Klairung Iso

AI-trading is contributing to a developing state of human cognitive alienation, as decision-making processes are increasingly outsourced to autonomous systems. This shifts responsibility and weakens ethical awareness in financial practices. While AI can democratize expertise, it may also reinforce inequality by granting significant advantages to those with superior access to data, speed, and infrastructure. In Thailand, this trend is reflectedin the declining participation of retail investors and the growing concentration of market share among brokerage firms, suggesting increasing systemic imbalances. Evidence from the Thai stock market indicates rising market concentration alongside the growth of AI-trading, particularly as reflected in the increasing dominance of a single brokerage firm. While causality cannot be definitively established, parallel trends suggest a potential association between AI-trading and structural concentration. Scenario analysis highlights both potential benefits, such as improved efficiency and liquidity, and risks, including reduced participation, unintended collusion, and systemic instability. These developments challenge assumptions of market efficiency and raise ethical concerns regarding cognitivealienation and the evolving role of human agency in financial decision-making

This paper argues that the Theravāda Vinaya Piṭaka’s analysis of instigated killing in Pārājika III provides a conceptual model for distinguishing causal, moral, and legal responsibility in AI-mediated harm. Drawing on a becoming organic ontology of AI, the paper maintains that although AI systems lack intention (cetanā) and cannot be moral agents, their adaptive behaviour allows them to function as proximate causal conditions within complex socio-technical networks. By comparing four responsibility configurations in Pārājika III with contemporary AI scenarios, the paper clarifies how responsibility may remain intelligible even when action is distributed across human and technological actors.

The article explores how platforms like Google and ChatGPT, which claim omniscience and wisdom-like attributes, prompt philosophical questions. It revisits religious perspectives on omniscience and their influence on the pursuit of wisdom. The article suggests that while Google may offer compartmentalized omniscience based on user preferences, ChatGPT’s factual accuracy challenges its characterization as omniscient. Nonetheless, ChatGPT can still help humans progress toward wisdom, by integrating the co-creation of knowledge between humans and the unfolding of divine knowledge from Process Thought and Buddhist epistemology insights. Notably, instead of offering definitive answers, the paper is written with a sense of deep humility to encourage ongoing inquiry and investigation.

This paper analyzes the concept of general causation and the concept of kamma. It argues that the concept of kamma does not fit with the concept of moral education for three reasons. First, general causation explains causal relations using substances and the idea of temporal connections as a basis. Second, reward and punishment in moral learning also work with the concept of general causation. However, the skillful and unskillful actions (kusala/akusala kamma) parallel reward and punishment in the natural flow of kammic events. Here, a temporal gap between kamma and vipāka (action and result) makes the relations unknowable, notably when correlated with punabbhava (rebecoming or rebirth). Third, Theravāda Buddhist metaphysics of paṭiccasamuppāda (dependent co-arising) holds that all existents flow in co-arising condition. Since reality is not seen as persons and substances, it makes the fruit of kamma seems arbitrary and unknowable.