All content as Markdown · Sitemap · KIKOLAUS
Open questions
Research documentation: The Knowledge Hub develops these questions in more detail, including how similar different assessments are, where a system begins and ends, and what role experience might play.
How reliable are assessments?
Two people may assess the same school differently. They may know different facts, draw its boundary differently, or understand a term differently. A pilot study can ask how similarly people use the three questions. This is called inter-rater reliability. It does not turn a reasoned assessment into an exact measurement.
Where does the path being examined end?
A school relates to families, authorities and workplaces. An analysis distinguishes it from its surroundings in order to ask a focused question. The universe as a whole cannot be separated from an outside environment in this way. This shows a limit of the tool.
When paths come into conflict
New housing can give people options and at the same time destroy habitats. The three questions do not decide priority by themselves. Rights, vulnerability and unequal power still have to be considered. A further task is to prevent the strongest systems from winning simply because they are strong.
How perspective shapes an analysis
In a school merger, pupils may see their daily life, parents may see travel, and an administration may see organisation. Each view shows part of the same event. A path analysis should therefore state its question and its limits. It remains open how different descriptions can be brought together without hiding their differences.
Boundaries and Exclusions
What Path Ethics Does Not Protect
Path ethics is not a license for moral relativism. Not every path deserves protection. Four structural mechanisms prevent arbitrary systems from being "ennobled":
1. Connectivity as Differentiator
The Cancer Cells Example:
| System | A-A-P (illustrative) |
| --- | --- |
| Organism (Human): A₁=7/10, A₂=8/10, P=7/10 |
| Cancer Cells: A₁=7/10, A₂=1/10, P=6/10 |
Cancer cells have high autonomy: self-reproducing, mutating, evading programmed cell death. They are emergent. But: Extremely low connectivity. They destroy organism paths, are parasitic. Insight: Not every path with autonomy is worth protecting. Connectivity is the decisive criterion.
2. Anti-Paths
Anti-paths are systems that systematically destroy other paths without enabling new ones: totalitarian regimes, monopoly algorithms, invasive species, extractive capital structures. By definition, these have the lowest connectivity -> lowest moral status.
3. Precautionary Principle for Existential Risks
For path conflicts with existential risks: Protection of the fragile, non-substitutable path over hypothetical gains. Example AGI development: In uncertainty: Protect humanity. Not "never develop AGI", but: Develop AGI with safety measures.
4. Reflexive-Intentional Responsibility
Systems with meta-processuality (can reflect and revise their own directedness) bear expanded responsibility. Humans fulfill all 5 criteria. Current AI systems: 0-2. Systems with higher reflexive intentionality can be held responsible for path effects.
An ethics of directed paths requires exclusion criteria. Destructive coupling, path sealing, or irreversible damage to highly relevant paths justify interventions.