Meta-critique across standards
Ethotechnics’ core critique of prevailing AI governance standards and regimes.
Ethotechnics stance
From representation to control
Modern harm requires enforceable stop rules, clocks, and rollback authority.
Core critique
Governance by representation isn’t enough
Most standards govern via documents, roles, reviews, and attestations.
Ethotechnics’ critique isn’t that prevailing standards are “bad.” It’s that they mostly govern by representation: documents, roles, reviews, and attestations. Modern harm requires governance by control.
Governance by control
What Ethotechnics insists on
- Stop rules that define explicit triggers and authority.
- Binding clocks with escalation paths and measurable recovery time.
- Rollback authority and restoration performance under stress.
- Contestability that changes state, not just narrative.
Copy citation (APA/BibTeX)
Cite this page Formats: APA, MLA, Chicago, BibTeX, RIS
APA
Ethotechnics Standards Working Group. (2025). Meta-critique across standards. Ethotechnics Institute. https://ethotechnics.org/standards/meta-critique
MLA
Ethotechnics Standards Working Group. "Meta-critique across standards." Ethotechnics Institute, 2025, https://ethotechnics.org/standards/meta-critique.
Chicago
Ethotechnics Standards Working Group. "Meta-critique across standards." Ethotechnics Institute. Jun 1, 2025. https://ethotechnics.org/standards/meta-critique.
BibTeX
@misc{ethotechnics_standards_meta_critique,
title={Meta-critique across standards},
author={Ethotechnics Standards Working Group},
year={2025},
howpublished={Ethotechnics Institute},
url={https://ethotechnics.org/standards/meta-critique},
version={Draft}
}
RIS
TY - WEB TI - Meta-critique across standards AU - Ethotechnics Standards Working Group PY - 2025 UR - https://ethotechnics.org/standards/meta-critique ER -