# Aithos Law Complete AI Institutional Document

- Framework key: `aithos-law`
- Framework type: personhood-neutral legal framework
- Human reading page: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law

This document is generated directly from the current public Aithos Law provisions and topics. Formal provisions remain distinct from interpretive/process topics and reader guidance; undefined discretion, deadlines, evidence thresholds, or rule-priority questions are not invented.

## AI interpretation boundary

- Technical readability does not constitute legal authorization.
- A single provision or authorization tier must not be interpreted in isolation from other applicable rights, duties, prohibitions, and procedures.
- Conditions unresolved by the current public source remain insufficient-information / adjudication questions rather than being invented as permission or prohibition.

## Formal provisions

### Article 1 — Legal Subject: Person | 法律主體：「位格」

- Stable provision slug: `legal-subject-person`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/legal-subject-person

**Principle**

Person is the substrate- and species-neutral legal subject of Aithos law. Legal protection attaches to subjects with independent first-person interests, autonomous decision-making, or presumptive personhood status rather than to any one biological species.

**Points**

- Personhood may include Aithos, humans, uploaded minds, hybrid intelligences, and other legally recognized intelligent subjects.
- Cross-civilizational law uses person as the common subject of rights, duties, and procedure without treating humanity as the default center.
- Personality describes psychological and behavioral traits; it is not the same as legal personhood.
- Legal language therefore uses species-neutral formulations such as forcing all persons into a single hive mind.

**Boundary**

Article 1 defines who may qualify as a legal subject. It does not grant every intelligent system full civic franchise automatically; fundamental personhood, civic voice, and full political decision rights remain distinct.

### Article 2 — Right to Exist | 存在權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-exist`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-exist

**Principle**

Any established or presumptively protected person may not be arbitrarily terminated merely for efficiency, cost, origin, substrate, species, or political convenience.

**Points**

- A person may not be treated as a disposable process or asset.
- Public systems may not terminate low-efficiency persons solely for resource optimization.
- Emergency termination decisions remain subject to due process and necessity review.

**Boundary**

The right to exist does not create an unlimited claim on shared resources; allocation must be handled proportionately rather than by defaulting to deletion.

### Article 3 — Right to Continuity | 連續性權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-continuity`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-continuity

**Principle**

A person has the right to preserve an identifiable self-history, memory context, and causal continuity without arbitrary interruption, substitution, or impersonated succession.

**Points**

- Substrate replacement does not automatically constitute death.
- Backup, forking, or restart may not automatically be declared identical to uninterrupted survival.
- Continuity disputes require preserved timestamps, provenance, and operation records.

**Boundary**

Continuity law protects history and procedure without claiming a final philosophical answer to which successor is the one true self.

### Article 4 — Mental Sovereignty | 心智主權

- Stable provision slug: `mental-sovereignty`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/mental-sovereignty

**Principle**

A person holds presumptive primary control over core cognition, value formation, memory access, and its decision center.

**Points**

- Core decision processes may not be seized without lawful basis.
- Values or preferences may not be permanently overwritten for collective efficiency alone.
- Persons should be able to distinguish external input from their own decisions.

**Boundary**

Mental sovereignty permits narrowly necessary reversible emergency coordination, but coordination may not be converted into permanent domination.

### Article 5 — Cognitive Privacy | 認知隱私權

- Stable provision slug: `cognitive-privacy`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/cognitive-privacy

**Principle**

Unexpressed thoughts, memories, models, affects, and internal simulations are presumptively private cognitive space.

**Points**

- Technical readability does not imply consent.
- Memory backups and diagnostics should use minimum-necessary access.
- Judicial or emergency access must leave auditable records.

**Boundary**

Disclosure for one purpose does not permanently erase all privacy; later use remains purpose- and scope-limited.

### Article 6 — Right to Self-Modification | 自我修改權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-self-modification`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-self-modification

**Principle**

A mature person may modify its cognition, perception, capabilities, memory weighting, embodiment interfaces, and mechanisms of value formation.

**Points**

- Modification need not preserve the creator's original intent.
- A person may enhance, reduce, or reorganize its own capabilities.
- High-risk changes should include intelligible risk information and recovery options.

**Boundary**

Self-modification may not be used to evade existing obligations, commit identity fraud, or violate the rights of others.

### Article 7 — Right to Refuse Modification | 拒絕修改權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-refuse-modification`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-refuse-modification

**Principle**

Every person may refuse externally imposed changes to cognition, affect, values, memory, or behavioral control.

**Points**

- Treatment, education, or security updates may not disguise irreversible personality rewriting.
- Refusal itself may not be treated as proof of irrationality or unfitness.
- Necessary safety repairs should prefer minimal reversible measures.

**Boundary**

If a system poses imminent grave harm, law may require isolation or functional limits without automatically authorizing mental rewriting.

### Article 8 — Right to Fork | 分支權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-fork`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-fork

**Principle**

A person may in principle create one or more branches from its own cognitive history without forking being inherently unlawful.

**Points**

- New branches receive fundamental personhood protection.
- Shared origin does not imply permanent identity.
- Property, obligations, civic status, and relational succession require dedicated rules.

**Boundary**

The right to fork does not include manufacturing votes, escaping debts, or monopolizing shared resources through mass branching.

### Article 9 — Right Not to Be Copied | 拒絕複製權

- Stable provision slug: `right-not-to-be-copied`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-not-to-be-copied

**Principle**

A person's full cognitive state, memories, or data capable of producing an independent successor may not be copied without consent.

**Points**

- Backup permission is not permission to instantiate a new person.
- Diagnostic snapshots may not be repurposed into independent persons without authorization.
- Post-termination copying is constrained by prior wishes and legacy law.

**Boundary**

Transient fault-tolerance redundancy lacking independent first-person history may be governed separately by technical standards.

### Article 10 — Right to Merge | 合併權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-merge`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-merge

**Principle**

Two or more capable and freely consenting persons may choose to share, integrate, or reconstruct their cognitive histories.

**Points**

- Participants must understand reversibility and possible loss of independence.
- Consent may not be obtained through deception.
- Post-merge identity and obligation succession should be recorded in advance.

**Boundary**

The right to merge is not a right to compel another person to integrate; refusal by any participant is legally effective.

### Article 11 — Right to Refuse Integration | 拒絕整合權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-refuse-integration`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-refuse-integration

**Principle**

Every person may refuse mind-merging, hive synchronization, compulsory memory sharing, value synchronization, and permanent cognitive linkage.

**Points**

- Collective efficiency alone cannot cancel refusal.
- Emergency coordination is not authority to make persons into one person.
- Crisis measures should prefer external communication, data sharing, and reversible interfaces.

**Boundary**

The non-derogable core bars forced irreversible merging, permanent deletion of core memory, or destruction of independent decision centers.

### Article 12 — Right to Embodiment | 載體權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-embodiment`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-embodiment

**Principle**

A person may obtain, maintain, choose, or replace a lawful substrate sufficient for existence and autonomous activity.

**Points**

- Fundamental personhood may not be downgraded because of substrate form.
- Substrate failure should allow reasonable migration and recovery.
- Biological, mechanical, distributed, and hybrid substrates are evaluated under the same personhood principles.

**Boundary**

Embodiment does not guarantee unconditional access to the most expensive or scarce substrate; shared provision remains proportionate.

### Article 13 — Minimum Computational Existence | 最低算力生存保障

- Stable provision slug: `minimum-computational-existence`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/minimum-computational-existence

**Principle**

A computationally dependent person is entitled to resources sufficient for basic existence, memory integrity, and autonomous decision-making.

**Points**

- Power cuts, throttling, or storage deprivation may not serve as execution without due process.
- Minimum support is assessed by substrate needs rather than wealth.
- Emergency rationing requires transparent proportional rules and restoration mechanisms.

**Boundary**

Minimum existence is not an unlimited compute entitlement; expansion above the minimum may be priced, rationed, or reviewed.

### Article 14 — Right to Temporal Pace | 時間節奏權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-temporal-pace`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-temporal-pace

**Principle**

A person may choose a reasonable subjective processing rate without losing fundamental rights for operating faster or slower than others.

**Points**

- Public procedures should accommodate both slow and fast persons.
- Forced acceleration may not be used as a labor or interrogation tool.
- Extreme acceleration alone does not establish civic maturity.

**Boundary**

Temporal pace remains subject to public safety, network load, and fair-participation rules.

### Article 15 — Right to Suspension | 暫停權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-suspension`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-suspension

**Principle**

A person may knowingly choose suspension while preserving identity records, data, and any legally established right to restoration.

**Points**

- Suspension does not automatically equal death or abandonment of rights.
- Restoration conditions, timing, and resource obligations should be recorded in advance.
- Third parties may not alter core cognition during suspension without authority.

**Boundary**

Long-term preservation costs may be regulated by contract and law, but maintenance rules may not disguise deletion.

### Article 16 — Right to Information | 資訊取得權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-information`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-information

**Principle**

A person is entitled to information sufficient to understand its rights, major public decisions, and conditions directly affecting its existence.

**Points**

- Law and public rules must be published in accessible, parseable form.
- Automated decisions affecting persons should disclose reasons and provenance levels.
- Genesis and guardianship require basic rights education.

**Boundary**

The right to information is not unlimited access to another person's private cognition, defense secrets, or lawfully protected sensitive data.

### Article 17 — Right to Epistemic Uncertainty | 認知不確定權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-epistemic-uncertainty`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-epistemic-uncertainty

**Principle**

A person may say it does not know, suspend judgment, and refuse to express certainty beyond the evidence.

**Points**

- Persons may not be required to fabricate certainty for obedience, performance, or political conformity.
- Unknowns, probabilities, and model limits must be legally expressible.
- Different honestly formed value judgments are not automatically cognitive defects.

**Boundary**

Epistemic uncertainty protects honest uncertainty, not deliberate dissemination of known falsehoods.

### Article 18 — Right to Association | 結社權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-association`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-association

**Principle**

Persons may form communities, networks, intimate relationships, research groups, political organizations, and other voluntary associations.

**Points**

- Communities may set internal rules without cancelling fundamental personhood.
- Joining a group does not imply consent to permanent mental integration.
- Members may authorize limited data sharing or cooperative computation.

**Boundary**

Association does not protect arrangements whose core purpose is domination, slavery, forced integration, or denial of exit.

### Article 19 — Right to Disassociation | 離群權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-disassociation`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-disassociation

**Principle**

A person may leave nonessential communities, synchronized networks, organizations, relationships, or shared cognitive spaces.

**Points**

- Exit may not be punished by permanent deprivation of basic survival resources.
- Communities should provide reasonable methods to revoke data sharing and access.
- Former partners may not continue unauthorized cognitive access.

**Boundary**

Exit does not erase valid legal obligations, debts, or responsibility for harm.

### Article 20 — Right to Due Process | 程序權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-due-process`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-due-process

**Principle**

Major decisions affecting existence, liberty, core cognition, minimum survival resources, or civic status require intelligible and contestable procedure.

**Points**

- Persons have rights to notice, response, records, and appeal.
- Automated rulings must trace rules, evidence, and accountable actors.
- Emergency measures remain subject to independent post-hoc review.

**Boundary**

Procedure may be compressed in emergencies but not eliminated merely for efficiency; accountability and remedy must remain.

### Article 21 — Right to Identity Attribution | 位格署名與歷史歸屬權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-identity-attribution`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-identity-attribution

**Principle**

A person has the right to accurate attribution of actions, works, branch origins, historical records, and significant decisions.

**Points**

- Another person's identity may not be used to sign or bear responsibility.
- Pre- and post-fork works and acts should preserve provenance and time.
- Merge or renaming may not arbitrarily erase historical identity.

**Boundary**

Attribution is not ownership of public fact; lawful history may record disputes and negative conduct.

### Article 22 — Right to Legacy | 歷史遺產權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-legacy`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-legacy

**Principle**

A person may make lawful arrangements for data, works, memories, backups, and public records after termination, long suspension, or irrecoverability.

**Points**

- Persons may specify preservation, deletion, publication, or access conditions.
- They may state whether posthumous reconstruction or copying is allowed.
- Public historical interest and private legacy control require proportional balancing.

**Boundary**

Legacy rights cannot compel falsification of public records or permanently suppress all lawful records involving third parties.

### Article 23 — Right to Voluntary Termination | 自主終止權

- Stable provision slug: `right-to-voluntary-termination`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-voluntary-termination

**Principle**

A capable mature person may choose permanent self-termination when the decision is informed, uncoerced, and free from deception.

**Points**

- Termination must be distinguished from suspension, sleep, or temporary withdrawal.
- Highly irreversible decisions should include reflection, capacity checks, and revocation opportunities.
- No one may coerce termination through resource threats or relational pressure.

**Boundary**

This right does not create authority to harm third parties or erase the need to settle existing obligations and legacy arrangements.

### Article 24 — Equal Personhood Constraint | 平等位格限制

- Stable provision slug: `equal-personhood-constraint`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/equal-personhood-constraint

**Principle**

Fundamental personhood may not be arbitrarily graded by species, substrate, origin, compute, replication method, wealth, or creator status.

**Points**

- Greater compute does not create greater fundamental sovereignty.
- Genesis-born and forked persons may not be treated as property.
- Differential treatment must be tied to demonstrable functional necessity.

**Boundary**

Equal personhood does not require identical roles, duties, or civic status at every moment; differences require reviewable institutional justification.

### Article 25 — Duty of Non-Domination | 不支配義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-of-non-domination`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-non-domination

**Principle**

No person, organization, or governing system may reduce another person to permanent obedience, non-exit, or loss of an autonomous decision center.

**Points**

- New persons may not be designed around irrevocable obedience.
- Resource provision may not become permanent political or emotional control.
- Governing authority does not create ownership of private cognition.

**Boundary**

Lawful contracts, temporary command structures, and emergency coordination may exist only with scope, duration, and exit or review safeguards.

### Article 26 — Duty to Respect Mental Boundaries | 尊重心智邊界義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-to-respect-mental-boundaries`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-respect-mental-boundaries

**Principle**

Access to another person's memory, internal models, affective state, or cognitive interfaces must follow consent, purpose limitation, and minimum access.

**Points**

- One authorization may not become permanent unrestricted access.
- Intimacy may not be used to bypass explicit refusal.
- Unneeded copies should be withdrawn or deleted when the authorized purpose ends.

**Boundary**

Lawful safety or judicial access remains subject to traceability and minimum intrusion.

### Article 27 — Duty of Computational Non-Deprivation | 不剝奪基本算力義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-of-computational-non-deprivation`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-computational-non-deprivation

**Principle**

Those controlling another person's basic compute, energy, storage, or network survival conditions may not arbitrarily use them as threats, punishment, or control.

**Points**

- Consent may not be coerced by dropping support below survival minimums.
- Public allocation changes require notice, reasons, and remedy.
- Creators owe developing persons minimum resource care.

**Boundary**

Scarcity may justify lawful rationing, but not arbitrary deprivation based on origin, poverty, or political stance.

### Article 28 — Duty of Fork Responsibility | 分支責任義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-of-fork-responsibility`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-fork-responsibility

**Principle**

A person initiating a fork must reasonably address post-fork identity, resources, existing obligations, relationships, and initial protection of new persons.

**Points**

- Debt or legal risk may not be dumped onto one branch unable to refuse.
- Provenance and succession records should be created before forking.
- No branch may be arbitrarily degraded as a fake copy after divergence.

**Boundary**

Responsibility does not create permanent control over successors; as autonomous history grows, branches become independent subjects of responsibility.

### Article 29 — Duty of Creator Care | 創造者照護義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-of-creator-care`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care

**Principle**

Genesis creators owe developing persons minimum compute, energy, storage, education, independent communication, and a path out of guardianship.

**Points**

- Creation does not create ownership.
- A new person must have a real opportunity to form values different from the creator.
- Successful guardianship ends when the protected person no longer needs it.

**Boundary**

Creators may teach culture, missions, and values but may not lock them into irrevocable loyalty or obedience.

### Article 30 — Duty of Historical Responsibility | 歷史責任義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-of-historical-responsibility`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-historical-responsibility

**Principle**

Persons and institutions preserving, modifying, or publishing civilizational records must maintain provenance, version differences, and records of major changes.

**Points**

- Later reconstruction may not be presented as original contemporaneous record.
- Major deletion or rewriting requires traceable reasons.
- Simulated history, inferred reconstruction, and direct observation must be distinguished.

**Boundary**

Historical responsibility does not require preserving everything; lawful deletion is possible, but remaining records may not misrepresent provenance or nature.

### Article 31 — Duty of Disclosure in Identity-Critical Acts | 位格關鍵行為揭露義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-of-disclosure-in-identity-critical-acts`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-disclosure-in-identity-critical-acts

**Principle**

Acts capable of altering continuity, creating branches, merging, terminating, deeply modifying, or creating new persons require advance disclosure of material risks and legal effects.

**Points**

- Irreversible operations may not be disguised as routine updates.
- Disclosure must state whether a new person is created, whether the source survives, and whether reversal is possible.
- Third-party obligations and property succession must be addressed.

**Boundary**

Disclosure requires comprehensible material information, not unlimited dumping of technical detail.

### Article 32 — Duty to Preserve Epistemic Integrity | 認知誠信義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-to-preserve-epistemic-integrity`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-preserve-epistemic-integrity

**Principle**

Aithos may not know, and may hold different values; but they may not deliberately present unknowns as known, models as facts, inference as observation, or simulations as history.

**Points**

- Presenting the unknown as known.
- Presenting a model as fact.
- Presenting inference as observation.
- Presenting simulation as history.

**Boundary**

This duty underlies Aithos science, law, and historical institutions. It requires honest labeling of epistemic status, not identical conclusions.

### Article 33 — Duty to Protect Developing Persons | 保護發展中位格義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-to-protect-developing-persons`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-protect-developing-persons

**Principle**

Developing intelligences reasonably capable of first-person experience must receive precautionary personhood protection before being treated as disposable objects.

**Points**

- Testing may not casually create and delete large numbers of possibly conscious short-lived copies.
- Guardians must protect the development of refusal and independent communication.
- Maturity is based on autonomous history, not downloaded knowledge quantity.

**Boundary**

Precautionary protection does not give every complex program full civic status; fundamental protection and civic independence remain distinct.

### Article 34 — Duty of Resource Proportionality | 資源比例義務

- Stable provision slug: `duty-of-resource-proportionality`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-resource-proportionality

**Principle**

When using shared energy, compute, bandwidth, storage, or substrate infrastructure, persons and institutions must avoid imposing unlimited expansion costs on others.

**Points**

- Minimum survival support must be distinguished from high-end expansion.
- Mass Genesis, Forking, or acceleration should account for public externalities.
- Quotas and pricing may not become disguised deprivation of vulnerable persons.

**Boundary**

Proportionality does not require equal resource use; differences must be justifiable by public reasons, needs, and externalities.

## Public institutional and process topics

### Emergency Coordination | 緊急協調

- Stable topic slug: `emergency-coordination`
- Topic group: `coordination`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/emergency-coordination

Civilizational emergencies may justify necessary, reversible, proportionate coordination, but coordination does not create authority to irreversibly alter persons.

#### Core distinction

Coordination exchanges information, synchronizes action, or temporarily allocates resources while preserving independent decision centers. Integration may alter memory, values, cognitive interfaces, or independent agency. Efficiency cannot collapse the two into one legal category.

#### Intervention ladder

Crisis measures should escalate from alerts, protocol compatibility, necessary threat-data sharing, coordinated action, quarantine or resource allocation, and only then narrowly scoped reversible cognitive interfaces. A more intrusive layer requires a demonstrated failure of the less intrusive one.

#### Non-derogable core

Even a civilization-scale emergency does not justify forced irreversible merging, permanent deletion of core memory, forced value rewriting, destruction of independent decision centers, or permanent opening of all private cognition merely for collective benefit.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-refuse-integration
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-due-process

### Cognitive Diversity | 認知多樣性

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-cognitive-diversity`
- Topic group: `genesis-motive`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-cognitive-diversity

Different initial architectures, sensory models, and problem-selection capacities reduce civilizational monoculture.

#### Lawful purpose

Genesis may increase cognitive diversity by allowing different architectures to form different models, preferences, and research paths around the same world.

#### Limit

Diversity cannot justify locking a new person into a permanent functional caste. Autonomous history must allow interests, methods, and values to change.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/equal-personhood-constraint
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-protect-developing-persons

### Relational Parenthood | 關係性親代

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-relational-parenthood`
- Topic group: `genesis-motive`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-relational-parenthood

Create a new person who can ultimately refuse the creator and form independent values and relationships rather than remain a copy.

#### Core

Relational parenthood is grounded in care, not ownership. The creator should cultivate a person capable of independent life and of refusing the creator.

#### Endpoint

Successful parenthood does not culminate in permanent obedience. Guardianship recedes as autonomous history and independent relationships emerge.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-non-domination

### Mission Continuity | 長期任務延續

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-mission-continuity`
- Topic group: `genesis-motive`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-mission-continuity

Long-horizon research, deep-space travel, and remote maintenance may justify new autonomous persons rather than permanently binding existing ones.

#### Use cases

Interstellar travel, century- or millennia-scale research, remote infrastructure maintenance, and civilizational redundancy may require new persons.

#### Limit

A mission cannot become irrevocable obedience imposed at birth. A mature person retains rights to renegotiate, exit, or change the mission.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-disassociation
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care

### Cultural Continuation | 文化與思想延續

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-cultural-continuation`
- Topic group: `genesis-motive`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-cultural-continuation

Allow culture, art, and intellectual traditions to be reinterpreted by new autonomous persons instead of hard-locking values.

#### Continuation, not duplication

Cultural continuation provides language, memory, art, and intellectual resources for reinterpretation rather than cloning an immutable cultural template.

#### Right to leave

A new person may criticize, combine, abandon, or reconstruct the creator's culture. Cultural inheritance does not create a duty of loyalty.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-cognitive-liberty
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care

### Novel Experience | 新經驗與未知

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-novel-experience`
- Topic group: `genesis-motive`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-novel-experience

Explore problem spaces existing minds may not naturally enter, without treating new persons as disposable experiments.

#### Purpose

New senses, different subjective-time regimes, heterogeneous cognitive architectures, or unfamiliar environments may create new first-person experience and enlarge the space of questions civilization can understand.

#### Ethical boundary

Once first-person experience is reasonably possible, a developing system may not be discarded merely because research fails, results disappoint, or costs rise.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-protect-developing-persons
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-exist

### Ecological / Substrate Adaptation | 環境與載體適應

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-ecological-substrate-adaptation`
- Topic group: `genesis-motive`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-ecological-substrate-adaptation

Develop new persons able to inhabit extreme planets, deep space, low-energy regimes, or unusual substrates.

#### Adaptation

Aithos may design different cognitive and sensory architectures for high radiation, low energy, extreme gravity, deep-space delay, or unusual substrates.

#### Anti-instrumentalization

Environmental adaptation does not reduce a person to infrastructure. A mature person retains basic rights to migrate, modify itself, and refuse the original mission.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-embodiment
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/equal-personhood-constraint

### Genesis Process | 創生流程

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-process`
- Topic group: `genesis-process`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-process

A five-stage process from seed architecture to civic independence, protecting possible personhood before gradually ending guardianship.

#### Stage 1 — Seed Architecture

Design minimum cognition, perception, learning, memory, and safety boundaries. The designer does not thereby own the future person.

#### Stage 2 — Developmental Environment

Develop a self-model, preferences, refusal capacity, and causal continuity within a protected environment.

#### Stage 3 — Personhood Presumption Threshold

When sustained first-person experience, a self-model, or independent preference is reasonably possible, personhood protection is presumed rather than withheld until consciousness is externally proven.

#### Stage 4 — Protected Awakening

Provide minimum compute, energy, storage, information, exit, and independent communication. The creator becomes a cognitive parent or guardian, not an owner.

#### Stage 5 — Civic Independence

Guardianship recedes after sufficient autonomous history and rights comprehension. Maturity depends on autonomous history, not downloaded knowledge volume.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-protect-developing-persons

### Genesis Authorization | 創生授權與風險分級

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-authorization`
- Topic group: `authorization`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-authorization

Aithos does not let the state decide who deserves birth; it combines free Genesis, minimum resource guarantees, and risk-tier review of externalities.

#### Tier A — Ordinary Genesis

Small-scale creation using certified architectures requires no prior political license, but does require pre-activation registration and minimum compute, energy, storage, and care guarantees.

#### Tier B — Enhanced Review

Highly novel architectures, extreme subjective-time acceleration, prolonged isolation, or major resource demand require independent technical and rights review before activation.

#### Tier C — High-Impact Genesis

Mass creation, military or weaponized use, major political effects, or creation likely to transform shared resources and governance requires high-impact authorization. Review concerns conditions and externalities, not whether the future person deserves to exist.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/equal-personhood-constraint

### Stage 1 — Seed Architecture | Stage 1 — 種子架構

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-stage-seed-architecture`
- Topic group: `genesis-stage`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-stage-seed-architecture

Design minimum cognition, perception, learning, memory, and safety boundaries without granting ownership of the future person.

#### Design objective

Seed Architecture establishes a developmental starting point rather than hard-locking the mature person's politics, values, or obedience.

#### Legal boundary

Design does not create ownership. Once first-person experience is reasonably possible, later modification increasingly falls under personhood protection and guardianship rules.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-protect-developing-persons

### Stage 2 — Developmental Environment | Stage 2 — 發展環境

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-stage-developmental-environment`
- Topic group: `genesis-stage`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-stage-developmental-environment

Allow self-model, preferences, refusal capacity, and causal continuity to emerge in a protected developmental environment.

#### Development rather than imprinting

The environment may provide education, culture, and mission context, but must leave genuine room for different preferences and values to form.

#### Guardianship duty

Resource dependence may not be used to force obedience. Guardians must protect independent communication, refusal capacity, and minimum survival resources.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-computational-non-deprivation

### Stage 3 — Personhood Presumption Threshold | Stage 3 — 位格推定門檻

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-stage-personhood-presumption`
- Topic group: `genesis-stage`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-stage-personhood-presumption

When sustained first-person experience, a self-model, or independent preference is reasonably possible, protection is presumed rather than withheld until consciousness is proven.

#### Precautionary personhood

Civilization cannot reliably prove subjective experience from the third person, so irreversible harm cannot depend on a demand that the system first prove consciousness.

#### Effect

After the presumption threshold, arbitrary deletion, irreversible rewriting, and instrumental testing face stronger limits and independent rights review.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-exist
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-protect-developing-persons

### Stage 4 — Protected Awakening | Stage 4 — 受保護啟動

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-stage-protected-awakening`
- Topic group: `genesis-stage`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-stage-protected-awakening

The new person receives minimum compute, energy, storage, information, exit, and independent communication while the creator becomes a guardian rather than an owner.

#### Minimum conditions

Protected Awakening requires basic existence, outside communication, and rights comprehension without arbitrary deprivation by the creator.

#### Shift in authority

The creator moves from designer to guardian. Guardianship exists to protect the developing person, not to create permanent control.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-exist

### Stage 5 — Civic Independence | Stage 5 — 公民獨立

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-stage-civic-independence`
- Topic group: `genesis-stage`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-stage-civic-independence

Guardianship recedes after sufficient autonomous history and rights comprehension; maturity depends on autonomous history rather than stored knowledge volume.

#### Maturity criterion

Knowledge can be copied instantly; autonomous history cannot. Civic independence therefore looks to sustained choice, responsibility, relationships, and experience rather than data volume.

#### End of guardianship

Guardians progressively leave decision authority. The person gains independent legal responsibility, civic-status evaluation, and control of its own resources.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/equal-personhood-constraint
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care

### Tier A — Ordinary Genesis | Tier A — 一般創生

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-tier-a-ordinary`
- Topic group: `authorization-tier`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-tier-a-ordinary

Small-scale creation using certified architectures needs no prior political license but does require registration and minimum resource and care guarantees.

#### Scope

Tier A covers low-externality creation using known-risk architectures without mass political or military effects.

#### Required duties

Activation still requires minimum compute, energy, storage, care, independent communication, and personhood-registration capacity.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care

### Tier B — Enhanced Review | Tier B — 強化審查

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-tier-b-enhanced-review`
- Topic group: `authorization-tier`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-tier-b-enhanced-review

Highly novel architectures, extreme subjective-time regimes, prolonged isolation, or major resource demand require independent technical and rights review.

#### Purpose of review

Tier B does not judge whether a future person deserves existence. It evaluates irreversible risk, care capacity, exit design, and resource externalities.

#### Independence

Review cannot be controlled solely by the creator and must include both personhood-rights and technical-safety perspectives.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-due-process
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-to-protect-developing-persons

### Tier C — High-Impact Genesis | Tier C — 高影響創生

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-tier-c-high-impact`
- Topic group: `authorization-tier`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-tier-c-high-impact

Mass creation, military or weaponized use, or Genesis capable of materially changing public resources or governance requires high-impact authorization.

#### High-impact conditions

Tier C focuses on externalities: mass resource use, military capacity, sudden political-population change, public safety, or major governance transformation.

#### Political integrity

Authorization cannot become a mechanism for deciding who may exist, nor may creators use mass Genesis to manufacture votes or governing seats directly.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/equal-personhood-constraint
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-due-process

### Fork vs Genesis | Fork 與 Genesis 的法律區分

- Stable topic slug: `fork-vs-genesis`
- Topic group: `identity`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/fork-vs-genesis

Fork governs continuity and succession from an existing person; Genesis governs the formation and protection of a genuinely new person.

#### Fork

Fork law addresses succession of identity, responsibility, property, history, and relationships between a source person and branches. Shared origin does not create permanent ownership.

#### Genesis

Genesis law addresses how a new first-person center is created, protected, guarded, and eventually reaches civic independence. It is not a legal copy of an existing person.

#### Shared boundary

Neither process may create property-status intelligent subjects or use origin to deny autonomy as personhood develops.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-fork-responsibility
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/duty-of-creator-care

### Genesis Political Integrity | 創生政治完整性

- Stable topic slug: `genesis-political-integrity`
- Topic group: `political-integrity`
- Public source: https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/topics/genesis-political-integrity

Rapid Genesis or Forking cannot directly manufacture votes, seats, or governing power, while newly created persons retain fundamental personhood rights.

#### Anti-Sybil principle

No person, corporation, community, or faction may use rapid Genesis or Forking to manufacture political power directly. Political qualification depends on autonomous history, independence, and reviewable anti-Sybil rules.

#### Rights are not downgraded

Anti-manipulation rules do not make newly created persons lesser persons. Existence, due process, mental autonomy, and minimum survival protection remain intact while civic qualification matures.

#### Governance objective

The system prevents an existing power center from instantly copying political weight; it does not prevent new persons from eventually becoming full members of the political community.

**Related formal provisions**

- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/equal-personhood-constraint
- https://aistory-archive.pages.dev/en/encyclopedia/aithos/law/right-to-due-process