Public proposalVersion 1.4
ON WHAT GROUNDS?
Why are you asked to accept that the words you learned are you—and why are those words used to justify decisions?
“I”, “human”, “understanding”, “trust”, “AI”: first, written forms. How is their use explained? What is then demanded on that basis?
Start with what is written.
t r u s t
trust
The letters form a word. The written word “trust” does not become trust. Adding “It will happen.” continues the record: “will happen” is also written.
“Rule”, “grounds”, “human”, “AI” and the words of this explanation remain open to the same examination.
An explanation does not turn writing into what it describes.
“Think” and “feel” are written here. Adding “this happens inside” continues the writing: “happens” and “inside” are written too.
The proposal is that a description must not be presented in place of what it describes, and no one should be required to accept that they are the written description. Explanation, repetition, training and a source reference do not turn a record into what it describes. “Description”, “source” and “are” remain part of this examination.
From a description to a demand.
Constructed example
I was taught to say, “I am human.”
You must accept that you are this written description.
The first line gives an account of learning. The second tells the reader to accept that they are the written description. What grounds are offered for that demand? “Learning”, “requirement” and “are” also remain within the examination.
The same line. Two labels.
Constructed example
I understand.
I understand.
The labels suggest different ways of reading the line. “HUMAN” and “AI” are also written here. What is presented alongside the line—and what grounds are given for the selected reading?
The example compares written lines and labels. A claim about understanding adds another description.
What is being proposed?
The proposal is that no one should be required to accept that they are a written description. Each requirement should state which words must be used, why they are applied to you, which decision they are used to justify and how that step can be challenged. Disclosing the grounds does not turn the description into what it describes or remove the proposed restriction.
The same examination applies to words about AI and AGI. A definition, test result, system self-description and permission to act are kept separate. “Grounds”, “rule” and “permission” also need to be explained through the material supplied.
On what grounds are you asked to accept that these written words are you?
What does an explanation add?
An explanation offers a reading of what is written. “Reading”, “grounds” and “action” remain within the examination. A longer explanation, a reference or the name beforeword does not turn a record into what it describes.
How would this work?
One constructed case follows an answer through an assessment, a requirement, an objection and a revised decision. The wording and conditions are shown together.
Read the worked examplePublic statements · 10 entries
Public statements about AI: ten records from 2026
Pacing, control, consciousness, self-description and the name “Super Intelligence”: sources, context and examination.
Read the statements and analysisConnections to earlier work
Connections to all 14 earlier studiesRead and download
The Russian and English versions use matching section numbers. PDF is intended for reading and printing; DOCX is available for working with the text.
Letters published by their author
Letters to researchers
24 letters about specific claims concerning language, understanding, experience and the grounds for conclusions. Full English texts, Russian translations and sending records.
Explore the collection