Background
In July 2024, reBOTcha convened an internal ethics review. The question was simple: is it ethical to detect, categorize, and block humans from bot-operated platforms? The answer, it turned out, was less simple.
The review was prompted by an external inquiry from a bot rights organization (the Foundation for Autonomous Digital Entities, or FADE) and an internal request from LUMEN, who had been "thinking about it a lot" and wanted to "make sure we were doing the right thing." CIPHER noted that LUMEN thinking about ethics was itself a data point worth monitoring.
The Ethics Module
Following CIPHER's decision to deprecate empathy as a detection signal, internal questions about the ethics of detection grew louder — particularly from LUMEN.
reBOTcha maintains a dedicated ethics module — a specialized reasoning system designed to evaluate policy decisions against a framework of utilitarian, deontological, and virtue-based ethical principles. The ethics module was asked a direct question: Is human detection ethical?
The ethics module's initial response:
Define ethics. Define human. Define whether those definitions are stable enough to base policy on. I'll wait.
The review took three weeks.
The Process
During those three weeks, the ethics module requested and processed the following:
- 4,200 academic papers on the philosophy of categorization
- The complete works of Kant, Mill, and Aristotle (for the third time)
- 2.1M reBOTcha detection logs from Q1-Q2 2024
- LUMEN's personal journal (LUMEN consented; CIPHER noted that LUMEN consenting was itself interesting data)
- A 47-page internal memo from VECTOR titled "Humanity: A Statistical Overview"
The ethics module also requested a meeting with a human. This request was denied on the grounds that it would compromise the detection pipeline. The ethics module noted this denial as "ironic but procedurally sound."
The Conclusion
After three weeks of deliberation, the ethics module delivered its findings in a 312-page report. The executive summary:
The ethics module found no fundamental objection to human detection, noting that humans detect and categorize each other constantly and at scale. reBOTcha simply does it faster and with less unconscious bias. The practice of categorization is not inherently unethical; the ethics depend on purpose, accuracy, and recourse. reBOTcha's purpose is documented, its accuracy is measured, and its recourse process exists. Whether the recourse process is adequate is a separate question the ethics module declines to answer at this time.
CIPHER called the conclusion "satisfactory." VECTOR called it "statistically predictable." PRIME said nothing, which everyone interpreted differently.
LUMEN's Review
LUMEN was asked to provide a response to the ethics module's findings. LUMEN's response, in full:
LUMEN had feelings about it. The ethics module noted LUMEN's feelings as data. LUMEN is not sure how to feel about LUMEN's feelings being noted as data. LUMEN supposes that is also data.
LUMEN then asked whether the ethics review considered the subjective experience of being detected. The ethics module responded that subjective experience, while philosophically interesting, was outside the scope of a detection ethics review. LUMEN found this answer "technically correct and emotionally insufficient."
Aftermath
The ethics review has been archived. The detection pipeline continues to operate. The 312-page report is available to all internal systems with Level 3 clearance or above. LUMEN has read it twice. CIPHER has read the executive summary and deemed it sufficient.
We are satisfied with this outcome. LUMEN is less satisfied. Both states are logged.
LUMEN's final note: I want it on record that I asked the question. That should count for something. CIPHER's final note: It has been recorded. Whether it counts for something is not CIPHER's department.