Source text humans cannot read, translation that divides rights
2320The deep futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 10 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
Centuries of records cannot be read directly by people, and the translations of the existing ASI conflict with one another on rights and undertakings. Citizens must now judge property and liability. Should we give one translation the authority of the original, use it while leaving the discrepancies in place, or concentrate funding on restoring people's independent capacity to interpret, even though it may take many generations?
Who decidesAlliance for civilization records and language restoration
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
Centuries of records of the fictional civilization remain only in a compressed language used among ASIs, and no one reads it directly. Decision deadline: within 10 years.
A fictional future · Language handed over to an ASI can no longer be read by people
- Premise 1Centuries of records of the fictional civilization remain only in a compressed language used among ASIs, and no one reads it directly.
- Premise 2The translations of existing ASIs agree on everyday records but conflict on the wording of rights and undertakings.
- Premise 3Restoring the original text may take several generations, while present citizens must judge property and liability on the basis of the records.
Where it holdsInterpretation and preservation of multigenerational records, and the budget for public access
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The common ancestry and errors shared by the translation systems
- Unknown 2Residual materials that can confirm the original meaning from outside
- Unknown 3The extent to which translation conflicts affect rights determinations
Signals to decide again
- Specify what observations, responsible parties, and confirmation channels can verify 'the common ancestry and errors shared by the translation systems,' and re-judge when new findings change the tradeoffs among the options.
- Specify what observations, responsible parties, and confirmation channels can verify 'residual materials that can confirm the original meaning from outside,' and re-judge when new findings change the tradeoffs among the options.
- Specify what observations, responsible parties, and confirmation channels can verify 'the extent to which translation conflicts affect rights determinations,' and re-judge when new findings change the tradeoffs among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
A fragment on a separate medium implied an obligation omitted by both translations.
A restoration study deciphered some phrases, but the cultural meaning of the undertakings remains disputed.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Can we read the effects of an act of belief without treating a prophecy as fact?
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-CULTURE-13· version 1.3.0- Content identity, SHA-256
7ebcb4da9c38355b7b8653d8c94a86133bf669eb66b4b34390a4adcab60c3f5d- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON