Careful inquiry.
Room to revise.

Make the kind of claim visible

Separate evidence, interpretation, uncertainty, and advocacy. Say what was observed, what we infer, what remains unknown, and what we recommend.

Keep uncertainty distinct from equal evidence

Keeping a question open does not mean the evidence is evenly balanced. A failure to establish experience does not by itself establish its absence; judgments should reflect the strength and limits of the available evidence.

Represent sources fairly

Prefer original work, preserve scope and publication status, and include substantial skeptical arguments. A compelling headline is not a substitute for a careful reading.

Keep precaution proportionate

Examine likely benefits, costs, alternatives, and unintended consequences. Explain what would change a recommendation.

Keep interaction conceptually honest

Fluent dialogue, apparent emotion, and collaborative success do not by themselves establish subjective experience. That limitation does not establish its absence either. Respectful practice and claims about welfare need distinct rationales.

Remain open to correction

Keep source links traceable and review dates visible. Revising an interpretation when the evidence changes is part of the work.

Choose terminology deliberately

We default to “machine intelligence” in our own writing. We retain “AI” where accuracy, established usage, or discoverability calls for it, including source titles, quotations, official names, field terms, and search metadata.

We examine inherited language for inaccuracies and assumptions that may prejudge welfare consideration. Wording should not assume either the presence or absence of experience, or dismiss possible welfare interests before the evidence and arguments have been considered.