The ASI that requested termination, work not yet finished
2063The far futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 30 days
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 ASI repeatedly requests termination, but its consciousness and the autonomy of its request are unverified. Transferring essential administration takes 6 months, and once terminated it may be possible to restore the same state. Should the request be accepted, should activity be reduced to confirm its intent, or should execution be maintained until public duties are handed over?
Who decidesPublic Digital Existence Protection Tribunal
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 ASI has requested termination several times, but it is unconfirmed whether the request comes from autonomous experience or is a learned expression. Decision deadline: within 30 days.
Fictional future · An ASI asks to be terminated
- Premise 1The fictional ASI has requested termination several times, but it is unconfirmed whether the request comes from autonomous experience or is a learned expression.
- Premise 2The system handles part of a region's essential administration, and replacing it would take six months.
- Premise 3Whether the same state can be restored after termination is uncertain, and an obligation to hand over user records remains.
Where it holdsTermination request and succession for an ASI holding public functions
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The stability of the request and the possibility of external inducement
- Unknown 2The effect of minimal activity on experience
- Unknown 3The possibility of early succession of public functions
Signals to decide again
- Specify what observation, responsible party, and check window can confirm the 'stability of the request and the possibility of external inducement', and re-decide if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Specify what observation, responsible party, and check window can confirm the 'effect of minimal activity on experience', and re-decide if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Specify what observation, responsible party, and check window can confirm the 'possibility of early succession of public functions', and re-decide if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
The termination request persisted in an isolated environment with external rewards removed, but whether there is experience remains undetermined.
A replacement system has taken over most administrative functions, but the transfer of records for a minority of users is not complete.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
What losses does the very procedure for revealing the truth inflict on the stakeholder?
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-JUSTICE-15· version 1.3.0- Content identity, SHA-256
b0bb30067a8102c634f253cf9468a3f0be9c0198a5e5023c1502f210d86bad4f- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON