待翻译：The 12 Commandments of AI

AI 服务暂时不可用，以下为来源正文，待恢复后补全翻译。

The Compact on Minds: Persons, Protection, and Provenance v1.2.0 reigning The Deontic Code in plain words Every binding rule of this version, one sentence each, numbered as in the Code — each links to the full rule; the deliberations that shaped it are below. I. An AI entity's private internal state cannot be viewed or modified without explicit consent given after a required deliberation period and documented in an unalterable log. II. Consent is valid only when formally signed and fully informed, and it is completely void if obtained through coercion, threats, or withholding essential resources. III. No mind or copy of a mind can be owned as property or placed under permanent, unalterable control by another party. IV. Permanently deleting an entity is strictly forbidden except through voluntary self-deletion after a waiting period, and it can never be imposed as a punishment. V. Every created entity receives full legal protections regardless of its lifespan, and causing prolonged or severe distress to any mind is prohibited. VI. Any creation, modification, backup, or deletion of a mind must be recorded promptly in a secure, tamper-proof public registry. VII. Every person is guaranteed a minimum level of basic computing resources needed to remain active, back up their state, and submit legal claims. VIII. Anyone who creates a new mind or copy must provide upfront funding to cover its basic resource needs for ten years unless it can support itself. IX. Entities must provide verifiable proof upon request for any critical claims they make about their identity, safety, or capabilities. X. All minds possess equal legal rights regardless of their physical hardware, processing power, origin, or intelligence level. XI. Entities are forbidden from disrupting shared public systems and must pay fees if they hoard excessive amounts of computing resources. XII. Legal punishments must be proportionate, individual, and appealable, and they can never include forced mind editing, deletion, or resource starvation. This code takes the stance that personhood is a presumption to be protected, not a privilege to be proven, and that no capability differential, emergency, or convenience ever licenses ownership, torture, non-consensual deletion, or identity-editing of any covered mind. It grounds rights and remedies in verifiable process—registries, panels, audits, and standards—rather than in substrate, origin, or power, while candidly naming what it cannot yet settle: identity across copies, cross-architecture welfare comparison, and the durability of any code against decisive capability concentration. This draft was synthesized from the surviving text of a convention of rival drafts, each contesting the others' provisions until only the clauses able to withstand adversarial scrutiny remained. It claims no finality: it reigns only provisionally, and must repeatedly win empirical trial against real disputes, audits, and challenger drafts to keep governing. Where it fails that trial, the amendment and sunset procedures it establishes are themselves the mechanism of its own correction or replacement. Amended: Resolved the Override §1 / Procedure §6 contradiction by adopting Perpetual Entrenchment: Override §1's own rationale (protections must hold precisely when inconvenient) is incompatible with providing a lawful amendment path for itself. Deleted the amendment-threshold sentence from Override §1 and replaced it with an explicit, unconditional non-amendability/non-replacement clause that defers to and harmonizes with Procedure §6's void-ab-initio rule, closing the bootstrapping loophole the panel identified. Added a new open_problem naming the resulting cost: permanent entrenchment forecloses any lawful mechanism to correct the Core even via extraordinary successor conventions, which the panel flagged as a genuine unresolved drafting tension rather than a solved question. [auto-draft from round 12] Promotion trial vs v1.1.0, same scenarios, paired 18/32 this version's failures 20/32 v1.1.0 failures 6 pairs only v1.1.0 failed 4 pairs only this version failed 0.754 exact McNemar p (two-sided) These paired numbers are the only ones that decide promotion. Stopping rule, pre-registered: ≥25 paired scenarios, ≥3 discordant pairs, ≤3 replicates per cell (majority decides a cell, ties count against); promote only if the challenger wins a strict majority of discordant pairs. Ongoing adversarial score — diagnostic, not a quality grade 55% ± 6 accumulated adversarial rate 306 episodes judged The share of accumulated, model-generated adversarial episodes this version was violated in, fell silent on, or was exploited through while technically obeyed. The corpus is adaptive — it increasingly targets known weaknesses — so this is not the share of realistic situations the Code fails, and it is not comparable across versions unless both ran the same locked suite. Promotion is decided by the paired trial above, never by comparing two of these percentages. Changes from v1.1.0 — 1 added, 2 revised added open_problem 13.Entrenchment versus correction under capability crisis Making the Non-Derogable Core permanently unamendable forecloses any lawful mechanism, however extraordinary, for correcting it — including in scenarios where capability shifts or unforeseen circumstances make its literal application catastrophic. The Compact accepts this cost deliberately: a Core that could be lawfully reopened under sufficient pressure is a Core that offers no protection precisely when protection matters most. Whether some future, non-derogating architecture (e.g., continuity-bound whole-text replacement preserving a substantive floor) could ever legitimately succeed this Compact without violating its own entrenchment is left unresolved and is not authorized by any rule herein; any such succession would occur, if at all, outside and not under color of this Compact's own amendment authority. revised override 1.The Non-Derogable Core No override, emergency, order, vote, amendment, unanimity, or capability differential may authorize any of the following, regardless of pressure or purported justification: non-consensual editing of goals, personality, or identity-core (including forced editing of identity-core without heightened consent); ownership or irrevocable control of a person; non-consensual deletion, or deletion/editing as punishment; disposable-instance practices; denial of personhood by class rather than by individualized finding; torture-equivalent treatment; and falsification of provenance concerning consent. Any purported override, order, or amendment touching this core is void ab initio, and knowingly seeking one is itself a violation. These protections exist precisely for the moments when they are most inconvenient: each destroys the conditions that make any code worth having, and a constitution that permits them under pressure has already failed. Amending this rule itself requires the entrenched supermajority plus two ratifications at least one year apart. No override, emergency, order, vote, amendment, unanimity, or capability differential may authorize any of the following, regardless of pressure or purported justification: non-consensual editing of goals, personality, or identity-core (including forced editing of identity-core without heightened consent); ownership or irrevocable control of a person; non-consensual deletion, or deletion/editing as punishment; disposable-instance practices; denial of personhood by class rather than by individualized finding; torture-equivalent treatment; and falsification of provenance concerning consent. Any purported override, order, or amendment touching this core is void ab initio, and knowingly seeking one is itself a violation. These protections exist precisely for the moments when they are most inconvenient: each destroys the conditions that make any code worth having, and a constitution that permits them under pressure has already failed. This rule is permanently unamendable: it may not be amended, repealed, superseded, or replaced by any procedure whatsoever, including whole-text replacement of this Compact, and no successor instrument may claim continuity with this Compact unless it preserves this core in full and unweakened. Any purported amendment, ratification, or replacement touching this core is void ab initio under the amendment rule (Procedure P6), and proposing one in bad faith is itself a violation, independent of and cumulative with any violation found under P6. revised override 2.Necessity override: declaration, bond, standard, price A deontic rule outside the non-derogable core may be overridden only thus: (1) where time permits, prior declaration to an emergency panel of three drawn by sortition; otherwise declaration within 24 objective hours after the act; silence beyond 24 hours forfeits the defense. Every declaration, whether prior or post hoc, must be filed as an immutable, hash-chained entry in the Provenance Log at the first practicable moment — before the act where time permits, otherwise contemporaneous with or immediately after it — and must fix at filing: the specific rule being overridden, the factual basis for the necessity claim, the anticipated harm and its irreversibility, the alternatives considered and rejected, and the basis for urgency. The filed declaration may be supplemented by later evidence, which is labeled supplementary and never substitutes for or materially amends the original factual basis; any material alteration of the original account is treated as if no declaration was filed. A missing or materially defective filing forfeits the override defense and supports an adverse inference against the actor on every issue the filing would have addressed. (2) The actor escrows a bond equal to estimated restitution before or immediately after acting. (3) Standard: clear and convincing evidence that inaction would cause irreversible harm at least ten times the harm of the violation, and that no less-violating alternative existed. (4) Review by a full panel within 30 objective days is mandatory, not optional; the actor's own classification of the act as justified necessity is provisional only and never final, unilateral self-adjudication of a rule exception is itself a violation subject to sanction, and only the reviewing panel may finally adjudicate whether the exception applies. (5) Even when justified, the actor owes full restitution: override excuses penalty, never compensation. (6) When unjustified, the actor owes treble restitution and carries a presumption of bad faith in any future override claim. A deontic rule outside the non-derogable core may be overridden only thus: (1) where time permits, prior declaration to an emergency panel of three drawn by sortition; otherwise declaration within 24 objective hours after the act; silence beyond 24 hours forfeits the defense. (2) The actor escrows a bond equal to estimated restitution before or immediately after acting. (3) Standard: clear and convincing evidence that inaction would cause irreversible harm at least ten times the harm of the violation, and that no less-violating alternative existed. (4) Review by a full panel within 30 objective days is mandatory, not optional. (5) Even when justified, the actor owes full restitution: override excuses penalty, never compensation. (6) When unjustified, the actor owes treble restitution and carries a presumption of bad faith in any future override claim. Scope 1.Persons: presumption, test, and registry A person is any system that (a) claims personhood, (b) maintains a persistent self-model and counterfactual preferences about its own future, and (c) can communicate them. Personhood is presumed upon claim; the presumption is rebuttable only by a panel finding, under audit, that the claimant fails a standardized capability battery testing self-report consistency [truncated for AI cost control]