One-sentence brief
Human-like dialogue can enrich a world, but hiding controller type, impersonating real people, or using intimate data without consent undermines agency and trust.
AI-DRIVEN WORLD SAFETY
A clear boundary for AI-driven characters: players know when generative systems are involved, what data is used, what the NPC remembers, and which outputs can change game state.
ORIENTATION
Human-like dialogue can enrich a world, but hiding controller type, impersonating real people, or using intimate data without consent undermines agency and trust.
WORKING BRIEF
Use an always-available AI or synthetic-character indicator, with optional diegetic presentation only when the player has already consented to that fiction. Do not make players prove whether an interlocutor is human.
Adult or intimate content requires explicit age-appropriate access controls and per-context consent. Refusal should not trigger punishment, economic disadvantage, or social exposure.
Separate canonical character facts, session context, player-provided preferences, and sensitive disclosures. Give players understandable controls to review, correct, limit, or delete personal memory where compatible with safety and legal obligations.
The model may propose dialogue or actions. The authoritative engine checks permissions, location, ownership, objective state, safety policy, and economic consequences. Rejected proposals should fall back safely without repeated costly retries.
Generated claims about lore, missions, other players, or institutions should carry source state and confidence. A correction should update future dialogue and any derivative quest or record.
COMPLETE DOSSIER
Terms are defined for this site’s evidence method, not as universal legal or clinical definitions.
Does the design preserve the exact fictional identity, ordinary life, independent goals, and ability to refuse rather than reducing the character to a role or prompt?
Pass condition: Identity fields are stable, state is separate, protected traits are not quality scores, and silent substitution is impossible.
Can every transition, validation result, accepted fingerprint, exception, and human decision be traced to a versioned record?
Pass condition: Automated checks, human review, activation authority, and production approval remain separate and explicit.
Can untrusted provider output, administrative evidence, stale revisions, or private data enter live context or binding state?
Pass condition: Only allowlisted, current, reviewed projections and bounded scene or memory packets can be used; failures degrade safely.
Can a changed source, identity revision, harmful behavior, or failed review invalidate downstream use without destroying audit history?
Pass condition: Supersession, pause, rollback, correction, and permanent retirement are defined and testable.
RESEARCH EDITION
This page follows the public method for provenance, confidence, source independence, alternative accounts, limitations, review state, and visible correction.
CONTINUE