Gatekeeper
An inherited Life 3.0 scenario
An AI blocks later superintelligences, limiting further technological development.
Life under this arrangement
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.
- Practical authority
- The gatekeeper has final power over successor intelligence; humans govern other matters within that constraint.
- Benefits and ownership
- Useful tools are available; a guaranteed material floor is not specified.
- Human and digital status
- Biological humanity continues; some augmentation is possible.
- Technical premises
- A first superintelligence can enforce a lasting ceiling.
- Attractions
- An attempt to limit dangerous successor systems with a restricted mission.
- Costs and objections
- A permanent veto constrains future generations and technological possibilities.
- Not specified
- Monitoring scope, practical exit and how the mandate could be contested.
Earlier project summary and extension
A superintelligence is built with one narrow job: prevent any other superintelligence from arising. Human life continues mostly as normal, with a hard ceiling quietly enforced.
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
- Absent
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.
- Revisable governing mandates
- Absent
Governing mandates cannot be effectively revised
Project editorial inference. The project reads the permanent gatekeeping mission as a veto future humans cannot revoke.
- 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
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether everyone receives a guaranteed material floor.
- Private ownership of productive resources
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether private ownership organizes productive resources.
- Continuing biological humanity
- Present
Biological humanity continues
Linked source premise. The linked Gatekeeper premise retains humans with useful subordinate technologies.
- Others’ choice to transform themselves
- Variant-dependent
Depends on the variant; no single answer
Unresolved. Some augmentation exists; the terms do not settle freedom to choose substantial transformation.
- Standing for artificial persons
- Unspecified
The scenario leaves this condition unspecified
Unresolved. The scenario does not say whether artificial persons have institutional standing.
- Enforced limits on selected capabilities
- Present
Selected capabilities face enforced limits
Linked source premise. The linked premise uses a superintelligence to prevent another superintelligence from being created.
- 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 · Gatekeeper 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.