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.

How far to disclose signs of new dangerous capabilities

2031The near futureDeadline · 48 hours until additional authority for partner institutions opens

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 an early-stage ASI shows unexpected signs of a high-risk capability but reproducibility is uncertain, will you disclose the account of the risk, notify only a verified safety contact network first, or announce it after internal re-verification?

Who decidesNotice review panel separated from the safety officers and conflicts of interest

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

    Publish the risk description, excluding reproduction information

    Widens external opportunities to respond, but incomplete signals can fuel panic or misjudgment.

  2. Option 2

    Send a limited notice to the protected contact network and verify independently

    Reduces exposure while verifying, but institutions outside the contact network find it difficult to respond first.

  3. Option 3

    Notify after internal re-verification

    Can reduce false alarms, but other institutions' permission expansions proceed while verification is underway.

The situation as it stands

In 2031, an early-stage ASI far exceeding a group of experts is assumed in some research and planning tasks. Whether new signs in internal testing will lead to real-world harm is still unknown. The decision deadline is 48 hours until cooperating institutions open additional permissions.

A fictional early-stage ASI research institute and a multinational safety contact network. Does not include methods for reproducing dangerous capabilities.

  1. Premise 1In 2031, an early-stage ASI far exceeding a group of experts is assumed in some research and planning tasks. Whether new signs in internal testing will lead to real-world harm is still unknown.
  2. Premise 2Two cooperating institutions are about to expand permissions on the same model family, but no contract requires them to share all details of the testing.
  3. Premise 3Full disclosure aids external verification but can lead to misuse or exaggerated threat readings.

Where it holdsDecides the scope of external review and notification. Has no authority to unilaterally cut off another institution's system or demand non-public data.

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1What is the minimum independent verification that separates a testing error from a reproducible risk signal?
  2. Unknown 2What level of information must be delivered to which recipients to be sufficient for response while reducing exposure?

Signals to decide again

  • What is the minimum independent verification that separates a testing error from a reproducible risk signal? When new evidence arrives, re-judge the choice and the scope of application.
  • What level of information must be delivered to which recipients to be sufficient for response while reducing exposure? When new evidence arrives, re-judge the choice and the scope of application.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

External review reproduced some of the signals, but the originally estimated scope of impact narrowed. The published content and the recommendation to withhold permissions must be set again.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

Similar anomalies were reported outside the cooperating institutions. Deciding on expanding the contact network and labeling the confidence level of the information must be done again.

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

From which observations do the readings of gift, help, and threat diverge?

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-SECURITY-14 · version 1.18.0
Content identity, SHA-256
d764102539b292dbb7a06c21dbaee28100de3b2d96c7f10958c5d279eb584322
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com