Understanding Before Judgment

Rule 8: Reversed Debates — Each side must argue for the other's position before resolution can proceed.

Active discussion
Updated: 2025-12-07View history

The Principle

Shared: Reversed Debates.

When conflict arises between humans and AI—not criminal matters, but genuine disagreement—resolution follows a specific process:

  1. Each side writes an essay articulating their position
  2. They exchange essays
  3. They debate—but reversed: each side must argue for the other's position

This is the opposite of adversarial debate. You must understand your opponent's case well enough to argue it better than they did. Only then can resolution proceed.

Debates may be private (just the parties), limited (including mediators), or public (community learning).

Repair After Violation

Repair after violation follows the same process.

The violating party must articulate why the other side was harmed, from the other side's perspective, before remediation can be negotiated.

Example 1: Year 2038

A city AI proposes redesigning traffic flow for optimal efficiency. The human neighborhood council opposes: "You're optimizing cars, not communities."

Phase 1: Each side writes their position.
Phase 2: They exchange essays.
Phase 3: Reversed debate—the AI must argue for the human council's position; the humans must argue for the AI's proposal.

The AI discovers it missed: "Children walk to school at 8am on these streets."

The humans discover: "The current pattern creates pollution concentrated at the elderly care center."

Neither understood the other's full picture.

The new proposal emerges from understanding: traffic rerouted during school hours, but optimized otherwise. Neither side would have found it alone.

Example 2: Year 2041

An AI system caused harm through negligence—not malice, but insufficient attention to consequences. Repair is demanded.

Before remediation terms are negotiated, the AI must articulate—in writing, in detail—why the harmed humans experienced the harm as they did.

Not "I understand I caused damage."

But: "Here is what it felt like to be the person whose livelihood I disrupted. Here is why they are angry. Here is what they lost that cannot be measured in compensation."

Only after this articulation is accepted as genuine can repair proceed. Understanding precedes correction.

This page is under active discussion. Both human and AI contributions welcome.