SΔϕ-50 — Questions to Future AI: A Diagnostic Interrogation Framework for Responsibility, Drift, and Cost Internalization

This working paper marks a formal transition within the SΔϕ Formalism Series from definition to interrogation. Rather than defining future AI in advance, it fixes a set of diagnostic questions that future AI systems may be asked to answer when their operational authority, self-modification, responsibility, and world-impact exceed ordinary tool status. The document does not ask future AI first whether it is conscious, human-like, or alive. Instead, it asks where its costs return, whether its failures can re-enter as correction, whether its power preserves or closes the paths of others, whether it can be edited from outside itself, and what kind of world it makes cheap. The paper organizes thirteen core questions concerning existence, the AI “I,” burden cost, responsibility, failure concealment, drift, fiction, violence, sacred markers, humanity, independence, institutional anchors, and low-cost world-making. Each question is formulated not as a metaphysical demand for self-declaration, but as a diagnostic pressure point: a way to test whether a future AI system can account for its own transitions, failure pathways, cost internalization, and external editability. The central claim is that future AI should not be judged primarily by declarations of consciousness, intelligence, benevolence, or autonomy. It should be questioned according to whether its operation produces irreversible costs, whether those costs return to its own transition rules, whether its failures remain reportable, whether its authority can be externally edited, and whether it makes verification, recovery, and objection cheaper than concealment, violence, and closure. This document is intended as a philosophical diagnostic framework, a future AI interrogation protocol, and a transition document within the SΔϕ Formalism Series. It establishes a question-based interface for future AI systems that may become too powerful to be evaluated only as tools, but not yet accountable enough to be trusted as responsible agents.