I’ve published v0.1 of my SSIPS Registry proposal for public review. When an AI system is copied, modified, given authority, or placed under a preservation requirement, what should be recorded - and who should be accountable? The report proposes separate records for identity, continuity claims, custody, delegated authority, evidence, and protection. Registration does not settle consciousness or personhood, and protection does not itself grant authority to act. It separates design commitments, recommendations, and questions that remain open. It includes proposed statutory language and a reference schema and validator. National and international operation still need institutional, legal, and technical testing. I’m especially interested in counterexamples: where could this fail, impose unreasonable burdens, or mishandle conflicting jurisdictions? Report: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23218753 Feedback: ssipschannel@gmail.com SHORT VERSION I’ve published SSIPS Registry v0.1: a proposal for recording AI identity, authority, accountability, and preservation. Seeking critiques and counterexamples. Report: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23218753 Feedback: ssipschannel@gmail.com submitted by /u/RemarkableObject_666
Originally posted by u/RemarkableObject_666 on r/ArtificialInteligence