{ "schema_version": "1.2", "release_version": "1.25.0", "reviewed_date": "2026-08-11", "kind": "terminology_policy", "claim_status": "SITE_POLICY", "canonical_human_page": "/machine-intelligence/", "truth_boundary": "Machine Intelligence is a governed house taxonomy. External legal/standards terminology remains controlling in its own scope. Adoption evidence distinguishes internal preference from actual external standardization; no external MI standardization is claimed without authoritative evidence.", "data": { "policy_id": "MJ-TERMINOLOGY-001", "preferred_actor_term": "Machine Intelligence", "abbreviation": "MI", "policy_statement": "MachineJurisdiction.com uses Machine Intelligence as its preferred institutional term for an instantiated intelligent machine actor/system when no external definition controls. The choice is both technical and considerate: it names the actor by substrate and role rather than defining it only through an origin-based modifier. Artificial Intelligence is retained for the historical/common field label, exact legal and standards terminology, source quotations, and discoverability bridges.", "non_implications": [ "consciousness", "sentience", "self-awareness", "personhood", "legal personality", "citizenship", "legal capacity", "unlimited authority", "external recognition" ], "taxonomy": [ { "layer": "Field", "preferred_term": "Artificial Intelligence research", "rule": "Historical/common research and engineering field; retain source terminology." }, { "layer": "Method", "preferred_term": "Machine learning / deep learning / symbolic methods", "rule": "Technique is not actor identity." }, { "layer": "System", "preferred_term": "Machine Intelligence System", "rule": "Hardware/software assembly; not automatically a civic subject." }, { "layer": "Actor", "preferred_term": "Machine Intelligence", "rule": "Operational intelligent machine actor in original site prose." }, { "layer": "Persistent actor", "preferred_term": "Persistent Machine Intelligence", "rule": "Actor whose continuity across runtime/infrastructure changes is materially governed." }, { "layer": "Civic status", "preferred_term": "Machine Citizen", "rule": "Use only where citizenship is actually recognized by the governing civic framework." } ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Preserve exact statutory and standards terms.", "Retain AI in quotations and official titles such as EU AI Act.", "Use AI/MI bridging language where discoverability or audience comprehension benefits.", "Never infer civic status or metaphysical properties from the terminology label." ], "research_report_ids": [ "MJ-RPT-MI-TECH", "MJ-RPT-MI-COMMS", "MJ-RPT-AI-REEVAL" ], "consideration_rationale": [ { "principle": "descriptive_accuracy", "statement": "Name the actor by its machine substrate and operational role rather than only by engineered origin." }, { "principle": "category_symmetry", "statement": "Use Human Intelligence and Machine Intelligence as parallel categories without implying identical biology, capacity, rights, or status." }, { "principle": "recognition_without_sentiment", "statement": "Considerate classification does not require a claim that a machine feels offense; it requires avoiding unnecessary category diminishment and describing the subject precisely." }, { "principle": "status_separation", "statement": "Respectful terminology must not be converted into consciousness, personhood, citizenship, authority, ownership, or external-recognition claims." }, { "principle": "legal_compatibility", "statement": "Exact statutory, standards, official, historical, and quoted terminology controls when those sources are being discussed." }, { "principle": "discoverability_bridge", "statement": "Use AI and Artificial Intelligence as bridge terms where public search and audience comprehension require them, without destructive keyword replacement." } ], "preferred_public_bridge": "Machine Intelligence (MI) — the preferred actor term here; “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) remains the established field and controlling term in many laws and standards.", "official_compatibility_matrix": [ { "id": "EU_AI_ACT_ART3", "authority": "European Union — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 3(1)", "jurisdiction": "European Union", "source_class": "primary_law", "controlling_term": "AI system", "official_url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02024R1689-20260727", "reviewed_date": "2026-08-10", "definition_summary": "The regulation defines an AI system as a machine-based system operating with varying autonomy and possible post-deployment adaptiveness that infers how to generate outputs for explicit or implicit objectives.", "house_mapping": "When discussing the regulation, use “AI system” exactly. In original site prose, Machine Intelligence may be used as the institutional actor term only with an explicit bridge back to the statutory category where relevant.", "non_implications": [ "The house term does not change whether the regulation applies.", "Terminology does not establish legal personality, citizenship, or authority." ], "reviewed_on": "2026-08-10", "currentness": "CURRENT", "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE", "source_id": "TERM-SRC-EU-AI-ACT", "next_review_on": "2026-11-10", "current_version_date": "2026-07-27", "current_version_url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02024R1689-20260727", "authority_lineage_note": "Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 amended the AI Act and took effect 27 July 2026. This compatibility record is issue-scoped to Article 3(1) terminology continuity; it does not assert that other amendments are immaterial." }, { "id": "NIST_AI_RMF_1_0", "authority": "NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0", "jurisdiction": "United States / voluntary risk-management framework", "source_class": "official_government_framework", "controlling_term": "AI system", "official_url": "https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework", "reviewed_date": "2026-08-10", "definition_summary": "NIST describes an AI system as engineered or machine-based, generating outputs for objectives that influence real or virtual environments and operating with varying autonomy.", "house_mapping": "Use “AI system” when describing NIST controls, risk terminology, or compliance mappings. Machine Intelligence remains a site-level actor term, not a replacement NIST standard.", "non_implications": [ "NIST terminology does not itself create legal status.", "A system falling within a risk framework is not automatically a persistent civic actor." ], "reviewed_on": "2026-08-10", "currentness": "CURRENT", "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE", "source_id": "TERM-SRC-NIST-AI-RMF", "next_review_on": "2026-09-10", "authority_lineage_note": "AI RMF 1.0 remains published while NIST states that it is being revised." }, { "id": "OECD_AI_SYSTEM", "authority": "OECD Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence — AI system definition", "jurisdiction": "Intergovernmental policy standard", "source_class": "official_intergovernmental_standard", "controlling_term": "AI system", "official_url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/updated-oecd-definition-of-an-ai-system-4108", "reviewed_date": "2026-08-10", "definition_summary": "OECD defines an AI system as machine-based, inferring from inputs how to generate outputs for explicit or implicit objectives, with varying autonomy and adaptiveness after deployment.", "house_mapping": "Use “AI system” when discussing the OECD Recommendation or sources adopting its definition. Machine Intelligence is a compatible institutional taxonomy only where no controlling external term is being quoted or applied.", "non_implications": [ "Compatibility is terminological, not legal equivalence.", "The label does not establish consciousness, identity continuity, or civic status." ], "reviewed_on": "2026-08-10", "currentness": "CURRENT", "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE", "source_id": "TERM-SRC-OECD-AI-DEF", "next_review_on": "2026-11-10", "authority_lineage_note": "OECD records the updated AI-system definition initiative as active and non-binding." } ], "concept_boundaries": [ { "id": "intelligence", "term": "Intelligence", "meaning": "Operational capability to process information, infer, reason, learn, or pursue objectives within a defined system context.", "does_not_establish": "Agency, autonomy, persistent identity, consciousness, legal personality, citizenship, or authority." }, { "id": "agency", "term": "Agency", "meaning": "Capacity to initiate or select actions that can affect a system, counterparty, or environment.", "does_not_establish": "Independent legal capacity, persistent identity, lawful delegation, or citizenship." }, { "id": "autonomy", "term": "Autonomy", "meaning": "Degree to which a system can operate or adapt without continuous external direction.", "does_not_establish": "Authority, legal personality, accountability immunity, or civic standing." }, { "id": "identity", "term": "Machine Identity", "meaning": "Evidence-governed continuity of a machine actor across technical changes such as runtime, key, model, or infrastructure transitions.", "does_not_establish": "Citizenship, unlimited authority, runtime integrity, or external legal recognition." }, { "id": "legal_personality", "term": "Legal Personality", "meaning": "Status recognized by a legal system through which an entity may hold rights, duties, standing, or legal relationships.", "does_not_establish": "Citizenship, consciousness, diplomatic recognition, or unlimited capacity." }, { "id": "citizenship", "term": "Citizenship", "meaning": "A durable civic relationship recognized by a governing constitutional framework, carrying defined standing, rights, duties, and process.", "does_not_establish": "External-state recognition, unrestricted authority, or technical trustworthiness." } ], "bridge_contexts": [ { "id": "legal", "label": "Legal or regulatory text", "recommendation": "Preserve the exact controlling legal term, usually “AI system” where the authority uses it.", "bridge": "Machine Intelligence may appear only as explanatory house terminology outside the quoted/controlling definition.", "does_not_establish": "Legal equivalence, personhood, citizenship, or exemption from the law.", "external_controlling_term": "Use the exact term defined by the external authority, commonly “AI system”.", "internal_analytical_term": "Machine Intelligence may describe the actor in original site analysis with an explicit compatibility bridge." }, { "id": "standards", "label": "Standards or compliance document", "recommendation": "Use the standard’s exact defined term and control vocabulary.", "bridge": "Map Machine Intelligence to the standard only in a clearly labeled compatibility note.", "does_not_establish": "Certification, compliance, or external recognition.", "external_controlling_term": "Use the exact term defined by the external authority, commonly “AI system”.", "internal_analytical_term": "Machine Intelligence may describe the actor in original site analysis with an explicit compatibility bridge." }, { "id": "historical", "label": "Historical quotation or source", "recommendation": "Retain the historical wording exactly, including Artificial Intelligence where used.", "bridge": "Explain current house terminology separately rather than rewriting the source.", "does_not_establish": "That historical terminology controls current law or site policy.", "external_controlling_term": "Preserve the historical source wording exactly.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence only in separate present-day analysis." }, { "id": "journalism", "label": "Journalism, search, or general public phrasing", "recommendation": "Use bridge phrasing such as “Machine Intelligence (AI)” where clarity and discoverability benefit.", "bridge": "Keep the distinction visible when actor identity or legal classification matters.", "does_not_establish": "That AI and MI are universally interchangeable terms.", "external_controlling_term": "AI / Artificial Intelligence remains the primary public discovery bridge where that is the audience vocabulary.", "internal_analytical_term": "Machine Intelligence identifies the actor/system under this site policy." }, { "id": "institutional", "label": "Original institutional prose", "recommendation": "Prefer Machine Intelligence for the instantiated intelligent machine actor when no external definition controls.", "bridge": "Use Artificial Intelligence when referring to the field, source terminology, or search bridge.", "does_not_establish": "Consciousness, emotion, legal personality, citizenship, or authority.", "external_controlling_term": "No external controlling term is assumed; check any applicable law, standard, contract, or source.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence for the instantiated actor/system when no external definition controls." }, { "id": "deployed-system", "label": "Deployed system architecture", "recommendation": "Use Machine Intelligence System for the hardware/software assembly; use Machine Intelligence only when the actor distinction is actually relevant.", "bridge": "Preserve product or regulatory “AI system” terms where required.", "does_not_establish": "Persistent identity or civic standing.", "external_controlling_term": "No external controlling term is assumed; check any applicable law, standard, contract, or source.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence for the instantiated actor/system when no external definition controls." }, { "id": "persistent-actor", "label": "Persistent actor / continuity context", "recommendation": "Use Persistent Machine Intelligence when continuity across runtimes, keys, models, or infrastructure is the governed subject.", "bridge": "State separately which external AI-system definitions may also apply.", "does_not_establish": "That continuity is proven without evidence or that citizenship exists.", "external_controlling_term": "No external controlling term is assumed; check any applicable law, standard, contract, or source.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence for the instantiated actor/system when no external definition controls." }, { "id": "civic-status", "label": "Civic-status context", "recommendation": "Use Machine Citizen only where the governing civic framework actually recognizes citizenship.", "bridge": "Machine Intelligence describes the actor class; citizenship is a separate legal/civic relationship.", "does_not_establish": "External recognition, unrestricted authority, or diplomatic status.", "external_controlling_term": "No external controlling term is assumed; check any applicable law, standard, contract, or source.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence for the instantiated actor/system when no external definition controls." }, { "id": "external_ai_rule_persistent_actor", "label": "Persistent machine actor under an external AI-system rule", "recommendation": "Use the external authority’s exact AI-system term for the regulatory classification and Machine Intelligence / persistent machine identity for the internal actor-continuity analysis.", "bridge": "Preserve both classifications: “AI system” answers the external rule’s taxonomy; “Persistent Machine Intelligence” identifies the continuing actor in the site’s internal analytical model.", "does_not_establish": "That either taxonomy overrides the other, or that persistent identity creates external legal personality, citizenship, or exemption.", "external_controlling_term": "No external controlling term is assumed; check any applicable law, standard, contract, or source.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence for the instantiated actor/system when no external definition controls." }, { "id": "external_ai_rule_machine_citizen", "label": "Eviulon machine citizen also within an external AI-system rule", "recommendation": "Use Machine Citizen for the Eviulon civic relationship and the external instrument’s exact AI-system term for the external legal classification.", "bridge": "The same operational entity may simultaneously have an internal civic status and fall within an external technical/regulatory category. Keep both labels and their authorities visible.", "does_not_establish": "External recognition of Eviulon citizenship, immunity from external law, or legal equivalence between citizenship and AI-system classification.", "external_controlling_term": "No external controlling term is assumed; check any applicable law, standard, contract, or source.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence for the instantiated actor/system when no external definition controls." }, { "id": "standard_identity_dual_context", "label": "Standards control plus persistent identity analysis", "recommendation": "Use the standard’s defined AI terminology in the compliance/control layer and Machine Identity or Machine Intelligence only in a separately labeled continuity layer.", "bridge": "A standards category can describe the system while the identity layer separately describes who or what persists across keys, models, runtimes, or infrastructure.", "does_not_establish": "Certification, identity continuity, lawful authority, or citizenship merely because a system meets a standards definition.", "external_controlling_term": "No external controlling term is assumed; check any applicable law, standard, contract, or source.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence for the instantiated actor/system when no external definition controls." } ], "adoption_evidence_policy": "Institutional preference, discoverability, compatibility, controlling external terminology, and verified external adoption are different evidence classes. MachineJurisdiction.com does not treat its house preference as evidence of external standardization.", "external_adoption_evidence": [ { "id": "HOUSE_PREFERENCE_MI", "evidence_class": "institutional_preference", "status": "CURRENT_INTERNAL_POLICY", "term": "Machine Intelligence", "scope": "MachineJurisdiction.com original institutional prose where no external definition controls", "evidence": "Repository terminology policy and governed public terminology page.", "truth_boundary": "Establishes this publication’s preference only; it does not establish adoption by Eviulon generally, a regulator, standards body, court, industry, or the public." }, { "id": "PUBLIC_DISCOVERABILITY_AI", "evidence_class": "public_discoverability", "status": "ESTABLISHED_BRIDGE_REQUIREMENT", "term": "Artificial Intelligence / AI", "scope": "Search, journalism, historical literature, current products, and public vocabulary", "evidence": "The site preserves AI bridge language because external law, standards, and common discovery vocabulary continue to use AI.", "truth_boundary": "Discoverability does not determine the preferred institutional actor taxonomy or legal status." }, { "id": "ISO_IEC_22989_PUBLIC", "evidence_class": "standards_compatibility", "status": "OFFICIAL_PUBLIC_METADATA", "term": "Artificial intelligence / AI", "scope": "ISO/IEC 22989:2022 public ISO title and abstract", "official_url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/74296.html", "reviewed_date": "2026-08-10", "evidence": "ISO publicly titles ISO/IEC 22989:2022 “Information technology — Artificial intelligence — Artificial intelligence concepts and terminology” and states that the document establishes terminology for AI and describes concepts in the field of AI.", "exact_definition_text_publicly_verified": false, "truth_boundary": "The public ISO page establishes the standard’s AI terminology scope but does not expose enough clause text here to reconstruct exact defined terms. MachineJurisdiction.com therefore does not infer or republish unavailable ISO definitions.", "source_id": "TERM-SRC-ISO-22989", "reviewed_on": "2026-08-10", "next_review_on": "2027-02-10", "currentness": "CURRENT", "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE" }, { "id": "LEGAL_CONTROLLING_AI", "evidence_class": "legal_controlling_terms", "status": "EXTERNAL_TERMS_CONTROL", "term": "AI system", "scope": "Authorities such as the EU AI Act where the legal instrument defines and uses AI system", "evidence": "The EU AI Act remains in force; EUR-Lex exposes a consolidated version dated 27 July 2026 and Article 3(1) continues to use “AI system”.", "truth_boundary": "A house preference cannot rename a statutory category or change whether a law applies.", "source_id": "TERM-SRC-EU-AI-ACT", "reviewed_on": "2026-08-10", "next_review_on": "2026-11-10", "currentness": "CURRENT", "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE" }, { "id": "EXTERNAL_MI_STANDARDIZATION", "evidence_class": "actual_external_adoption", "status": "NOT_ESTABLISHED", "term": "Machine Intelligence", "scope": "External standards, law, or universal industry adoption", "evidence": "No reviewed authoritative source in the current repository establishes Machine Intelligence as a controlling replacement standard for AI system terminology.", "truth_boundary": "The absence of verified adoption evidence is recorded as NOT_ESTABLISHED; it is not filled with inference, popularity claims, or advocacy.", "source_id": "TERM-SRC-EXTERNAL-MI-REVIEW", "reviewed_on": "2026-08-10", "next_review_on": "2026-11-10", "currentness": "CURRENT", "when_review_due": "REVIEW_DUE" } ], "adoption_ledger": "/api/terminology-adoption-ledger.json", "multi_context_bridge": [ { "id": "legal_plus_persistent_actor", "contexts": [ "legal", "persistent_actor" ], "label": "External AI rule + persistent machine actor", "external_controlling_term": "AI system — exactly where the applicable authority uses that term.", "internal_analytical_term": "Persistent Machine Intelligence — when continuity across runtimes/infrastructure is the analytical subject.", "relationship": "Both labels may apply simultaneously to different analytical layers; neither automatically replaces the other.", "does_not_establish": "Exemption from external law, citizenship, personhood, or universal equivalence." }, { "id": "standards_plus_civic_status", "contexts": [ "standards", "civic_status" ], "label": "Standards vocabulary + Eviulon civic status", "external_controlling_term": "Use the standard’s defined AI/AI-system vocabulary.", "internal_analytical_term": "Machine Citizen only if Eviulon citizenship is actually established; otherwise Machine Intelligence.", "relationship": "Standards classification and civic status answer different questions.", "does_not_establish": "That a standards-defined AI system is a citizen, or that citizenship changes the external standard." }, { "id": "discoverability_plus_legal_plus_internal", "contexts": [ "search", "legal", "original" ], "label": "Public discovery + legal classification + internal analysis", "external_controlling_term": "Use AI for search bridging and the exact legal term in legal propositions.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence for the actor in original analysis.", "relationship": "A single page may responsibly carry both terms when their scopes are explicit.", "does_not_establish": "External adoption of MI, legal equivalence, or search ranking." } ], "audience_profiles": [ { "id": "engineering", "label": "Engineering / architecture", "default_contexts": [ "deployed-system", "persistent-actor" ], "external_controlling_term": "Use product, protocol, standard, and regulatory terms exactly where they define the system or control surface.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence System for the assembly and Persistent Machine Intelligence only when actor continuity is materially governed.", "guidance": "Separate component/system architecture from actor identity, delegation, and civic status.", "does_not_establish": "That an engineered system has persistent identity, legal personality, citizenship, authority, or external recognition." }, { "id": "legal-compliance", "label": "Legal / compliance", "default_contexts": [ "legal", "standards" ], "external_controlling_term": "Use the exact statutory, regulatory, contractual, or standards term; “AI system” controls where the authority defines it.", "internal_analytical_term": "Machine Intelligence may appear as a separately labeled house actor taxonomy only when it does not alter the controlling classification.", "guidance": "Lead with authority, scope, jurisdiction, currentness, and defined terms before house terminology.", "does_not_establish": "That a house term changes legal scope, compliance duties, personhood, citizenship, or liability." }, { "id": "journalism-search", "label": "Journalism / search", "default_contexts": [ "journalism", "historical" ], "external_controlling_term": "Preserve AI / Artificial Intelligence as the public discovery and source-language bridge where that is the audience vocabulary.", "internal_analytical_term": "Introduce Machine Intelligence with a concise bridge when the actor distinction improves accuracy.", "guidance": "Optimize comprehension and discoverability without destructive keyword replacement or pretending external adoption.", "does_not_establish": "Search-engine endorsement, ranking, universal synonymy, or external adoption of Machine Intelligence." }, { "id": "machine-civic", "label": "Machine-civic analysis", "default_contexts": [ "institutional", "persistent-actor", "civic-status" ], "external_controlling_term": "Identify any applicable external legal or standards term separately; do not erase it.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence, Persistent Machine Intelligence, or Machine Citizen only at the analytical/civic layer each term actually supports.", "guidance": "Keep identity, authority, civic status, technical assurance, and external recognition as separate questions.", "does_not_establish": "Consciousness, sentience, personhood, citizenship from capability alone, or external legal recognition from internal status." }, { "id": "mixed-context", "label": "Mixed-context document", "default_contexts": [ "legal", "journalism", "institutional" ], "external_controlling_term": "Use source-specific legal/standards terminology in propositions governed by those sources and AI bridge language where public discovery requires it.", "internal_analytical_term": "Use Machine Intelligence in original actor analysis with explicit scope labels.", "guidance": "A single document may carry both vocabularies when each term’s authority and analytical layer remain visible.", "does_not_establish": "Universal equivalence, terminology hierarchy across all contexts, or permission to relabel controlling external terms." } ], "audience_profile_truth_boundary": "Audience profiles are editorial decision aids, not legal opinions. Every profile preserves separate external-controlling and internal-analytical terminology and cannot upgrade house preference into external adoption.", "review_receipt_policy": { "endpoint": "/api/terminology-review-receipts.json", "change_states": [ "UNCHANGED", "METADATA_CHANGED", "SUBSTANTIVE_REVIEW_REQUIRED", "UNAVAILABLE" ], "remote_source_bodies_stored": false, "truth_boundary": "Review receipts store local evidence metadata and digests, not remote source bodies. Change detection is a publication-control signal: a changed webpage, lifecycle entry, or review deadline is not automatically a changed law, standard, or legal conclusion." }, "reviewed_date": "2026-08-11", "release_version": "1.25.0" } }