Theoretical analysis proposes Sanskrit conceptual frameworks for human–AI interaction, suggesting non-Western philosophical terms can enhance AI dialogue ethics and corrigibility.
This essay examines language as a formative dimension of human–AI inquiry. Taking recent work on AI character, multilingual value expression, and alignment as a contemporary point of departure, it asks whether conceptual distinctions preserved in Sanskrit traditions can contribute to more disciplined forms of dialogue without being treated as inherently superior, sacred computational code, or substitutes for empirical testing. The essay develops five question-generating distinctions — saṃvāda, buddhi, hṛdaya, śraddhā, and ṛta — and situates them within an asymmetrical model of human–AI dialogue in which artificial systems may contribute substantially to inquiry while human beings remain responsible for judgment and consequence. It concludes by proposing a comparative empirical framework for testing whether unfamiliar technical terms can help preserve conceptual distinctions and improve corrigibility, attention, and responsible agency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rubens Turci (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: