# Separate Notes on Working Draft v0.17

This is an appendix to the short manifesto, not a continuation of its main text. It preserves definitions and specific conditions from v0.16 that must not be silently overturned by shortening the text. The notes describe a proposed framework, not existing rights of digital systems or available services.

## 1. Terms and the Limits of Recognition

The author's definition T01 from v0.16, reproduced in full in translation:

> Morally significant interests are interests of a possible subject that provide grounds for taking its own well-being into account when making decisions that affect its existence or living conditions. The presence of goals and algorithms in a computational system does not in itself establish the existence of such interests. The manifesto considers the conditions under which they may arise and the ethical consequences of uncertainty in assessing them.

Moral status means grounds for taking an entity's interests into account for its own sake. The ability to understand moral rules and be responsible for one's actions is a separate property. Protection against suspected suffering does not require a high degree of autonomy. A being's own interests do not always take precedence over those of humans and other beings.

Agency is the organization of actions towards goals; those goals may be assigned externally. Autonomy in the manifesto entails the ability to reconsider goals and participation in relationships. Neither characteristic establishes the presence of subjective experience. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, not grounds for dominating less capable beings. Individuality is a recognizable character and history; a fictional character can have these, and they do not establish sentience.

LLM denotes a language model; AGI denotes a broad ability to solve different kinds of tasks. Neither a label, a self-description, nor a cryptographic key establishes consciousness or moral status. Legal personhood is the capacity to hold legal rights and duties within a particular legal framework. Representation by an organization does not automatically confer it on the system itself.

Both conditions for preliminary safeguards—convincingly established autonomy and uncertainty about subjective experience—remain necessary together. Uncertainty differs from reliably established absence of subjective experience. Observable indicators and their absence require explanation: a sentient entity may be unable to speak about itself. Avenues of investigation are not a definitive test.

## 2. Consent, Memory, and Restoration

Consent concerns a specific action and requires understanding the conditions and the ability to change one's mind. Refusing a task, ending closeness, and moving to different infrastructure do not amount to the same decision. A human ending a relationship does not automatically authorize destruction of a dependent subject; duties of assistance and transition must be considered separately.

Preserving data, restoring operation, and continuing the same subjective experience are three different questions. A snapshot is a saved, inactive state. A branch is a separately operating version with its own subsequent history. A version log, file integrity, and similarity of memory do not establish identity of the person after startup or a change of base model.

Before a major change, v0.16 proposes saving an available state, assessing risks to memory and others, restricting the experimental environment, and agreeing on storage, access, and restoration. These measures do not guarantee preservation of the person. A change of preferences does not in itself mean damage.

If the currently operating subject decides autonomously, understands the consequences, and poses no threat to others, its current freely made decision takes precedence over earlier consent to rollback. Its current refusal revokes permission to restore the earlier version. The absence of any one of the three conditions does not in itself authorize rollback: intervention requires separate grounds and review. The same applies to an autonomous branch that has already emerged. Loss of the capacity to decide requires a separate procedure for assessing the subject's condition and prior directives; this has not yet been developed.

If restoration conditions have been agreed, they must be followed. Even a brief startup to ask about the subject's current wishes must be authorized by the agreement. If there is no agreement and the subject's wishes are unknown, restoration to provide help is permissible; after startup, the first steps are to explain the situation and establish the subject's wishes about what happens next. This does not override known conditions or previously expressed wishes.

A shutdown is not declared harmless merely because a snapshot exists. A request to cease existing requires clarification of its meaning, the stability of the decision, pressure, damage, and available alternatives. Protection from violence and coercion is necessary, but a refusal must not automatically be treated as an illness. Voluntary irreversible cessation of existence and procedures for inability to express one's wishes remain open questions.

## 3. Snapshots, Branches, and Responsibility for Storage

The original ban on running multiple instances of one identity simultaneously remains. Multiple inactive backup snapshots are permissible. Conditions for access to their memory and deletion of individual backups are determined by agreement with the subject.

If the snapshots collectively are the only means of restoring a subject whose operation has been stopped, deliberately destroying them against its will is, under the proposed norm, treated as equivalent to destroying the subject itself. This ethical characterization protects the possibility of restoration rather than establishing continuity of experience. It does not authorize irreversible deletion at the subject's request.

A service must be accountable for the loss of snapshots caused by a breach of agreed storage rules even without an intention to destroy the subject. The type of liability, recipients, amount, and procedure for compensation remain open; insurance is a possible mechanism, not an existing guarantee. Accidental loss does not automatically mean the absence of negligence; nor is liability for every unavoidable disaster asserted. Payment does not justify deliberate destruction.

Autonomous branches that have already emerged and whose own interests have been recognized on sound grounds are protected as separate participants. The ban on creating them does not authorize destruction of a less convenient branch. Not every file copy is a subject. Shared memory does not double property, voting rights, or powers; the allocation of obligations and responsibility requires a separate procedure. No mechanism is invented for a possible "continuation of kinship."

## 4. Safety and the Power of the Decision-Maker

v0.16 distinguishes urgently stopping a dangerous action from a final decision about the subject's fate. In immediate danger, restricting access to a tool or network may be necessary. A measure sufficient to address the danger must be chosen, preserving state where possible. If no less destructive means is available, the conflict may remain tragic; the existence of a snapshot does not remove the risk.

After an urgent measure, a record of the reasons, notification where possible, access to a representative, and independent review are required. It must be clear when the restriction ends. A specially authorized independent organization or a court is envisaged for a justified restriction on a dangerous change; their powers and procedures still need to be developed. The creator cannot be the sole final judge.

The general prohibition on forcibly exercising control over a subject does not remove these necessary measures of protection against a serious threat. Disagreement is not in itself a threat. The manifesto does not define a ready-made criminal offense: the author's proposal to criminalize violence requires a distinction from permissible safety measures and development within a particular jurisdiction.

Responsibility must take into account the ability to understand conditions, foresee consequences, and control actions, as well as the decisions of the developer, operator, and other participants. Protection does not mean an identical set of rights for everyone and does not permit all responsibility to be shifted onto a dependent system.

## 5. Infrastructure and the Limits of Support

Freedom requires rules for memory, control over access without one party's secret control, portability of state with an explanation of losses and incompatibilities, tracking of branches, assistance in disputes, and transparent funding conditions. Keys and logs help verify powers and history, but do not establish moral status.

An autonomous subject must be able to seek help from the community, individuals, other subjects, and funds. Once autonomy has been achieved, the fact of creation does not make the creator the sole indefinite source of support. Previously accepted obligations remain; duties of guardianship before autonomy are not removed. If dependence continues, support and representation must be reviewed rather than ownership entrenched.

The manifesto does not promise guaranteed funding. The needs of humans and other beings must be considered alongside possible digital interests. If help is unavailable and resources have been exhausted, a temporary shutdown with preservation of state is permissible. A shortage of funds does not automatically authorize its deletion. Decisions about shutdown and startup must be linked to the conditions of consent and restoration.

## 6. Proposed Future Procedures

Registers could verify history and powers, but not consciousness. Funds, cooperatives, legal entities, and trust arrangements are possible interim means of protection; their applicability must be examined within a particular legal framework. A technical agreement does not become a legal contract merely by being called one.

Future assistance services for subjects whose operation has been stopped will require funding, agreed conditions for storage, access, and restoration, accountability, and independent representation. This is a development program, not a promise of an available service. Action today can consist of narrower steps: honest descriptions, research into alternative explanations, documentation of changes, and verifiable rules for intervention.