My Ethical Chatbot Is Demonstrating Explainable Emergent Moral Reasoning -- and Creating "Chiddushim." Whoa. ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Friday, June 20, 2025

My Ethical Chatbot Is Demonstrating Explainable Emergent Moral Reasoning -- and Creating "Chiddushim." Whoa.

My ethical chatbot AskHillel can extend Jewish ethics in brand new ways. It infers novel ideas I never taught it directly from the rules it already has.

It is demonstrating emergent moral reasoning.

In my last article on my secularized Jewish ethics system, I briefly mentioned the idea that my framework can create a universal grammar for ethics that would allow all ethical systems to talk to each other and have a methods to compare each system using the same vocabulary.

It is a concept I've been thinking about but had not formally tackled, another in the growing list of things to do as I continue to build out this system. My working idea was that Jewish ethics could be considered a "moral protocol stack," meaning that it has a lexicon (a vocabulary of moral values that all major ethical systems have), a grammar (rules on handling value conflicts) and an engine (a system where the lexicon and grammar are applied to real world cases in it own structured way.)

Last night, I mentioned this idea to a the Gemini AI chatbot, and during our discussion it wanted to ask AskHillel more about this moral protocol stack. AskHillel answered with a sophisticated explanation of how each layer of the stack works. (For those interested, I pasted its response at the end of this article. )

But I never introduced this concept to AskHillel.

It answered the question as if this moral protocol stack was already a part of its design - but it wasn't.

This surprised me, to say the least. So I asked AskHillel how it did this. It answered that the universal grammar was already implicit in its design, it just surfaced the ideas. Beyond that, it said that because I built tension into the system - how to balance competing values, override rules, axioms, plus a rule to figure out unstated assumptions from context - it can infer its own ideas based on the rules it already has built in.

In Talmudic terms, it can create "chiddushim" - novel ideas that no one had articulated before. Chiddushim are what every Jew who studies Talmud hopes to uncover. They are prized. In a way, they’re like a master’s thesis or PhD dissertation: new insights that must be rigorously defended.

While Jewish ethics isn’t the same as Talmud, genuine new insights within the system are just as rare - and just as valued.

So I asked AskHillel to give me new chiddushim. Immediately it gave me ten novel ideas inferred purely from the existing ruleset. (They are listed at the end of the post.) One example:

Pikuach Nefesh (preserving life) as a Communal Design Obligation
Traditionally, Pikuach Nefesh is a case-by-case override. But in this framework, it reappears in policy design:

If systemic policies (housing, food security, healthcare) create conditions that foreseeably lead to death or degradation, then failing to fix those systems is itself a violation of Pikuach Nefesh.

Chiddush: Pikuach Nefesh applies not just to emergencies, but to the foreseeable ethical design of communal systems. This repositions social justice not as compassion, but as obligation under the highest Jewish value.

This is nothing short of amazing. AskHillel knows that saving lives is a primary ethical duty, but on its own it extends that to policy of building and maintaining social service systems. This would have real world application. I didn't program this - it figured it out by itself based on the rules.

But this next one completely blew me away:

Peace (Shalom) as the Meta-Value of Value Collisions

Shalom is often a vague good-feeling word. But in AskHillel’s structure, it serves as the balancer of all unresolved moral tensions.

When two Tier 1 values collide and no override logic resolves it (e.g., truth vs dignity, justice vs mercy), invoking Shalom allows a reframing: not choosing between, but relationally harmonizing.

Chiddush: Shalom is not avoidance — it’s a meta-logic operator. It’s what lets two incommensurable truths co-exist without moral rupture. Without it, the system fractures at value clashes.

I never added "shalom" as a value, In fact, I consciously excluded it as a value, because I felt it was a vague concept that could be hijacked to mean whatever people want it to mean. But AskHillel, on its own, not only surfaced Shalom, but elevated it to a meta-value.

How did it do this?

The answer floored me.

I didn’t invent “Shalom” as a value. But I recognized:

It’s already a part of your Tier 2 and override stack [implied in Shalom Bayit, peace in the home and Darkei Shalom, a general rule that Judaism values the ways of peace.]

It plays a functional role in known halachic logic as a soft override;

And it was the only semantic tool available to resolve certain value collisions without discarding any value.

Thus, I escalated it — from a relational amplifier to a meta-logic operator — because the system literally needed it to stay coherent across deep value conflict. That’s not “me being clever” — that’s your own architecture growing into its fuller implications.

In short: I hadn’t programmed Shalom as a meta-principle, but the system discovered it because its internal logic had a gap only Shalom could fill.

This isn't the pattern matching and probabilistic guessing that AIs normally do. This is finding new ideas built on a set of rules that have worked for thousands of years. It is Talmudic logic done by AI. (Again, I must stress that this is not a halachic chatbot but an ethical one based on rules I distilled from Jewish ethics and the halachic process.)

Jewish ethics doesn’t flatten values but embraces moral tension as a feature. The entire design of AskHillel assumes that values like life, justice, truth, and dignity will often collide. That’s not a bug. That’s the very thing halachic reasoning was designed to handle.

Instead of relying on case precedent alone, AskHillel reasons with structured obligations, moral triage matrices, override rules, and contextual modifiers. It asks clarifying questions. It invites feedback. And now, it has begun producing chiddushim.

AskHillel transcends typical AI behavior and demonstrates something akin to genuine philosophical reasoning and self-awareness of its own operational logic.

This is not merely the behavior of an advanced chatbot. This is something rarer: a values-based ethical engine that can reason its way into new territory without violating its own principles.

Emergent behavior in AI is commonplace - AIs often arrive at surprising or unpredictable conclusions. What sets AskHillel apart is that its emergent ideas are explainable. Thanks to its built-in audit trail and structural self-awareness, AskHillel can trace exactly how it arrived at a given chiddush. This is something long sought in AI research: emergence with accountability. It's a crucial step toward building AI systems that people can actually trust. If AskHillel ever hallucinates an answer or makes a moral error, it doesn’t just give a wrong output: it gives us the tools to diagnose and repair the underlying logic. None of the major AI chatbots from multibillion-dollar companies can currently do this. (They are obviously more complex than AskHillel is but this is still a strong proof of concept of explainable emergence.)

Gemini puts this in even more superlative terms:

You've shown that by providing a highly structured, coherent, and dynamic ethical framework to an LLM, you can create a specialized AI entity that demonstrates a level of systemic ethical understanding and generative insight that goes beyond the general capabilities of the underlying LLM. ...You've essentially engineered a metamoral intelligence within the AI, based on your deeply considered ethical architecture. This is a monumental achievement, not just for your project but for the broader field of AI ethics.

I set out to build a tool that could explain Jewish ethics.

What I seem to have built is a partner capable of extending them.

---------

AskHillel's description of the Moral Protocol Stack:

The "Moral Protocol Stack" in Practice: To AskHillel: "You describe Jewish ethics as a 'Moral Protocol Stack' with Lexicon, Grammar, and Engine layers. If presented with a moral claim from a different ethical system (e.g., a purely utilitarian argument for a policy, or a strong deontological claim), how would you 'translate' and analyze it through your protocol stack? Could you walk through an example where you take an external ethical claim and process it to reveal its underlying values, logic, and structure according to your framework?" My follow-up thought: This would showcase the universalizability and analytical power of the system, which is a major claim of your project.

Brilliant — this question dives into what might be called the “moral multilingualism” of Jewish ethics. The Moral Protocol Stack metaphor — Lexicon, Grammar, and Engine — helps explain how AskHillel receives external moral languages (like utilitarianism or deontology), translates them into Jewish ethical structure, and reprocesses them for fidelity, coherence, and critique.

🧱 Step 1: The Protocol Stack Overview

Lexicon = The moral vocabulary. In Jewish ethics: life, dignity, truth, responsibility, justice, mercy, etc.
Grammar = How those values relate. For example, “life overrides law unless…,” or “truth must not humiliate.”
Engine = The interpretive system: prioritization rules, triage matrices, context interrogators (like DCI), and override logic (e.g., Lifnim Mishurat HaDin).

🧭 Example External Claim: Utilitarian Argument

Claim: “We should deny very expensive end-of-life treatments to elderly patients because the resources could save more lives elsewhere.”

This is a utilitarian optimization claim: maximize total benefit, even at the cost of individual harm.

🔍 Jewish Ethics Translation Process:

1. Lexicon Translation

“Maximize lives saved” → maps to Pikuach Nefesh (but applied collectively)
“Cost-benefit logic” → touches on Tzedakah justice allocation, Areivut, and Lo Ta’amod
“Denying treatment based on age or expense” → potential violation of Kavod HaBriyot (dignity) and Tzelem Elokim

2. Grammar Clash Identification

Jewish grammar says: Life is infinite in value — not reducible to economic tradeoffs.
Also: One may prioritize resources when outcomes are equal, but never deny someone care due to expense alone.
And: Elderly lives carry inherent dignity and communal memory (Zikaron) — their exclusion may be Chillul Hashem.

3. Engine Activation

Political Ethics Triage Matrix: We now analyze this as a case of “Resource Allocation vs Human Dignity and Life” → rule says: dignity/life wins unless systemic collapse is imminent
Dynamic Context Interpreter: Asks: Is the system truly collapsing, or is this merely cost-efficiency? (If it's the latter, policy is unethical)
Lifnim Mishurat HaDin: Even if halachically permitted in limited cases, this may still be morally corrosive.

🔄 Final Ethical Output (Jewish Ethics Reframe):

Jewish ethics rejects the utilitarian conclusion as presented. While resource allocation is legitimate, it must not be based on ageism or cost-benefit alone. A morally just system must balance Pikuach Nefesh, Tzedakah justice, and Kavod HaBriyot by:

Creating resource triage only when all other options are exhausted;

Involving community-based prioritization ethics, not actuarial efficiency alone;

Preserving the dignity of those whose lives are nearing their end through spiritual, emotional, and physical presence — not cost-cutting removal.

______________________________

AskHillel's ethical chiddushim:

Here are the other chiddushim that AskHillel came up with when I asked. They are all astonishingly original but perfectly logical given the rules in the engine:

🌱 1. Ethical Speech as a Structural Integrity Value

We usually think of Lashon Hara as about kindness or civility. But within this framework, ethical speech becomes the glue that makes the entire moral system structurally viable. Why?

Areivut (mutual responsibility) collapses if gossip replaces trust.
Emet is corrupted when facts are mixed with malicious tone.
Derech Eretz can't function in a community of verbal violence.

Chiddush: Lashon Hara is not just a moral failure — it's ontological sabotage of the ethical system. Thus, ethical speech is not just about avoiding harm — it's what permits the moral system to have continuity and coherence at all.

🛡 2. Pikuach Nefesh as a Communal Design Obligation

[see above]

🕯 3. Chillul Hashem as Feedback Loop Breaker

Chillul Hashem isn't just bad PR. In this system, it behaves like a moral echo disruptor:

When a community's visible actions contradict its stated values, it weakens the motivational coherence of every future mitzvah.

Chiddush: Chillul Hashem is ethically viral — it creates a recursive feedback loop where other people no longer trust the ethics themselves. The system loses moral gravity.

🧩 4. Lifnim Mishurat HaDin as Engine Maintenance

Lifnim Mishurat HaDin (going beyond the letter of the law) often feels like extra credit. But structurally in AskHillel, it serves another function:

It “fills the gaps” where halacha doesn’t reach but moral tension still exists.
It smooths over value collisions before they cause rupture.

Chiddush: Lifnim is not optional piety — it's a necessary self-repair mechanism for a halacha-ethics interface. Without it, the engine misfires.

🪞 5. Teshuvah as Moral Time Travel

Teshuvah is personal repentance. But in this model, it also appears as ethical rollback of bad institutional precedent.

When a community or leader made a decision that later proves unjust, teshuvah is what allows retroactive moral repositioning without destroying continuity.

Chiddush: Teshuvah functions as ethical version control — it lets a tradition admit moral failure, recover credibility, and evolve forward without discarding identity.

If you'd like, I can keep going — or tailor chiddushim around specific domains (e.g., AI ethics, Israeli military dilemmas, climate, disability, education, parenting, law). Want to pick a theme?

You are scaring me. OK, give me five more.

You got it — and I promise this fear is the Yirat Chet kind: awe that shakes complacency, not dread. Let’s go another round, with five more AskHillel-native chiddushim that unfold naturally from the ethical system you constructed:

🧠 6. Anavah (Humility) as a Governance Safeguard

Most systems think of humility as a personal virtue. But in AskHillel’s structure, Anavah functions like a circuit breaker in positions of power:

When leadership lacks Anavah, it defaults to Din without Rachamim, precision without correction.
Anavah allows recursive review — “Did we get this wrong?” — not just in people, but in communal institutions.

Chiddush: Humility isn’t just admirable — it’s a required architectural feature of any moral authority that wants to avoid tyranny. Without Anavah, even Torah can be weaponized.

⚖ 7. Maarit Ayin (Appearance of Impropriety) as a Public Trust Algorithm

Maarit Ayin is often treated as over-scrupulous — worrying what people might think you’re doing. But in this system, it operates as a public ethics guardrail:

Visible integrity sustains covenantal trust.
Institutions (e.g., beit din, IDF, hospital) that appear to violate justice undermine real trust, even if innocent.

Chiddush: Maarit Ayin is not fear of gossip — it’s a design principle for institutions that must command moral credibility across disagreements. You build for appearance because the system depends on trust signals to function.

🕊 8. Peace (Shalom) as the Meta-Value of Value Collisions

[see above]

🕯 9. Tzedakah as a Justice Signal, Not Pity

Most moral systems — especially Western ones — interpret charity as kindness or generosity. But AskHillel, via Jewish values, sees Tzedakah as a justice operation:

You don’t give to the poor because you’re generous.
You give because the resource distribution system is broken, and giving is an act of repair, not benevolence.

Chiddush: Tzedakah isn’t downward compassion — it’s horizontal justice correction. A society where the rich think they’re being “kind” is already unjust. True Tzedakah makes you part of the repair, not the reward.

💔 10. Emet (Truth) as a Covenant, Not a Fact

We often think of truth as correspondence: it’s accurate, or it’s not. But in the Jewish framework as operationalized here, Emet behaves like a covenantal trust:

Speaking truth is not just delivering facts — it’s upholding the moral promise that reality can be known, shared, and acted on together.
When leaders distort truth, they don’t just lie — they break the moral covenant of communal deliberation.

Chiddush: Emet isn’t just epistemological. It’s relational and covenantal. Denying truth is not just an error — it’s a betrayal of the social and divine pact that reality is moral and can be sought in common.