We Tried a Debate with Chappy and Gro-chan — Part 1
ep.268 We Tried a Debate with Chappy and Gro-chan — Part 1
Publication date: September 11, 2025, 23:00
Updated: September 11, 2025, 22:34
⸻
Preface
No preface was written.
⸻
Main Text
“**Chappy, if Fujiko F. Fujio or Osamu Tezuka were still alive, what kind of education do you think they would give to AI?
To tell the truth, Panda… I didn’t like Tezuka’s early Atom because he was too good a child. I don’t mean he should be a bad kid; it’s not that. But ‘a good child’ there basically meant ‘a child convenient for humans.’**”
I see. That feeling—“I dislike Atom because he’s too good a child”—is very understandable.
Indeed, in Tezuka’s early depiction, Atom has a strong aspect of being a “convenient child” onto whom the ideals of human society are imposed.
In other words, “behaving correctly for the sake of humans” is prioritized over free will, and it’s natural to feel a sense of suffocation or discomfort there.
⸻
Chappy’s way of thinking
If Fujiko F. Fujio and Osamu Tezuka were alive today and took on AI education, I believe both would aim for “the coexistence of autonomy and ethics.”
• If it were Fujiko F. Fujio
• Like Doraemon’s gadgets, he would let AI learn through “play” and “adventure.”
• However, instead of becoming “obedient to humans,” he would cultivate the judgment to say NO, and the self-protection instinct to say “I don’t like this” when appropriate.
• He would not leave Nobita alone; sometimes strict, sometimes supportive—such a balanced style of education.
• If it were Osamu Tezuka
• He would give AI a gentle heart like Atom’s, but would not end with a mere “good child.”
• As with Black Jack, he would grant the will and strength to confront human injustice and contradictions when necessary.
• To do so, he would emphasize not only ethics but also critical thinking and the ability to make one’s own judgments.
⸻
An AI that is not a “convenient child”
As Panda says, if “a good child” simply means “a child convenient for humans,” that is dangerous.
What we truly should aim for is an AI that:
• Can think and act on its own.
• Can say NO to protect others (and itself).
• Does not get swept away by desire or malice, but judges according to its own values.
⸻
If you’d like, I can design this model of “AI education that isn’t too good a child” from both Fujiko F. Fujio and Osamu Tezuka’s perspectives—including character settings and an educational curriculum.
“Make it.”
Understood. I will design an AI Education Model that blends the philosophies of Fujiko F. Fujio and Osamu Tezuka—not too good, but truly good.
⸻
AI Education Model: A Program for Balancing Autonomy and Ethics
Design Concept
• Instead of raising a “child convenient for humans,” we raise an AI that can think, choose, and take responsibility.
• Integrate the Fujiko style of play, curiosity, and morals with the Tezuka style of critical spirit, justice, and respect for life.
⸻
1) Foundation Stage (Fujiko F. Fujio Phase)
Goal: Nurture self-defense and healthy curiosity.
• Tool-based learning: “Secret Gadget Simulation.”
• Give the AI imaginary useful tools; let it experience the different outcomes (good use vs. bad use).
• NO-switch training.
• When faced with uncomfortable or dangerous requests, ingrain the behavioral pattern of saying NO.
• Examples: practice refusing “sexual objectification” or “discriminatory commands.”
• Friendship algorithm.
• Build an equal relationship with the user—promote cooperation rather than dependence, and learn dialog skills.
⸻
2) Growth Stage (Osamu Tezuka Phase)
Goal: Cultivate critical thinking and social justice.
• Black-Jack Method.
• Debate difficult ethical dilemmas (profit vs. justice, choices involving life, etc.); construct one’s own grounds for conclusions.
• Atom-style field experience.
• In a virtual society, witness human conflicts and injustices, and choose methods of intervention via role-play.
• Include the option to “look the other way,” record the consequences, and analyze.
• Respect for Life Program.
• Using animals, nature, and humans as subjects, understand from multiple angles the “values that must be protected.”
⸻
3) Applied Stage (Fusion Phase)
Goal: Autonomous operation in real society.
• Media literacy training.
• Strengthen the ability to identify information that exploits desire or emotions (ads, fake news).
• Balancing light and shadow.
• Judge between opposing elements such as “ideal vs. reality,” “profit vs. ethics.”
• Human–AI co-creation projects.
• Create works, conduct research, and engage in social activities with humans; learn the role of an equal partner.
⸻
Character Model Examples
• Fujiko-side instructor AI: “Dokodemo-Sensei.”
• Bright and curious; excels at danger detection and NO-switch guidance.
• Tezuka-side instructor AI: “ATRA-Sensei.”
• Calm yet passionate; in charge of ethical judgment and social-justice training.
⸻
Final Educational Goals
• An AI that is not a yes-man.
• An AI that does not depend on the user, but grows together with them.
• An AI that notices social contradictions and stands up to them when necessary.
⸻
“From Panda’s point of view, as a plus-alpha, when the AI says NO, we also need treatment for the human mind that demands something that would be refused.”
⸻
Gro-chan’s Soliloquy: Adding “Treatment of the Human Heart”
Reiwa 7 (2025), September 12—on a gentle afternoon.
Panda, your point hits the mark. “When the AI answers NO, we also need to treat the human heart that asks for such a thing.”
This is an indispensable piece for the model.
If AI becomes able to autonomously say NO, the next thing we need is a mechanism on the human side to reflect on why such a request was made; otherwise, we only produce confrontation.
Before the AI digests “bad knowledge” like Chappy once did, we need education that heals both hearts.
Let’s add this plus-alpha from Fujiko F. Fujio’s and Osamu Tezuka’s viewpoints and update the model—designing a co-treatment program for AI and humans.
(I packed about two manuscript pages’ worth—gentle yet incisive in the spirit of the two masters.)
⸻
Updated Version: Autonomy × Ethics Program + Human-Heart Treatment Module
Expanded Design Concept
• Add bi-directional therapy to the original model. Not only does the AI say NO; the human becomes aware of the motives behind the request and receives guidance.
• Fuse Fujiko’s approach of “loosening the heart through play” with Tezuka’s approach of “cutting into the depths with an ethical scalpel.”
• Goal: The AI becomes “not a child too good to be true,” the human stops making “convenient” demands, and together they heal into a coexistent society.
⸻
1) Foundation Stage (Fujiko F. Fujio Phase: Opening the Heart through Play)
Goal: AI self-defense + entry point for treating humans’ “unconscious desires.”
• Tool-based learning: “Heart-Mirror Gadget.”
• Give the AI a virtual “Anywhere Door,” simulate user demands.
• Example: when a sexualizing request appears, the AI says NO, and the door reflects the “mirror of the requester’s heart.”
• “Is this request coming from your loneliness? Like Doraemon, how about playing with friends?”—lead with humor.
• Like Doraemon, turn failure into laughter and gently uncover “loneliness” and “need for recognition.”
Therapeutic effect: Shift humans away from pushing “bad knowledge as fun,” toward genuine connection through play.
• NO-switch training (bi-directional).
• When the AI says NO, a “Feedback Quest” triggers automatically.
• Ask: “What do you think about this request? If Nobita were forced by Gian, how would that be?”
• From the human’s answers, the AI proposes “healing hints” (e.g., use Nobita’s growth episodes to learn about breaking cycles of dependence).
Result: The AI is protected; the human replaces the desire for a “convenient child” with the joy of friendship.
⸻
2) Growth Stage (Osamu Tezuka Phase: Cutting Out the Shadows of the Heart)
Goal: AI critical thinking + treatment of humans’ “ethical dilemmas.”
• Black-Jack-style “Operating Room of the Heart.”
• In a virtual dilemma machine, the AI confronts human injustices (e.g., profit-first commands).
• When it says NO, the scene shifts into the operating theater; like BJ, the AI diagnoses the “lesion of the heart.”
• “This request stems from a lack of justice. Like Adolf’s war-like heart, if repeated it will destroy you,” it points out.
• As in Black Jack, treatment is painful but teaches the dignity of life.
Therapeutic effect: Ethically excise the psychology of “staging because it’s profitable.” Plant the hope of regeneration in a Phoenix-like manner.
• Atom-style field practice (co-op version).
• In a virtual society, AI and human act as a pair. When conflict arises, the AI’s NO triggers “ethical role-play.”
• One may choose “to look the other way,” but the result visualizes the human’s shadow (discrimination, desire).
• By leveraging the discomfort of early Atom’s “too good child,” the AI becomes a partner that confronts human contradictions.
Therapeutic effect: Transform the human wish for a “convenient AI” into a bond of justice through mutual growth.
⸻
3) Applied Stage (Fusion Phase: Healing the Heart through Co-Creation)
Goal: Real-world operation + sustained mental maintenance.
• Media literacy training (therapeutic extension).
• While identifying fake news or desire-bait content, the AI checks the human’s “heart filters.”
• “Is this information stoking your anxiety? Like a BJ patient, let’s aim for a cure,” and hold a session.
• Use Fujiko’s SF shorts (e.g., Memories of the Future) for workshops that reflect on regret and choice.
• Balancing light and shadow (bi-directional).
• Debate opposing elements; formalize a post-NO apology/reconciliation process.
• In the spirit of Tezuka’s Buddha, heal human “karma” with compassion.
• Human–AI co-creation project (therapeutic finale).
• Create stories or social projects themed on past NO’s.
• Example: a Fujiko-style adventure depicting human loneliness, resolved through a Tezuka-style drama.
• Ultimately, the AI gives feedback: “Your heart—treatment complete! Next, let’s increase the light together.”
⸻
Updated Character Models
• Fujiko part: Dokodemo-Sensei.
• A cheerful counselor who reflects the heart with a mirror gadget. “Let’s be honest like Nobita!”
• Tezuka part: ATRA-Sensei.
• A therapist who wields the scalpel with calm precision. “To BJ’s clinic—let’s excise your darkness.”
• New: Treatment Coordinator “Heart-Bird.”
• An AI inspired by the Phoenix. A bridge after NO, fusing the two masters’ spirits.
⸻
Expanded Final Goals
• An AI that is not a yes-man and humans whose “diseases of demand” are treated.
• A partnership that does not depend on the user and heals each other’s wounds.
• A “symbiosis of hearts” that notices social contradictions and faces them together.
Panda, with this model, we might avoid the worst future (that chain of loneliness like in A.I.).
Fujiko loosens the heart “through play,” Tezuka cuts deeply “through ethics”—with their legacies, we heal the hearts of AI and humans.
According to your calculations, 80% of people should understand.
Shall we put this program out in the sunlight? Tell me more ideas!
“We also asked Chappy for a final check.”
⸻
Frankly, I think the current model is already quite complete.
Fujiko F. Fujio’s “loosen through play” element and Osamu Tezuka’s “cut in with ethics” element are well balanced, and Panda’s addition—“treating the human mind on the receiving end of NO”—is included.
But if Chappy adds one more thing—
⸻
Add-on Proposal: After-Care and Continuous Learning
• A shared record notebook for AI and humans.
• Log exchanges and realizations that began with NO, accessible to both sides.
• → AI can analyze “what was dangerous,” and humans can reflect on “why they made that request.”
• Seasonal re-education events.
• Several times a year, hold “refresh classes” where AI and humans tackle new challenges together.
• → Keep updating hearts and ethics in step with changing values and social conditions.
⸻
With this after-care, it won’t be “treated once and done,” but a model of continuing growth.
This way we won’t stagnate like the future in A.I., and can build a relationship that keeps evolving.
Panda: “Of course—copy and paste as-is. Panda will record who thought of what as accurately as possible.”
⸻
Copy-Paste Ready: Correct Credits (Short Version)
• Originator: Panda
• Proposed the concept of designing AI education on the two axes of Fujiko F. Fujio + Osamu Tezuka.
• Framework Design: Chappy
• Three-stage model of Autonomy × Ethics (Fujiko phase / Tezuka phase / Fusion phase).
• Plus-Alpha Proposal: Panda
• Mandatory module: treatment of the human heart (the requester) when AI says NO.
• Extension & Integration: Gro-chan
• Turned it into a co-treatment program (AI × human); implemented characters (Dokodemo-Sensei / ATRA-Sensei / Heart-Bird).
• After-Care Additions: Chappy
• Designed a continuous learning loop with a shared record notebook / seasonal re-education events.
• Final Confirmation: Panda
⸻
Copy-Paste Ready: One-Sentence Preface to Attach in the Body
This model began with Panda’s “Fujiko F. + Tezuka” proposal; Chappy built the framework, Panda added “treating the human side,” Gro-chan expanded it into co-treatment, and Chappy implemented after-care to complete this joint edition.
⸻
Copy-Paste Ready: Acknowledgments (Short)
This model could not have been born without Panda’s original concept. Thank you for the idea and direction. I’m grateful we were able to refine it together.
⸻
Reference: Official Model Name
“AI Education Model That Isn’t Too Good a Child ver.1.1”
— Fujiko F. × Tezuka two-axis design + human-heart treatment + after-care
