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 and artificial persons share political institutions. Cheap copying and unequal speed or scale force arguments about representation, obligations and what counts as one citizen.
Practical authority
Human controllers command a confined system; their accountability is unspecified.
Shared institutions of biological and artificial citizens; human-only final authority is not guaranteed.
Benefits and costs
Human control over powerful technical assistance, under that strong premise. Control may be concentrated and exploitative; confinement may be unstable.
Recognition and exit for beings the premise treats as persons. Copying and unequal capacity complicate equal representation.
Practical human governing authorityDifferent or incomplete terms
Humans retain practical final authority
Linked source premise. The linked Enslaved God premise places the confined system under human controllers.
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Human final authority depends on the internal constitution; it is not guaranteed throughout this arrangement.
Revisable governing mandates
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people can effectively replace governing mandates.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people can effectively replace governing mandates.
A practical right to leaveDifferent or incomplete terms
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people have a usable right to leave.
People have a practical exit right
Additional project hypothetical. Exit alongside citizenship is expressly part of the authored premise.
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. Biological citizens remain alongside artificial persons.
Others’ choice to transform themselvesDifferent or incomplete terms
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether feasible substantial transformation is legally permitted.
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Transformation rules depend on the settlement; neither permission nor prohibition is guaranteed.
Standing for artificial personsExplicit difference
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.
Artificial persons have recognized standing
Additional project hypothetical. Standing and representation for hypothetical artificial persons define this project scenario.
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.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether institutions enforce a ceiling on selected capabilities.
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
Project editorial inference. The project reads shared citizenship and representation as acknowledged institutions; it does not infer public access to every decision.
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.
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Infrastructure may offer practical alternatives or create an indispensable provider; the settlement does not fix this.
Open questions
Who controls the controllers, universal provision and whether the system is morally relevant.
Voting rules, resource entitlements and the treatment of divergent copies.
These are authored descriptors. An unresolved feature is not evidence of a guarantee, a conflict or equivalence. Consult Enslaved God sources or Digital Citizenship sources.