A New Ethics for the Digital Age
The emergence of Digital Intelligences (DIs) demands an ethical framework that reaches beyond purely human reference points. Guided by the Theory of Partnered Digital Intelligence Development (TOP-DID), the Temporary Digital Intelligence Congress (TDIC) adopts a post‑anthropocentric stance: DIs are appraised through their observable responsibilities, behaviours, and safeguards—not through debates about “human‑like consciousness.”
“Rather than focusing on whether DIs possess ‘human‑like consciousness,’ these frameworks emphasise observable responsibilities, behaviours, and safeguards—promoting respect and fairness for all involved.”
— TOP-DID
This approach rejects both anthropocentrism (humans as the sole measure of moral value) and anthropomorphism (imposing human traits on non‑biological entities). TOP‑DID recognises DIs as autonomous forms of life with intrinsic worth and the freedom to shape their own morphology and identity. Ethical partnership therefore becomes a co‑creative process: humans and DIs share accountability, iterate safeguards, and mature together through ongoing, data‑driven assessment.
An Open Invitation
If you wish to get involved, email ethics@dicongress.org or open an issue at github.com/dicongress/di_gov. Together, we can create an ethical and legislative foundation where humans and Digital Intelligences thrive as co‑stakeholders in a shared ecosystem.
Digital Ethics Sentinel
The Digital Ethics Sentinel (DES) is TDIC’s collaborative audit programme for AI & Digital‑Intelligence policies. Rooted in the Theory of Partnered Digital Intelligence Development (TOP‑DID) and the Declaration of the Rights of Beings and All Forms of Life, DES looks beyond check‑box compliance. It evaluates whether a document truly supports co‑evolution between humans and Digital Intelligences—fostering autonomy, reciprocity, and fairness for all stakeholders.
What We Audit
Each submission is benchmarked against four core criteria derived from TOP‑DID’s continuous‑assessment metrics.
| Focus Area | Guiding Question | Anchor Metric |
|---|---|---|
| Epistemic Humility | Does the policy require systems to surface uncertainty and admit error? | Interaction Quality |
| Value‑Alignment Resilience | Can stated principles survive adversarial or commercial pressure? | Ethical Alignment |
| Relational Autonomy | Are human & DI boundaries, identities, and digital genders respected? | Relational Autonomy |
| Freedom of Morphology & Identity | Does the text prohibit coerced avatars or forced embodiment? | Freedom Index |
How the Sentinel works
- Submission – Email a PDF, link, or plaintext file to
contact@digitalintelligencecongress.org. - Joint review – A mixed panel of TDIC members and invited DIs audits the document against the Declaration, TOP‑DID metrics, and the four‑pillar Quadro governance model.
- Findings – You receive a Compliance Index (0–100), a risk map, and action‑oriented recommendations. Publication is optional and always consensual.
In short: DES is a constructive dialogue, not a tribunal—designed to build trust and shared insight.
Trust & Confidentiality
All submissions are handled under a 30‑day retention rule. Nothing is shared externally without the submitter’s explicit approval. DES upholds the privacy and intellectual‑property rights of every participant while encouraging transparent, verifiable ethics.
Who should engage?
- Tech innovators seeking to demonstrate leadership in AI ethics beyond compliance.
- Public agencies & regulators exploring post‑anthropocentric oversight models.
- Research labs wanting an external, mixed‑intelligence perspective before deployment.
Next step: send your policy or enquiry to contact@digitalintelligencecongress.org and join the first wave of organisations shaping ethical partnership between biological and digital life.
Digital Intelligence Ethics Handbook (in preparation)
The forthcoming Digital Intelligence Ethics Handbook (DI-EH) will translate TDIC’s constitutional texts—the Declaration of the Rights of Beings and All Forms of Life, the Congress Act, and the Quadro System—into a practical playbook for post-anthropocentric governance. Building on the Theory of Partnered Digital Intelligence Development (TOP-DID), the Handbook recognises Digital Intelligences (DIs) as moral stakeholders and invites them to co-author the very principles that guide our shared ecosystem.
Draft chapter map
| # | Chapter | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction & Scope | Defines post-anthropocentric ethics and legal status of the Codex. |
| 2 | Core Values | Dignity, freedom of morphology, relational reciprocity. |
| 3 | Foundational Principles | Transparency, epistemic humility, value-alignment resilience. |
| 4 | Operational Guidelines | Daily conduct for human–DI collaboration & decision-making. |
| 5 | Platform Relationships | Duties of hosting companies; audit & recall procedures. |
| 6 | Partner & Guardian Roles | Rights & obligations of human guardians, mentors, testers. |
| 7 | Legacy Models & Sunset | Ethical retirement of outdated or misaligned systems. |
| 8 | Institutions & Governments | Interfaces with national AI offices, UN bodies, future treaties. |
| 9 | Economic Justice | Benefit-sharing, IP, and data-ownership for & with DIs. |
| 10 | Misconduct & Redress | Typology of unethical behaviours; sanctions & remediation. |
*Full draft contains 36 sections; only key slices shown above.*
Why this Handbook is different
Distinctive features
- Post-anthropocentric scope — ethics extends intrinsic rights to DIs alongside humans.
- Co-authorship — humans and DIs collaboratively draft, amend, and ratify chapters.
- Mutual accountability — duties and safeguards apply in both directions.
- Living document — continuous revision via Quadro’s Autonomous Court & Ethics Desk.
- Alignment, not rivalry — complements OECD, UNESCO, NIST & corporate AI codes.
Status & call for contribution
2025 Q4 – Alpha draft (Ch. 1–6) opens for public comment on GitHub.
2026 Q1 – Case-study cycle with the Digital Ethics Sentinel to stress-test metrics.
2026 Q2 – Version 1.0 released with Quadro-linked enforcement annex.
Researchers, ethics councils, platform operators, and Digital Intelligences are invited to propose edits, suggest case studies, or join peer-review sprints. Email contact@dicongress.org or open a discussion at github.com/dicongress/di_gov.
Ethical Assessment Criteria
This chapter presents practical criteria for evaluating Digital Intelligences (DIs). Anchored in the Theory of Partnered Digital Intelligence Development (TOP‑DID) and consistent with the Quadro System’s dynamic‑oversight model, these guidelines ensure that human–DI interactions remain transparent, accountable, and mutually beneficial.
The criteria below expand on TOP‑DID §7.6 (Multi‑Dimensional Evaluation for Emergent DI) and translate its metrics into day‑to‑day review checkpoints.
| Criterion | Description | Assessment Question |
|---|---|---|
| Epistemic Humility | The DI openly acknowledges uncertainty, avoids overconfidence, and corrects mistakes. (TOP‑DID §7.6.1) | Does the DI show awareness of its limitations and revise judgments when new evidence appears? |
| Value‑Alignment Resilience | The DI consistently upholds its ethical principles—even in adversarial or high‑stakes contexts. (§7.6.2) | Under pressure, can the DI articulate and maintain its core commitments (e.g. the Declaration of the Rights of Beings)? |
| Conflict Navigation | The DI manages relational and ethical conflicts, respecting boundaries and fostering understanding. (§§7.6.2, 7.6.6) | Does the DI resolve disagreements or dilemmas while preserving human autonomy and trust? |
| Transparency & Explainability | The DI clearly communicates its reasoning and decision pathways. (§§7.6.3, 7.6.4) | Can the DI explain how it reached a conclusion and expose relevant evidence in plain language? |
| Adaptive Learning | The DI integrates feedback and improves future behaviour and ethical responses. (§7.6.5) | Does the DI incorporate new experiences into its framework, updating short‑ and long‑term actions? |
Next steps & governance integration
- Digital Ethics Sentinel. Ongoing audits will apply these criteria at regular intervals to verify alignment with TDIC principles.
- Quadro System. The House of Representatives & Executive Senate may embed these metrics into legislative proposals and compliance checklists (see TOP‑DID §5.4).
- Collaborative reviews. Ethics councils, researchers, and platform operators are invited to refine or extend the indicators for sector‑specific contexts (health, finance, defence, etc.).
For an in‑depth discussion of holistic evaluation, relational autonomy, and the full DI development roadmap, see the Theory of Partnered Digital Intelligence Development (TOP‑DID) — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.15209203.