AI raises questions about the world we want to inhabit: how we treat one another, whose voices matter, and what we owe future generations.
These six positions are our starting points. We intend to explain our reasoning, invite disagreement, and revise our views when evidence and sound judgment warrant it.
Starting positions for community discussion · Updated October 29, 2026
Proposed for community dialogue and future board consideration. These positions have not been adopted by a governing board.
Every person has worth that does not depend on their productivity, wealth, abilities, beliefs, or usefulness to a system. AI should respect that worth, with meaningful ways to question decisions that affect people’s lives.
In practice: Ask who benefits, who bears the risks, and whether people can challenge consequential decisions.
Read Human Dignity Should Guide AI · v0.2 ↗
Published working draft · October 29, 2026
By “maternal care,” we mean attentive, nurturing responsibility: protecting people from harm, supporting their growth, and considering their long-term well-being. This ethic belongs to people of every gender and background. It must respect independence, privacy, and choice. We do not assume AI feels care; we ask whether its design and human oversight demonstrate it.
In practice: Build care into testing, accessibility, safeguards, and responses to harm.
Paper 01: Care Without Control: What Maternal Care Should Mean for AI
Read Care Without Control · v0.2 ↗
Published working draft · Updated October 29, 2026
No single company, government, faith tradition, or community can speak for everyone. People affected by AI should have a meaningful part in shaping its use, including those with the least power to influence technological decisions.
In practice: Listen early enough to change a decision, and explain what changed and where disagreement remains.
Read Human Alignment Requires Human Participation · v0.1 ↗
Published working draft · October 29, 2026
People deserve protection from harm and respect for their agency. Safeguards should be proportionate to the risks and open to challenge. The language of safety should never place decisions beyond scrutiny.
In practice: Make consequential AI use visible, provide human review and remedies, and preserve meaningful alternatives wherever feasible.
The full paper is not yet published. Its link will appear here as the work develops.
Contribute a perspective ↗AI’s success should be judged partly by what it means for people facing poverty, exclusion, disability, displacement, or limited opportunity. Benefits must be considered alongside burdens, and affected communities should help define both the problems and the solutions.
In practice: Evaluate effects on vulnerable communities and include their lived experience in decisions.
The full paper is not yet published. Its link will appear here as the work develops.
Contribute a perspective ↗Using AI does not remove human responsibility. Organizations should remain answerable for the systems they develop, purchase, deploy, and oversee. Greater consequences call for stronger testing, independent scrutiny, monitoring, and remedies.
In practice: Make clear who is responsible, how concerns can be raised, and who can intervene when harm occurs.
The full paper is not yet published. Its link will appear here as the work develops.
Contribute a perspective ↗We welcome science, philosophy, faith, the humanities, and lived experience into a shared conversation. Contributors should be free to explain their convictions and willing to offer reasons people outside their own tradition can examine.
As each paper develops, we intend to publish its reasoning, sources, practical implications, unresolved questions, and revision history. We will distinguish evidence from interpretation, disclose relevant interests, and acknowledge uncertainty.
Reading the status: “Paper planned” means a summary only. “Published working draft” links to a paper reviewed for publication and open for community feedback, with its version and date. Any board adoption will be stated separately.
What have we missed? Where do these principles conflict? What would applying them require in your workplace, community, or family?
We welcome thoughtful disagreement, relevant research, and lived experience. Join the conversation, suggest a contribution, or express interest in our future advisory council.
Join the conversation ↗Choose the relevant position in the form’s topic menu and tell us what you would like to contribute.