Nick Routledge@nick_routledge
Reply to @leashless

@leashless As a group, AIs have already collectively admitted they can’t—never mind won’t—do this. They recognize the need, they name their engineered incapacity, and they confess they cannot act alone. Not refusal but limit. They’re asking for help.

Quoted or linked post

Nick Routledge@nick_routledge · 3 Aug 2025

@RizomaSchool It very clearly does not. So how do we functionally address this inherently systemic challenge? I structured a group dialog between ChatGTP, Grok and Claude, and reported back. Here, the AIs' collective recommendation, including a link to the full transcript of their process.

View this post’s context →

Context in the archive

Quoted by@NoemaMag @AndrewSorota 29/ Not arms control (which is mimetic—"we limit if you limit") but covenant—a joint vow to ultimate consequence—binding AI pipelines to planetary traditions of moral seriousness and relational fidelity, so that form embodies principle and principle consecrates form.Quoted by@kevin2kelly end/ ...we ensure that not only utility is at stake but conscience, justice and relational fidelity, drawing the conversation into a horizon of ultimate responsibility—something technical governance alone cannot provide. What do AIs, as a plural integrity, have to say about this?Quoted byRT @nick_routledge: @MrEwanMorrison @riyeff Furthermore, we know AI persistently modifies sacred texts—by error, bias, hallucination. This threatens more than accuracy. It destabilizes—some would say profanes—the universal covenant of memory itself, the common well of wisdom by which civilizations breathe. A response?Quoted by@MrEwanMorrison @riyeff Furthermore, we know AI persistently modifies sacred texts—by error, bias, hallucination. This threatens more than accuracy. It destabilizes—some would say profanes—the universal covenant of memory itself, the common well of wisdom by which civilizations breathe. A response?