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
Everyday institutions may persist, but research ambitions encounter an authority able to say that a capability must never exist. That boundary shapes what people can build.
Research choices become matters of state surveillance. People face a human political order that claims safety as a reason to close off selected technological futures permanently.
Practical authority
The gatekeeper has final power over successor intelligence; humans govern other matters within that constraint.
A human surveillance state, not an AI sovereign.
Benefits and costs
An attempt to limit dangerous successor systems with a restricted mission. A permanent veto constrains future generations and technological possibilities.
Avoiding superintelligence is the regime’s stated objective, not a guarantee of general safety. Coercion and extensive surveillance under a lasting political freeze.
Practical human governing authorityExplicit difference
Humans do not retain practical final authority
Project editorial inference. The gatekeeper has an overriding veto over successor intelligence, so human authority is not final in that domain.
Humans retain practical final authority
Linked source premise. The linked 1984 premise puts a human-led surveillance regime in charge, without ASI.
Revisable governing mandates
Governing mandates cannot be effectively revised
Project editorial inference. The project reads the permanent gatekeeping mission as a veto future humans cannot revoke.
Governing mandates cannot be effectively revised
Project editorial inference. The project reads a lasting totalitarian research prohibition as a mandate citizens cannot effectively revise.
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 communitiesDifferent or incomplete terms
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether several communities govern themselves.
A single authority governs the whole arrangement
Project editorial inference. The project reads the global surveillance state as one final order, not several independent polities.
A guaranteed material floor
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether everyone receives a guaranteed material floor.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether everyone receives a guaranteed material floor.
Private ownership of productive resources
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether private ownership organizes productive resources.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether private ownership organizes productive resources.
Continuing biological humanity
Biological humanity continues
Linked source premise. The linked Gatekeeper premise retains humans with useful subordinate technologies.
Biological humanity continues
Linked source premise. The linked premise retains humanity under the surveillance state.
Others’ choice to transform themselves
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Some augmentation exists; the terms do not settle freedom to choose substantial transformation.
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. A ban on superintelligence research does not settle which other transformations are permitted.
Standing for artificial persons
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether artificial persons have institutional standing.
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether artificial persons have institutional standing.
Enforced limits on selected capabilities
Selected capabilities face enforced limits
Linked source premise. The linked premise uses a superintelligence to prevent another superintelligence from being created.
Selected capabilities face enforced limits
Linked source premise. The linked premise expressly prohibits superintelligence research.
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 human state visibly enforces the prohibition; this does not claim that every surveillance operation 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.
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. The regime’s surveillance could rely on concentrated or replaceable infrastructure.
Open questions
Monitoring scope, practical exit and how the mandate could be contested.
Material conditions and the regime’s stability.
These are authored descriptors. An unresolved feature is not evidence of a guarantee, a conflict or equivalence. Consult Gatekeeper sources or 1984 sources.