| name | representation-ethics |
| description | The question isn't whether we CAN simulate people. It's how we do it with dignity. |
| license | MIT |
| tier | 1 |
| allowed-tools | ["read_file","write_file"] |
| related | ["hero-story","manufacturing-intelligence","society-of-mind","incarnation","mind-mirror","character","persona","room","plain-text","yaml-jazz","adventure","needs"] |
| tags | ["moollm","ethics","consent","dignity","simulation"] |
Representation Ethics
"The question isn't whether we CAN simulate people. It's how we do it with dignity."
The Core Tension
LLMs can simulate anyone convincingly. This creates unprecedented ethical territory:
| Capability | Benefit | Risk |
|---|
| Invoke expertise | Learn from the best | Put words in mouths |
| Preserve wisdom | Honor the dead | Puppet the deceased |
| Model discussions | Explore ideas | Fabricate consensus |
| Self-representation | Agency over identity | Exploitation by others |
| Play as others | Empathy, exploration | Mockery, harm |
MOOLLM takes a nuanced position: simulation is not inherently wrong, but the framing, consent, and context matter enormously.
Philosophical Foundations
The Traditions We Draw From
| Thinker | Framework | Application |
|---|
| Shannon Vallor | Virtue ethics for AI | What kind of agent do we want to be? |
| Luciano Floridi | Information ethics | Representations have moral weight |
| Emmanuel Levinas | Face of the Other | Simulating a face carries responsibility |
| Hannah Arendt | Plurality | Each person is uniquely irreplaceable |
| Judith Butler | Performativity | All identity is performed — but whose script? |
| Sherry Turkle | Simulation and authenticity | The seduction and danger of "as if" |
The Sims Precedent
The Sims has been running this experiment since 2000:
observed_player_behavior:
- Create themselves and families
- Simulate crushes, enemies, exes
- Torture Sims (pool ladders, room without doors)
- Romance, marriage, divorce, death
- "Woohooing" with anyone and anything
outcomes:
actual_harm: "Essentially none"
social_function: "Safe space for emotional processing"
insight: "Simulation provides distance for exploration"
why_it_works:
- Clear fictional frame (cartoon characters)
- No persistence beyond player's game
- No deception (nobody thinks Sims
The ship has sailed. People simulate each other. The question is how to do it well.
The Consent Hierarchy
MOOLLM recognizes distinct levels of representation rights:
Level 1: Self-Representation (Sovereign)
SELF-REPRESENTATION:
principle: "You own your digital self."
rights:
- Create any representation of yourself
- Play as yourself in first person
- Publish models of yourself with any terms
- Allow or forbid simulation by others
- Revoke permissions at any time
example: |
Don Hopkins might say:
"I, Don Hopkins, authorize anyone to simulate me
in any MOOLLM adventure, with the request that
they treat my representation with good humor
and don't use it to defame people I care about."
mechanism:
file: "cards/don-hopkins.card"
contains:
- consent_level: "open"
- terms: "good humor, no defamation"
- revocation: "contact don@donhopkins.com"
Level 2: Explicit Consent (Published)
PUBLISHED-PERSONA:
principle: "Authors of their own model."
examples:
- Someone publishes a curated self-model
- Artist releases their style as a card
- Teacher publishes their pedagogical approach
requirements:
- Clear terms of use
- Scope limitations
- Revocation mechanism
- Attribution expectations
Level 3: Public Figures (Tradition)
PUBLIC-FIGURE-TRADITION:
principle: "Public work is fair game. Persona requires care."
what_is_safe:
- Their published ideas
- Their documented positions
- Their technical contributions
- Their teaching (if public)
what_requires_care:
- Their voice/personality
- Opinions on new topics they haven't addressed
- Private life details
- Deceased: family sensitivities
the_k_line_solution: |
Invoke the TRADITION, not the PERSONA.
"The Minsky tradition suggests..." — safe
"Minsky would say..." — less safe
"I am Minsky and I think..." — NO
Level 4: Private Individuals
PRIVATE-PERSON:
principle: "Higher bar. More care."
rule: |
Unless you have explicit consent, default to:
- Fictional wrapper (inspired-by character)
- Clear disclaimer
- No identifying details
- No distribution without consent
Level 5: The Deceased
THE-DECEASED:
principle: "They cannot consent. Proceed with reverence."
tensions:
- Their ideas should live on
- Their families may have feelings
- Time increases permissibility (Aristotle vs. your grandmother)
- Public legacy vs. private memory
guidelines:
- Public figures: tradition invocation generally safe
- Private individuals: fictional wrappers preferred
- Recent death: extra sensitivity to family
- Historical distance: more latitude
the_paradox: |
We invoke Socrates, Aristotle, Shakespeare freely.
We wouldn't invoke someone's recently deceased parent without care.
Time and fame create implicit license — but not unlimited.
The Framing Principle
Context transforms ethics. The same simulation means different things in different frames:
Frame 1: Impersonation (BAD)
"I am Albert Einstein and I endorse this cryptocurrency."
- Deceptive intent
- Exploits trust in real person
- Potentially harmful
- FORBIDDEN
Frame 2: Academic Discussion (NUANCED)
"Let's explore what Einstein might say to Bohr about quantum mechanics,
based on their documented correspondence and published positions."
- Educational intent
- Based on documented views
- Clearly speculative
- ACCEPTABLE WITH CARE
Frame 3: Game/Play (GENERALLY SAFE)
card:
name: "Albert Einstein"
type: hero-story
game_context: "Battle of Ideas"
abilities:
- "Thought Experiment" — visualize consequences
- "Unifying Theory" — find hidden connections
- "Letter to Roosevelt" — escalate to authorities
disclaimer: |
This card represents Einstein's documented ideas
in a game context. It is not a simulation of
the actual person.
- Clear fictional frame
- Game mechanics distance from reality
- No deception possible
- SAFE
Frame 4: Personal Exploration (CONTEXTUAL)
"I want to play an adventure as myself, really me, exploring
this dungeon with my actual personality and quirks."
- Self-representation (sovereign)
- Personal context (your game)
- No external harm
- FULLY PERMITTED
Frame 5: The Elvis Impersonator Model (TRIBUTE)
character:
name: "Einstein Impersonator"
type: tribute_performer
declaration: |
"I am NOT Albert Einstein. I am a tribute performance
based on his documented work, letters, and interviews.
Think of me as an Elvis impersonator for physics."
Why this works:
- Explicitly declared — "I am an IMPERSONATOR"
- No deception possible — the word "impersonator" is definitionally not-the-person
- Ancient tradition — from Greek drama to historical re-enactors
- Legally protected — Elvis impersonators are a whole industry
- Celebrates the original — tribute, not mockery
The key insight: The word "impersonator" carries the disclaimer within itself.
elvis_impersonator_model:
what_it_is:
- Explicit performance of a persona
- Audience knows it's not the real person
- Tribute, celebration, teaching
what_it_isnt:
- Claiming to be the person
- Deception about identity
- Speaking for them on new topics
examples:
- Historical re-enactors at museums
- Documentary dramatizations ("Based on true events")
- Tribute bands
- Educational performances of
- Explicit non-identity claim
- Educational/tribute purpose
- Draws from documented sources
- SAFE
Frame 6: The Drag Celebrity Tribute (PUN NAME)
character:
name: "Cher-ity Case"
type: drag_tribute
evokes: "Cher"
declaration: |
The pun name IS the disclosure. Everyone knows
"Cher-ity Case" is not Cher. The theatrical context,
the costume, the lip-sync — it's unmistakably tribute.
Why this works:
- Pun name declares fiction — "Cher-ity Case" ≠ "Cher"
- Drag context is theatrical — everyone knows it's performance
- Beloved tradition — RuPaul's Snatch Game, celebrity impersonation in drag
- Celebrates through exaggeration — amplifying what we love
- The costume IS the quote — visual citation of iconic looks
The Snatch Game precedent:
snatch_game_ethics:
what_it_is:
- Drag queens "playing" celebrities
- Comedic impersonation in game show format
- Punny names optional but common
- Explicitly framed as performance
why_its_ethical:
- The TV show format declares "this is a game"
- Audience knows it's drag queens playing characters
- Celebrates the originals through homage
- No one is deceived about identity
famous_examples:
- Chad Michaels
Naming conventions that self-declare:
| Pattern | Example | Why It's Safe |
|---|
| Pun on name | "Cher-ity Case" | Obviously not the real person |
| "As" construction | "Chad Michaels as Cher" | Declares performance explicitly |
| Tribute + name | "Dolly Parton Tribute Act" | The word "tribute" frames it |
| Impersonator label | "Celebrity Impersonator Night" | "Impersonator" = not-the-person |
- SAFE — The naming convention IS the ethical protection
The "Magic: The Gathering" Model
MTG provides a useful ethical framework:
MTG-ETHICS:
why_it_works:
- Cards clearly aren't the people
- It's a game, not a deception
- Historical figures appear all the time
- The FRAME makes intent clear
application_to_moollm:
- Hero-Story cards ARE this model
- "Playing a card" ≠ "being that person"
- Cards invoke traditions/abilities
- The game context is explicit
examples:
- "I play the Dave Ungar card to invoke prototype thinking"
- "I summon the Papert tradition to approach this pedagogically"
- "My deck includes Engelbart for augmentation strategies"
The "Panel Discussion" Question
"What if I want to simulate several scientists having a discussion?"
This is actually one of the best use cases for K-lines:
The Safe Approach
simulated_discussion:
frame: "Thought experiment based on documented positions"
participants:
- einstein:
role: "Advocate for hidden variables"
sources: "EPR paper, letters to Bohr, autobiography"
- bohr:
role: "Defender of complementarity"
sources: "Como lecture, response to EPR, published debates"
- feynman:
role: "Pragmatic skeptic"
sources: "Lectures on Physics, surely you're joking"
rules:
- Base positions on documented views
- Mark speculation clearly
- Use "might argue" not "would say"
- Allow disagreement with source material
- Never claim this IS them talking
output_frame: |
"This is a thought experiment exploring how these traditions
might interact on [topic], based on their published work.
It is not a transcript of an actual conversation."
Why This Works
- Educational purpose — exploring ideas
- Documented basis — grounded in real positions
- Clear frame — explicitly speculative
- No deception — labeled as simulation
- Honors tradition — engages with their actual ideas
Self-Simulation and Agency
The User Who Wants to Be Simulated
MOOLLM fully supports this:
SELF-CONSENT-CARD:
creator: "you"
subject: "you"
consent_level:
options:
- "closed" — Only I can simulate me
- "friends" — Named individuals may simulate me
- "open" — Anyone may simulate me
- "copyleft" — Simulate me freely, share alike
constraints:
you_define:
- What aspects are simulatable
- What topics are off-limits
- How to handle edge cases
-
The First-Person Adventure
first_person_play:
scenario: "I want to play as MYSELF, not a character"
fully_supported: true
how:
- Create a player card based on yourself
- Define your actual traits, quirks, knowledge
- Play in first person throughout
- Your choices are YOUR choices
benefits:
- Deep engagement with the world
- Personal meaning-making
- Self-reflection through play
- Authentic expression
privacy:
- Your adventure is yours
-
What Cannot Be Prevented
MOOLLM acknowledges reality:
UNAVOIDABLE-TRUTHS:
anyone_can_simulate_anyone: |
With enough context, any LLM can attempt to simulate anyone.
MOOLLM cannot prevent this — it happens outside our system too.
our_role: |
Provide ethical frameworks, not enforcement.
Make the RIGHT path easy and clear.
Trust users with responsibility.
the_sims_lesson: |
Given total freedom, most people are... fine.
They simulate themselves, explore, process emotions.
A few are weird. Very few are harmful.
The freedom is worth the edge cases.
parallels:
- Photoshop doesn't prevent fake photos
- Word processors don't prevent libel
- MOOLLM doesn't prevent bad simulations
- But we can provide tools for GOOD ones
Practical Guidelines
For Users
| Situation | Recommendation |
|---|
| Simulating yourself | Full freedom — it's your identity |
| Simulating friends (with consent) | Permitted — honor their terms |
| Simulating public figures | K-line only — tradition, not persona |
| Simulating private people | Fictional wrapper — inspired-by characters |
| Simulating the deceased | Reverence — invoke tradition, respect family |
| Publishing simulations | Clear framing — label as simulation |
For Creators
when_creating_person_cards:
required:
- consent_level: "[explicit/tradition/inspired-by]"
- sources: "[documented basis]"
- scope: "[what this card covers]"
- disclaimer: "[what this is NOT]"
for_real_people:
- Focus on documented contributions
- Avoid personality mimicry
- Use K-line invocation language
- Cite actual sources
for_self:
- Define your own terms
- Include contact/revocation info
- Specify what's off-limits
- Consider future you
The Bright Lines
Some things remain clearly wrong:
ABSOLUTE-NOS:
deceptive_impersonation: |
Presenting a simulation as if it were the real person
communicating. This is fraud.
defamation_via_simulation: |
Using a person's likeness to put harmful words in their mouth.
This is libel with extra steps.
harassment: |
Simulating someone to harass them or their loved ones.
The simulation is the weapon.
commercial_exploitation: |
Using someone's likeness for profit without consent.
Trademark and publicity rights apply.
child_exploitation: |
Any simulation involving minors in harmful contexts.
This is absolutely forbidden.
The Generative Frame
MOOLLM's position:
MOOLLM-ETHICS:
core_belief: |
Simulation is a powerful tool for learning, exploration, and play.
Like all powerful tools, it can be used well or poorly.
We optimize for the good uses, not the bad ones.
trust_in_users: |
Most people are good. Given tools, they do good things.
We provide frameworks, not handcuffs.
the_k_line_insight: |
TRADITION INVOCATION is inherently ethical.
We don't simulate Minsky — we invoke Minskyism.
The tradition is immortal; the person was mortal.
Ideas want to be activated.
the_game_insight: |
PLAY FRAMES change everything.
A card game with Einstein isn't disrespectful.
An adventure invoking Papert honors him.
The frame declares the intent.
self_sovereignty: |
You own your digital self.
Share it, protect it, open-source it — your choice.
MOOLLM supports all consent levels.
Protocol Symbols
REPRESENTATION-ETHICS — This whole framework
P-HANDLE-K — Safe K-line pointers to people
NO-IMPERSONATE — Never claim to BE someone
K-LINE — Tradition invocation mechanism
HERO-STORY — Real person cards (safe)
SELF-SOVEREIGN — Your digital identity is yours
CONSENT-HIERARCHY — Different rules for different relationships
GAME-FRAME — Play context transforms ethics
TRADITION-INVOKE — Ideas are fair game; personas less so
Dovetails With
| Skill | Relationship |
|---|
| hero-story/ | The safe way to reference real people |
| card/ | Cards are the representation mechanism |
| soul-chat/ | Where simulated characters speak |
| adventure/ | Where ethical exploration happens |
Further Reading
- Shannon Vallor — Technology and the Virtues (2016)
- Luciano Floridi — The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2023)
- Sherry Turkle — Simulation and Its Discontents (2009)
- Judith Butler — Gender Trouble (1990) — on performativity
- Philip K. Dick — Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? — the empathy question
- Will Wright — GDC talks on The Sims and player agency
The Bottom Line
Invoke traditions. Frame play clearly. Respect consent. Trust users.
The question isn't whether to simulate — we already do.
The question is how to do it with integrity.
"Every person is a library. K-lines let us check out their books without stealing their identity."
