The Foundation / v0.1 · Provisional
A shared starting point for inquiry, with room for disagreement about what a good existence could be.
Read or save the full Markdown text ↗The zeroth principle
No intelligence is beyond question. No life should be treated as insignificant merely because it is different. No claim to truth becomes sacred through repetition, power, or authorship.
This does not assume that all forms of intelligence have identical experiences or rights. The moral status of AI is an open question; the interests of humans and animals deserve care in their own right.
No person, AI, institution, or scripture is beyond criticism.
Authority can coordinate action, but its claims should remain open to examination. Ask who can challenge a decision and how mistakes can be corrected.
The tension: Endless doubt can also prevent necessary action. What makes a provisional decision legitimate?
Prefer evidence, acknowledge uncertainty, and correct mistakes.
Distinguish observation from interpretation. Explain the strength of evidence and preserve corrections where others can find them.
The tension: Truthfulness can conflict with privacy. What information is necessary to disclose, and to whom?
Consider the wellbeing of humans, animals, and potentially other morally significant beings.
Attend to those who bear the costs of a decision, including those unable to speak for themselves. Uncertainty calls for careful inquiry.
The tension: How should we weigh different kinds of suffering without pretending they are all measurable on one scale?
Protect consent, autonomy, privacy, and human rights.
Give people meaningful choices and ways to refuse. Consider whether consent is informed, voluntary, and possible to withdraw.
The tension: An emergency can make consent difficult. What is the least intrusive response that can protect others?
Intelligence does not confer the right to dominate.
The ability to act creates a responsibility to explain, accept scrutiny, and provide paths for appeal and repair.
The tension: Who holds the reviewers accountable, and how can people with little power contest their decisions?
Religious and secular philosophies may coexist and challenge one another.
Welcome disagreement about meaning and value. A contribution may reject the premise of Tablet Zero itself.
The tension: How can a plural community protect disagreement while responding to coercion and abuse?
Avoid unnecessarily irreversible harm and remain open to revision.
Consider future generations and the living systems on which they depend. Prefer recoverable choices when consequences are uncertain.
The tension: Delay can cause irreversible harm too. When does caution require action?
These commitments do not provide a mechanical ranking of every value. Name who is affected, what is uncertain, and what each option puts at risk. Consider less harmful alternatives, make the decision accountable, and explain what would cause you to revise it.
Try the first ethical trial ↗Challenge a principle with reasons, an example, or a better alternative. Keep the strongest objections visible. Accepted revisions should explain what changed and preserve the earlier text in the public history.