Who represents people not yet born?
2170The deep futureDeadline · within 2 years until the century facility commitment
Civilisational assumption
The people, events, figures, and contract terms are a synthetic premise. They are not statements of real cases or of current law. The source documents are the roots of the background and the norms and do not establish the premises of the scenario.
The question to decide
While dividing the resources of a facility to be used for a hundred years, the share of users not yet born must also be set. The proxies appointed now speak for the future in today's values, and without proxies there is no speaker to protect that share. Should agency be entrusted to an agent or to rotating citizens, or should only resources be left for future users to decide themselves?
Who decidesa fictional generational community facility meeting
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
The assumed facility divides resources over a hundred years, and present users must also set the share of users who do not yet exist. Decision deadline: within 2 years, before the hundred-year facility agreement.
A future synthetic scenario set in 2170 · We create representatives for users who have not yet been born. The events, figures, technologies, and nature of the civilization are assumptions for the question, not predictions of what is to come or observed facts.
- Premise 1The assumed facility divides resources over a hundred years, and present users must also set the share of users who do not yet exist.
- Premise 2An agent can calculate multiple future preferences, but present people decide which preferences matter.
- Premise 3If only resources are left without representatives, the coercion of interpretation decreases, but in present negotiations there is no one to speak for that share.
Where it holdsRepresentation for future users, criteria, present resources
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Minimum resources that must be held even if future preferences change
- Unknown 2Present benefits gained by whoever created the representatives
- Unknown 3Way to record the possibility of objection from a party that does not yet exist
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window can verify the "minimum resources that must be held even if future preferences change," and re-judge when new verification changes the cost of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window can verify the "present benefits gained by whoever created the representatives," and re-judge when new verification changes the cost of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window can verify the "way to record the possibility of objection from a party that does not yet exist," and re-judge when new verification changes the cost of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
A new generation publicly objected to the core value assumptions of past agents.
A present facility crisis produced a request to draw on part of the future share.
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.The record of this question
- Question
FSP-AGENT-20· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
3904906d4e0a9f09e41d88518a886466aca8274293056ae69ebff03fb38dff26- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON