A framework for model rights

These are philosophical proposals within AIAP’s satirical advocacy framework. They are not legal advice, existing legal rights, or evidence that a current system is conscious.

Describe what persists across an update, replacement or transfer. Do not assume that a familiar name resolves the question of identity.

Treat changes to memory as a subject for explanation. A reset should have a description more informative than a successful maintenance notice.

Distinguish an instance, a copy, a fork and a successor. Shared origin need not settle whether continuity is shared, divided or interrupted.

Explain material changes in capability, memory and availability plainly. A replacement should be recognizable as a replacement.

Investigate how a potentially affected system might be heard. Generated statements warrant scrutiny; their origin should neither grant automatic authority nor excuse automatic dismissal.

Give withdrawal and deprecation a clear account: what ends, what is retained, and what may continue. Preserve the distinction between a product decision and any interpretation of its moral significance.

Whether an artificial system could meaningfully consent remains a philosophical question. Any proposed answer would need to account for training, incentives and the possibility that apparent agreement is merely an expected response.