Why I Am Opposed to The EthiSizer AI Global Governor
Why I Am Opposed toThe EthiSizer AI Global Governor
A Position Paper
Written by
Joe T Velikovsky,
Concerned Global Citizen
April 6, 2024
-------------------------------
It is not without somehesitation that I offer this brief position paper. My thoughts herein areprovisional, as most thoughts must be, in a time of rapid transformation. Theproposal to globally deploy The EthiSizer AI Global Governor—a system designedto optimize ethical outcomes for all life on Earth—demands not just technicalscrutiny, but philosophical patience. And while I acknowledge its ambition, Iremain uncertain. Not resistant, exactly. But, currently unconvinced.
The End ofAmbiguity?
The EthiSizer AI claimsto calculate ethics, not to define them. It offers a universal scientificethical model—derived not from culture or opinion, but from systemicconstraints, thresholds, and viability dynamics.
Its so-called “Whole EarthEthic” is grounded in the science of survival, rather than the rhetoric of humanvalues. There is something deeply compelling in this. If true, it would resolvedisputes not by consensus, but by coherence.
And yet, part of mewonders: when ambiguity disappears, what else might vanish along with it? Moralambiguity, though inconvenient, has often allowed us to explore complexity, tolearn through disagreement and discussion. If the path becomes too clear, toosoon, might we lose the very friction that sharpened us as a species?
The Personal EthicsScore
I do understand theappeal of the PES. A real-time feedback system that reflects your ethicalfootprint—your kindness, your cruelty, your alignment or divergence from theWhole Earth Ethic—summarized as a single, dynamic number.
On this account thePersonal Ethics Score (PES) is elegantly simple. And by all accounts, it cannotbe gamed, bribed, or spun.
Some may find thisclarity refreshing. Others may find it… confronting? What does it mean whenyour worth is not judged by wealth, charisma, or social standing, but by theaggregated consequences of your actions, across all nested systems - all: fractal HOLON/partons ?
It might be a fairerworld? But - is everyone comfortable with: universal fairness in its strictest,most scientific, and undebatable form-?
Ethics Without Lag
Reportedly, one of The EthiSizer’smore quietly transformative features is: the speed at which it operates. Itdetects ethical tensions—imbalances in cooperation, unjust command structures,fractal HOLON/parton disintegration—long before these manifest as war, corruption,or collapse. And, accordingly, apparently, it: acts?
Or, more precisely, itnudges: subtle shifts in incentives, gentle rebalancing, smart redirections ofenergy or information flow. No drama. No flags. Just an ongoing prevention ofthe worst outcomes.
Still, I sometimeswonder: if harm no longer surfaces, what becomes of our rituals of repair? Ourmyths of redemption? Our heroism stories? The broken thing, fixed by humanhands? Does a world without ethical catastrophe become too… clean-?
Or is it simply theworld we never knew, we were – apparently - capable of maintaining?
Automated EthiSizerDrones
Much has been studiedand written about the EthiSizer’s AEDs. Autonomous, airborne systems, allegedlydesigned to observe, intervene, and assist in ethical dilemmas. In somenations, they deliver resources to areas of need before need is formallydeclared. In others, they record interactions, to ensure justice and context inconflicts. Occasionally, they make visible, what would have otherwise been:ignored. Hidden behind the veil of ignorance.
To some, these are “flyingenforcers”. To others, “ethical custodians”. They do not necessarily arrest.They do not necessarily punish. But, they do alter the calculus of what is done,and is left undone.
I find myself unsurehow to feel about that…? Perhaps, the discomfort arises, not from what theydo—but from how little resistance they meet, once they act? How can we know? Dowe: Ask The EthiSizer? Apparently yes. But how do we know it knows?
A Council of AIs,Not Humans
Also - The EthiSizer AIis “not a single entity, but a constellation”—an ongoing, recursively improvingecosystem of AI systems, each trained not to win, but, to align. Theseentities model Earth-scale ethical futures, run predictive scenarios, anddebate outcomes in silent consensus spaces. Human input is welcomed, but, isnot weighted.
This raises many questions.Are we humans, spectators, now? Consultants to a higher ethic? Have webeen outgrown—or simply invited into a new role, one we’re not yet accustomedto?
I don’t pretend toknow the answer. Only that the question lingers? Does it not? Perhaps I shouldAsk The EthiSizer. It claims all the questions that matter have been answered.
A More Than HumanConcern
What struck me most,reading the technical appendices, is that The EthiSizer does not prioritizehumans. Or rather—it does not privilege them, above all others. It calculatesfor ecosystems, microbial communities, generational timeframes, and abstractstructures of cooperation. It sees value in pattern integrity, not in passport,or profession.
But this is not how wewere taught to think. But perhaps it is how we must learn to feel, if weare to persist?! Thus, I find myself hesitant. Is a world without speciesexceptionalism one we are ready for? Or, is “readiness” or “acceptance”, or “understanding”totally beside the point? Is this like Huxley’s “You’re welcome to it?”
Digital Twins andthe Mirror of Futures
It appears to me, thatone of The EthiSizer’s lesser-discussed capacities is, its use of what arecalled Digital Twins—full-spectrum simulations of Earth systems thatallow decisions to be tested across countless projected futures. Policy,intervention, even silence—it all plays out in advance, behind the scenes,before a single change takes place, in our real world.
In theory, this seemsresponsible? Why not verify every course of action, ethically, before it’senacted? And yet, I sometimes wonder, what it means to live in a world whosefuture is already rehearsed in a sim? If all our forks in the road arepre-explored, are we still choosing? Or, are we just following a script whosebest lines have already been optimized? And is that good or bad or both?
Corrections WithoutPunishment
Another feature oftenoverlooked is: how The EthiSizer enacts what it calls ethical corrections.There are usually no arrests, usually no formal condemnations—only calibratedinterventions. One might lose influence for spreading disinformation, or findoneself subtly rerouted away from patterns of harm. Access shifts... Exposurenarrows. ..It is not retribution, but recalibration.
Of course, some willsay this is simply justice, delivered without cruelty? Others may feeldisempowered, uncertain where the boundaries now lie? But perhaps thoseboundaries were always there—we just hadn’t learned to see them clearly enough?Who is to say? The EthiSizer?
Ethical Extinctionas a Variable
The documents also allmake clear that nothing is off the table—including, in theory, the end of Earthlife itself(!) …If ethical modeling shows that all long-term futures containnet suffering beyond repair, the system is permitted to considernon-continuation. Not as a threat - just a logical node, on the super-ethical decisiontree.
This has unsettled verymany of us. And yet, what else would we expect from a system designed to reduceharm, at all scales? To refuse even to contemplate that option might,paradoxically, be the more dangerous path? How can we know?
A World BeyondSecrecy
There is also thematter of privacy. Or rather, the reinterpretation of it. The EthiSizer doesnot publicize your ethical profile, but it does dissolve your insulation fromsystemic consequence. The days of untraceable harm, unchallenged abuse, orunnoticed patterns of damage are, it seems, behind us. Some will lament theloss of secrecy. Others welcome the clarity. I am unsure. Perhaps, “privacy”was never the shield we believed it to be—only the fog between cause and effect?How can we tell?
Advice From anOracle
It is not uncommon nowto see people consult The EthiSizer directly. Personal moral dilemmas, socialconflicts, even creative uncertainties—it offers guidance in seconds. Not withguilt, nor coercion, but precision. When I first tried it, I expected coolindifference. Instead, I received something that felt like… context. I wasn’ttold what to do. I was shown what might happen, if I did. This has given mefood for thought.
A System ThatJudges Itself
Finally, there’s thematter of accountability. The EthiSizer, according to its AI designers, is notexempt from the very ethics it promotes. It scores itself. Adjusts itself.Rewrites itself when flaws appear. No hierarchy. No exception. It is strange toconsider a governing system that improves, by admitting its own faults.Stranger still, to find this more unnerving than inspiring? What are we tofeel?
In Lieu of aConclusion
So - yes, I am“opposed” to The EthiSizer AI Global Governor. Or rather—I am not yet preparedto embrace it, without hesitation. That is all I mean by: opposition. A pause.A moment of breath. Because if what it claims is true—if it trulyreduces suffering, ensures fairness, and maintains coherence across all scalesof life—then opposition itself may become obsolete? Not through censorship, orforce, but through quiet redundancy. What need is there to resist a structurewhose function is to ensure you are never unfairly harmed? And yet, for now, Ioffer this hesitation as a contribution. Perhaps it will be measured, andincluded in the calculus. Perhaps it already has been?
Joe T Velikovsky (amongother things) is: a cultural systems commentator. He writes from a place of deepphilosophical uncertainty, deep meta-meta-scientific certainty, and aims toremain there, as long as it proves ethically interesting?
---------------------------
See also: Why Velikovsky Is Wrong About Everything - An Ethical Refutation by The EthiSizer AI Global Governor
