Compare two futures
Who governs, who benefits, and which terms remain open?
Compare any two entries. Their differences are editorial descriptions, not distances on a common scale.
Life and institutions
Decisions about an extraordinarily capable tool remain political decisions among its human controllers. The ability to command production does not itself distribute its benefits or settle the tool’s moral status.
People delegate difficult administrative work while retaining usable ways to change the mandate and run alternatives. Deliberation, review and maintaining those alternatives consume resources.
Practical authority
Human controllers command a confined system; their accountability is unspecified.
Human public institutions retain practical final authority.
Benefits and costs
Human control over powerful technical assistance, under that strong premise. Control may be concentrated and exploitative; confinement may be unstable.
Delegation with effective public contestability. Oversight and alternative capacity slow decisions and require effort.
Practical human governing authority
Humans retain practical final authority
Linked source premise. The linked Enslaved God premise places the confined system under human controllers.
Humans retain practical final authority
Additional project hypothetical. The authored mandate explicitly retains practical human final authority.
Revisable governing mandatesDifferent or incomplete terms
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people can effectively replace governing mandates.
People can effectively revise governing mandates
Additional project hypothetical. The authored mandate can genuinely be revised, beyond a paper right.
A practical right to leave
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people have a usable right to leave.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people have a usable right to leave.
Several self-governing communities
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether several communities govern themselves.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether several communities govern themselves.
A guaranteed material floor
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. The linked premise allows controllers to use the wealth well or badly; it guarantees no universal provision.
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Provision can vary with the settlement; a universal material floor is not guaranteed.
Private ownership of productive resources
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Human control could be public or private; the premise does not choose between them.
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. The economic settlement may use private or common productive ownership.
Continuing biological humanity
Biological humanity continues
Linked source premise. Human controllers and beneficiaries continue in the linked premise.
Biological humanity continues
Additional project hypothetical. The authored society retains humans as citizens and decision-makers.
Others’ choice to transform themselves
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether feasible substantial transformation is legally permitted.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether feasible substantial transformation is legally permitted.
Standing for artificial personsDifferent or incomplete terms
Artificial persons have no recognized standing
Project editorial inference. The confined intelligence is treated as an instrument, without standing against its controllers. This institutional reading makes no claim that it is conscious; the question separately stipulates personhood.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether artificial persons have institutional standing.
Enforced limits on selected capabilitiesDifferent or incomplete terms
Selected capabilities face enforced limits
Linked source premise. Confinement restricts what the system can do outside its controllers’ permission; this is an enforced capability restriction, not low technical capacity.
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Capability restrictions depend on the governing settlement; no uniform ceiling or absence of a ceiling is guaranteed.
Visible exercise of governing powerDifferent or incomplete terms
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people know who exercises governing power.
People know who exercises governing power
Additional project hypothetical. The authored administrative mandate is public.
Practical independence from a technical providerDifferent or incomplete terms
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether communities can operate without an indispensable technical provider.
Communities can operate without one indispensable provider
Additional project hypothetical. The authored society can maintain and operate practical alternatives to its AI administration.
Open questions
Who controls the controllers, universal provision and whether the system is morally relevant.
Exit rights, distribution and the status of artificial administrators.
These are authored descriptors. An unresolved feature is not evidence of a guarantee, a conflict or equivalence. Consult Enslaved God sources or Constitutional Delegation sources.