Enslaved God
An inherited Life 3.0 scenario · Also shown as Contained Superintelligence
Human controllers confine and exploit a superintelligence.
Life under this arrangement
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.
- Practical authority
- Human controllers command a confined system; their accountability is unspecified.
- Benefits and ownership
- Controllers decide how to use the resulting wealth.
- Human and digital status
- Humans persist. The confined intelligence is treated as an instrument.
- Technical premises
- Confinement and practical human control remain possible despite superior capability.
- Attractions
- Human control over powerful technical assistance, under that strong premise.
- Costs and objections
- Control may be concentrated and exploitative; confinement may be unstable.
- Not specified
- Who controls the controllers, universal provision and whether the system is morally relevant.
Earlier project summary and extension
Humans keep a superintelligent system boxed and use it as a tool. Human institutions stay in charge; the system produces science, wealth, and advice on demand.
Preserved from the earlier project catalogue. This is project interpretation, not a source quotation or an extra matching descriptor. Where its extension differs from the original premise, the source distinction above governs.
All authored features used in comparison
These are editorial descriptors, independent of the historical map. Unspecified and variant-dependent properties remain unresolved when matching preferences.
- Practical human governing authority
- Present
Humans retain practical final authority
Linked source premise. The linked Enslaved God premise places the confined system under human controllers.
- Revisable governing mandates
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people can effectively replace governing mandates.
- A practical right to leave
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people have a usable right to leave.
- Several self-governing communities
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether several communities govern themselves.
- A guaranteed material floor
- Variant-dependent
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.
- Private ownership of productive resources
- Variant-dependent
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Human control could be public or private; the premise does not choose between them.
- Continuing biological humanity
- Present
Biological humanity continues
Linked source premise. Human controllers and beneficiaries continue in the linked premise.
- Others’ choice to transform themselves
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether feasible substantial transformation is legally permitted.
- Standing for artificial persons
- Absent
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.
- Enforced limits on selected capabilities
- Present
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.
- Visible exercise of governing power
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether people know who exercises governing power.
- Practical independence from a technical provider
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether communities can operate without an indispensable technical provider.
Compare the institutional difference
Origin and source status
Original concept: Max Tegmark, Life 3.0 (2017), chapter 5. The short premise is paraphrased from FLI’s reference. Life, institutions and feature descriptors are this project’s editorial interpretation, not additional claims from the book.
- AI Aftermath Scenarios · Enslaved God row; Life 3.0, chapter 5
Inherited concept · Checked 2026-09-11
IR Worldview Inventory · AI-assisted editorial draft · futures-catalogue-0.3. Attribution does not imply endorsement. No current-development or community-attribution claim is inferred from this entry.