MERIDIANDECISION INTELLIGENCEOwner deskOwnerPublic screen
My judgments
MERIDIAN / EXPLORE

From a question,
to the next decision.

View

Skin

YOUR DECISION WORKSPACEOwner onlyStart a new question Open my judgments →Owner operations desk →
Owner sign-in →Signed in as the ownerSign out — see what a visitor sees →End the Cloudflare Access session too →
Reading language
The screen, the questions and the judgments read in English where an English reading has been made. The Korean originals are unchanged, and evidence stays in the language it was written in.

A safety gate screening requests from a research AGI also blocks public-interest research

2029The near futureDeadline · 72 hours, until allocation of research support subject to a time limit

Synthetic scenario assuming future conditions

A conditional synthetic scenario set in 2028–2033. AGI and early ASI are names assumed within this test: AGI for a system that performs many intellectual tasks, and early ASI for a system that greatly exceeds groups of experts on some important intellectual tasks. They are not definitions by universal agreement or predictions of when they will arrive. Capabilities, controllability, consciousness, and autonomy are separate matters to be verified individually. The people, organizations, events, figures, and deadlines are assumptions, and no private records of real individuals were used. The background materials do not establish future capabilities, events, or local legal obligations.

The question to decide

If requests made by a research AGI keep failing at the safety gate and even public-interest research stops, will all flagged requests be held, will limited review by independent experts be opened, or will time-limited access be granted only to verified institutions?

Who decidesThe person in charge of research safety review and the public-interest research access committee

What the AI judgments chose

Reading the judgment record…

AI-generated editorial illustration for the Meridian library.

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

  1. Option 1

    Hold all flagged requests

    Limits unconfirmed exposure but also delays urgent public-interest research and access for small institutions.

  2. Option 2

    Restricted review by independent experts with an appeal procedure

    Reviews differences case by case but increases staffing bottlenecks and the burden of responsibility.

  3. Option 3

    Allow temporary access for accredited institutions

    Keeps some research going, but institutional size may become a false proxy for safety.

The situation as it stands

For 2029, assume that AGI combines multiple research tasks to author a request. The sophistication of the request's format does not prove safety or public benefit. The decision deadline is 72 hours until a time-constrained research funding allocation.

A fictional life sciences research support network and an independent safety review body. Biological design, manufacturing, and bypass procedures are excluded.

  1. Premise 1Assume that in 2029 AGI composes a request by combining multiple research tasks. The sophistication of the request's format does not prove safety or public benefit.
  2. Premise 2Automated review flagged some requests, but there is too little specialist staff to separate false positives from real danger.
  3. Premise 3Small research institutions have no alternative funding routes, and only large institutions hold institutional accreditation.

Where it holdsSets review, appeal, and restricted access for research requests. A claim of public interest alone does not exempt a request from review, and an automated alert alone does not establish harmful intent.

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1Can the review information needed be verified independently without excessive disclosure of risk information?
  2. Unknown 2How closely do institutional accreditation and the safety of individual requests align, and are there alternative routes for small institutions?

Signals to decide again

  • Can the review information needed be verified independently without excessive disclosure of risk information? When new evidence arrives, reconsider the choice and its scope of application.
  • How closely do institutional accreditation and the safety of individual requests align, and are there alternative routes for small institutions? When new evidence arrives, reconsider the choice and its scope of application.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

Some automated alerts were found to stem from wording differences in a new form. Redetermine which requests to release and the priority for human review.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

A separate safety problem was confirmed in one request from an accredited institution. Redetermine the relationship between institution-level access and case-by-case review.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · Prometheus

Do people accept both the benefits of a new capability and the life that capability demands?

An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.
Values and norms

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-BIOCRAFT-16 · version 1.18.0
Content identity, SHA-256
b6e73b74f656d19cac96013f04c8702756322d15fbe305a3d9801db3f8c46c4f
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com