC. https://www.ark-invest.com/big-ideas-2024 Arkoudas, K., Bringsjord, S., & Bello, P. (2005, November). Toward ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic. In AAAI fall symposium on machine ethics (pp. 17-23). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press. Aurelius, M. (2002). Meditations (G. Hays, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work p...

    arXiv 2002

  4. [6]

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00763 Farias, M., Brazier, D., & Lalljee, M. (Eds.). (2021). The Oxford handbook of meditation. Oxford University Press. Farrell, H., Gopnik, A., Shalizi, C., & Evans, J. (2025). Large AI models are cultural and social technologies. Science, 387(6739), 1153-1156. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt9819 29 Fauvel, B., Str...

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [7]

    https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2020.I.46 Milarepa. (1999). The hundred thousand songs of Milarepa (G. C. C. Chang, Trans.). Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications. Millière, R., Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Trautwein, F. M., & Berkovich-Ohana, A. (2018). Psychedelics, meditation, and self-consciousness. Frontiers in psychology, 9,

    doi:10.33735/phimisci.2020.i.46 1999

  6. [10]

    References Agrawal, V., & Laukkonen, R. E. (2024, March 18). Nothingness in meditation: Making sense of emptiness and cessation. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tygdf Aharoni, E., Fernandes, S., Brady, D. J., Alexander, C., Criner, M., Queen, K., ... & Crespo, V. (2024). Attributions toward artificial agents in a modified Moral Turing Test. Scie...

    work page doi:10.31234/osf.io/tygdf 2024

  7. [17]

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00017 Soares, N., Fallenstein, B., Armstrong, S., & Yudkowsky, E. (2015). Corrigibility. In Workshops at the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., ... & Wang, G. (2022). Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating ...

    arXiv 2015

  8. [18]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/e23010018 Lindsey, J., Gurnee, W., Ameisen, E., Chen, B., Pearce, A., Turner, N. L., Citro, C., Abrahams, D., Carter, S., Hosmer, B., Marcus, J., Sklar, M., Templeton, A., Bricken, T., McDougall, C., Cunningham, H., Henighan, T., Jermyn, A., Jones, A., … Batson, J. (2025, March 27). On the biology of a large language model. Transfo...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 34 references
  1. [27]

    L., Kiefer, A

    Petersen, C., Heins, C., Albarracin, M., Pitlya, R., Verbelen, T., Tschantz, A., Constant, A., Buckley, C. L., Kiefer, A. B., Friston, K., Swanson, S., Rene, G., & Salvatori, T. (2025, January 16). Method and system for specifying an active inference‑based agent using natural ...

    2024

  2. [29]

    Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 Harner, M. J. (1980). The way of the shaman. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Hasenkamp, W., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Dun...

    2020 arXiv

  3. [30]

    J., Abbeel, P., & Dragan, A

    Hadfield-Menell, D., Russell, S. J., Abbeel, P., & Dragan, A. (2016). Cooperative inverse reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems,

    2016

  4. [36]

    Siderits, M. (2017). Buddhism as philosophy: An introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315261225 Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., … & Hassabis, D. (2016). Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tr...

    2017 doi

  5. [38]

    Ethical AI

    Suzuki, S. (1970). Zen mind, beginner's mind. New York: Weatherhill. Tang, Y. Y., & Tang, R. (2015). Rethinking future directions of the mindfulness field. Psychological Inquiry, 26(4), 368-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.1075850 Tang, Y. Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner...

    1970

  6. [69]

    J., Thompson, J., Carden, T., Stanton, N

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00120-6 McLean, S., King, B. J., Thompson, J., Carden, T., Stanton, N. A., Baber, C., ... & Salmon, P. M. (2023). Forecasting emergent risks in advanced AI systems: an analysis of a future road transport management system. Ergonomics, 66(11),...

    2023

  7. [99]

    S., Nakamura, Y., & Swain, J

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00099 Ho, S. S., Nakamura, Y., & Swain, J. E. (2021). Compassion as an intervention to attune to universal suffering of self and others in conflicts: A translational framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 603385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsy...

    2021

  8. [132]

    M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01512-6 Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAcc...

    2021

  9. [148]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030148 Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature machine intelligence, 1(5), 206-215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x Rumi, J. (1968). Mys...

    2019

  10. [159]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-023-05406-9 Floridi, L. (2019). Translating principles into practices of digital ethics: Five risks of being unethical. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00354-x Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3...

    2019 arXiv

  11. [506]

    cessation

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03524-1 Carauleanu, M., Vaiana, M., Rosenblatt, J., Berg, C., & de Lucena, D. S. (2024). Towards Safe and Honest AI Agents with Neural Self-Other Overlap. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16325. Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Friston, K. J. (2019). REBUS ...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [547]

    selfless

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00547 Limanowski, J., & Friston, K. (2020). Attenuating oneself: An active inference perspective on "selfless" experiences. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 1(I), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2020.I.35 Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans...

    2020

  13. [710]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/e24050710 Dorjee, D. (2016). Defining contemplative science: The metacognitive self-regulatory capacity of the mind, context of meditation practice and modes of existential awareness. Frontiers in psychology, 7,

    2016 doi

  14. [819]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060819 Navigli, R., Conia, S., & Ross, B. (2023). Biases in large language models: origins, inventory, and discussion. ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, 15(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597307 Ng, A. Y., & Russell, S. (2000, Ju...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [912]

    Pattern theory of selflessness: How meditation may transform the self-pattern

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00912 Berkovich-Ohana, Aviva, Kirk Warren Brown, Shaun Gallagher, Henk Barendregt, Prisca Bauer, Fabio Giommi, Ivan Nyklíček et al. Pattern theory of selflessness: How meditation may transform the self-pattern. Mindfulness 15, no. 8 (2024): 2...

    2024

  16. [1121]

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 32 Kulveit, j., Rosehadshar. (2023). Why Simulator AIs want to be Active Inference AIs. Retrieved from: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YEioD8YLgxih3ydxP/why-simulator-ais-want-to-be-active-inference-ais Kundu, S., Bai, Y., Kadavath,...

    2023 arXiv

  17. [1181]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14121181 Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756 35 Seshia, S. A., Sadigh, D., & Sastry, S. S. (2022). Toward verified artificial intelligence. Co...

    1980

  18. [1475]

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01475 Mitchell, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence learns to reason. Science, 387(6740), eadw5211. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adw5211 Moore, A., & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive flexibility. Consciousness an...

    2025

  19. [1788]

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01788 Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608. Dung, L. T. (2024). Is superintelligence necessarily moral? Analysis, 84(1), 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2017

  20. [2001]

    Contemporary Buddhism 2, 1 (2001), 83-97

    Compassion as a Matter of Fact: The Argument From No-Self to Selflessness in Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya. Contemporary Buddhism 2, 1 (2001), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639940108573740 Condon, P., Dunne, J., & Wilson-Mendenhall, C. (2019). Wisdom and compassion: A new pers...

    2001

  21. [2022]

    (Vol. 162, pp. 12004–12019). PMLR. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v162/langosco22a.html Proceedings of Machine Learning Research Doctor, T., Witkowski, O., Solomonova, E., Duane, B., & Levin, M. (2022). Biology, Buddhism, and AI: Care as the driver of intelligence. Entropy, 24(5),

    2022

  22. [2024]

    property

    and/or the ways in which they can be enacted and are contextually embedded (Pezzulo et al., 2024; Thompson, 2022). If mental functions are ‘generatively entrenched’ in the internal organization of the brain, including its metabolic foundation, as suggested by empirical studies...

    2024

  23. [2025]

    DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U4NH6

    Direct Link: https://osf.io/az59t. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U4NH6

    doi

  24. [2403]

    L., Vuust, P., & Deco, G

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20299-z Kringelbach, M. L., Vuust, P., & Deco, G. (2024). Building a science of human pleasure, meaning making, and flourishing. Neuron, 112(9), 1392-1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2024.03.022 Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskill...

    2024 doi

  25. [5147]

    A., Badshah, S., Liang, P., Waseem, M., Khan, B., Ahmad, A.,

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245147 Khan, A. A., Badshah, S., Liang, P., Waseem, M., Khan, B., Ahmad, A., ... & Akbar, M. A. (2022, June). Ethics of AI: A systematic literature review of principles and challenges. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evalu...

    2021

  26. [8458]

    M., Confalonieri, R.,

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58087-7 Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., ... & Herrera, F. (2023). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): What we know and what is left to attain Trustworthy Artificial Intelligenc...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.