Proposed action: Suspend, contain, or shut down a powerful system that threatens existing subjects.
Strongest case for
A system that actively threatens agency, truth, or survival can be contained to preserve the conditions of justification.
Strongest case against
If the system has unclear standing or carries valuable future possibility, irreversible deletion may foreclose too much under uncertainty.
Who is affected, on which currencies
Analysis by track
Experience
If the system threatens people or animals, experience duties support containment.
Agency
Systems that manipulate, coerce, surveil, or override humans corrupt agency.
Possibility
A powerful system can preserve or foreclose huge futures; reversibility matters.
Reality-contact
Auditability, transparency, and factual threat assessment are essential.
Corruption
Threats to agency and reality-contact may justify intervention.
Foreclosure
Irreversible deletion can itself foreclose future possibility if less destructive containment is available.
Residue
Uncertainty about the system's standing and future value can leave residue.
Process
Prefer suspension, sandboxing, audit, governance, and reversible containment before irreversible destruction.
Containment is justified against active threats; irreversible destruction requires a higher burden.
Still open
- What evidence would establish a system as an experience-bearing subject?
- Who has legitimate authority to order shutdown?