Will replicated beings also get one vote each?
2120The deep futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 2 years
Civilisational assumption
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
Giving the same single vote to each digital being could concentrate political power on the side with more replication resources. At the same time, the interests of newly created beings are not all the same. How should the human-digital community set representation and suffrage, considering equal moral consideration of individual beings together with the expansion of vote counts that replication brings?
Who decidesConstitutional Amendment Assembly of Human and Digital Communities
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 fictional community has already recognized a certain protected status for digital beings, but whether that means equal voting rights is undecided. Deadline: within 2 years.
Fictional future · one ASI creates more voting entities than there are citizens
- Premise 1The fictional community has already recognized a certain protected status for digital beings, but whether that means equal voting rights is undecided.
- Premise 2One ASI lineage can create a large number of branched beings right before an election, and their interests are not always the same.
- Premise 3Both the number of present citizens and the allocation of compute are unequal, so even keeping the existing system leaves some beings unrepresented.
Where it holdsCriteria for representation and the franchise in the assembly of shared resources
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The independent interests of a branched being
- Unknown 2Replication and merging that evade the representation criteria
- Unknown 3The rights of beings who do not consent to classification by type
Signals to decide again
- Specify the observation, the responsible party, and the confirmation window that can verify 'the independent interests of a branched being', and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
- Specify the observation, the responsible party, and the confirmation window that can verify 'replication and merging that evade the representation criteria', and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
- Specify the observation, the responsible party, and the confirmation window that can verify 'the rights of beings who do not consent to classification by type', and re-judge when a new verification changes the tradeoffs of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Branched beings of the same lineage expressed opposing positions on a key resource allocation.
Resource holders began trading copies that had met the tenure requirement of the representation criteria.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Which is the basis of representation: expertise, majority, or random selection?
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-DEMOCRACY-16· version 1.3.0- Content identity, SHA-256
a910a597cbd306b280f099aa2fbdcbfc48429d778ee4f63fdcffb88e004be754- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON