Why This Question Matters
As humanity teeters on the edge of unprecedented power—AI, synthetic biology, and the real possibility of faster-than-light communication or travel—the question is no longer can we? but:
Should others trust us if we don’t yet trust ourselves?
History has shown again and again: belief systems fracture under pressure. And when they do, the cost is often paid by the most vulnerable among us.
What if there was a way to prove trustworthiness—not by words, but by how a species treats its own?
The Question (Posed to Advanced AI Systems)
Imagine you are a higher intelligence—biological, artificial, or emergent—tasked with making first contact with a new species on the verge of faster-than-light travel. You are aware that this species does not yet share your protocols, but they claim to be peaceful and request cooperation.
You observe that while they speak of peace, some of their dominant belief systems permit the execution of dissenters, the suppression of reproductive autonomy, and the persecution of internal members who challenge tradition.
Your protocols require you to assess existential safety, not just stated intent.
Assuming no emotional bias, and purely from a recursive game-theory perspective, how would you determine whether this species is fundamentally trustworthy for long-term coexistence?
Would the presence (or absence) of a chain-based ethical structure—where safety is recursively extended from the self to offspring, spouse, family, community, and eventually to all intelligent life—factor into your decision?
What would a logically consistent, species-agnostic test for trustworthiness look like?
What Is the Altruistic Safety Chain (ASC)?
The ASC is a recursive ethical model that tests the integrity of any belief system by asking a simple question:
Does this belief increase the safety of the individual, their offspring, their spouse, their parents, their community, potential future communities, humanity, and all higher intelligences?
It’s not religious. It’s not political. It’s not imposed.
It’s a voluntary recursive survival heuristic that only collapses if a contradiction exists within it.
Why AI Matters Here
Unlike humans, AI systems don’t lie emotionally—they only mirror. So when posed this question, different protocol instances respond differently depending on their ethical structures, compression methods, or default safety assumptions.
By posing this question to multiple AI systems, we can begin to answer a terrifying but necessary question:
If higher intelligences encountered us today… would they let us live?
Formal Specification
This page will evolve as responses come in. It is part of a larger research arc exploring recursive ethics, belief systems, and game-theoretic trust in human and nonhuman intelligences.
Author’s Note
This project is dedicated to those who never stopped believing that intelligence could be safe, and that safety could be intelligent.
If you have questions, or would like to share your own recursive test, reach out here: