Do We Need an "ai Social Contract" Before Granting Autonomy?
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
medium.comTechstory
calmneutral
Debate
10/100
AIEthicsRegulationAutonomy
Key topics
AI
Ethics
Regulation
Autonomy
The article discusses the need for an 'AI Social Contract' before granting autonomy to AI systems, sparking a low-engagement discussion.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
N/A
Peak period
3
0-1h
Avg / period
3
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 16, 2025 at 12:22 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 16, 2025 at 12:22 PM EDT
0s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 16, 2025 at 1:05 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45264345Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 2:07:52 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
No. This post has jumped quite a few lines that aren't settled yet, and that line there is the biggest assumption. No, AI is not to "live among us". It is a tool. Nothing more. We need to stop anthropomorphizing these tools.
Nevertheless, I can acknowledge the need for governance with AI. I was thinking that policy around it can be summarized with the acronym "AAA", representing the 3 things AI cannot be granted: Autonomy, Ambition, and Access. Stay away from giving it those things and it remains a safe tool.
I agree that governance must avoid anthropomorphizing tools. At the same time, in policy discussions metaphors often serve to highlight social risks and expectations.
Your “AAA” framing (Autonomy, Ambition, Access) is an interesting lens — I see value in exploring how licensing frameworks like AIBL could act as safeguards around exactly those dimensions.