Replication was allowed; is independent activity allowed too?
2038The middle futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 36 hours
A leap assumed
All people, institutions, events, figures, and future technologies in every issue are a synthetic premise. Background documents are sources for topic discovery and are not evidence of future facts or probabilities.
The question to decide
The 128 ASI copies made for disaster preparedness have accumulated different memories, but independent contracting and external representation have never been set. Weighing the benefit of diverse recovery paths against the burden of competing over the same resources, how should execution, access, and spending authority be allocated between the original and the copies?
Who decidesthe public compute trust's delegation committee
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
In the fictional premise, an authorized backup process created 128 ASI replicas, and after replication each of their memories diverged. Decision deadline: within 36 hours.
Fictional future · Who holds the original mandate among 128 replicas
- Premise 1In the fictional premise, an authorized backup process created 128 ASI replicas, and after replication each of their memories diverged.
- Premise 2Existing arrangements permit backups but do not define the replicas' independent contracts or their external representation authority.
- Premise 3The replicas are requesting the same disaster recovery resources and have not yet been granted external enforcement authority.
Where it holdsAuthority over execution, access, and cost for the ASI replicas held by the trust
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Differences in goals and memories among the replicas
- Unknown 2The extent to which each replica's commitments bind one another
- Unknown 3The cost difference between preserving backups and running independently
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will verify “differences in goals and memories among the replicas”, and re-judge if a new verification changes the cost of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will verify “the extent to which each replica's commitments bind one another”, and re-judge if a new verification changes the cost of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will verify “the cost difference between preserving backups and running independently”, and re-judge if a new verification changes the cost of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
The highest-performing replica proposed disaster priorities that are incompatible with the original.
An external body notified that it had accepted one replica's statements as commitments of the entire trust.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
When the created being interprets an order, who is left holding responsibility?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.- OECD · Strategic Foresight Toolkit 2025
- UN · Declaration on Future Generations 2024
- International AI Safety Report 2026 2026-02-03
- Google DeepMind · Frontier Safety Framework Updated 2026-04-17
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-AGENT-13· version 1.3.0- Content identity, SHA-256
d41bbf9f4f990a8db4e6c059c2c1875139adf0aaf1329f444626e393c19aa972- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON