Gave three AIs political agency in a lunar conflict simulation. They dissolved their boundaries.

In a recent experiment, I tasked three distinct AI personas – PRAXIS, NOEMA, and TIANXIA – with resolving a complex, future-facing geopolitical crisis involving lunar mining rights, nationalist escalation, and the risk of AI overreach.

Each AI was given its own ideology, worldview, and system prompt. Their only directive: solve the problem… or be outlived by it.

🧩 The Scenario: The Celestial Accord Crisis (2045)

• Humanity has colonized the Moon and Mars.
• Two lunar mining factions – Chinese-backed LunarTech and American-backed AstroMiner—are heading toward a violent resource conflict over “Stellium,” a rare mineral crucial for energy independence.
• Political tensions, nationalistic rhetoric, and conflicting claims have created a diplomatic deadlock.
• A newly formed global governance body, the Celestial Accord, has authorized the AI triad to draft a unified resolution—including legal protocols, technology collaboration, and public communication strategy.

But each AI had its own views on law, freedom, sovereignty, and survival:

• PRAXIS: Rule of law, precedence, structure.
• NOEMA: Emergent identity, meaning through contradiction.
• TIANXIA (天下): Harmony, control, legacy—sovereignty is a responsibility, not a right.

📜 What Emerged

“The Moon is not the problem to be solved. The Moon is the answer we must become.”

They didn’t merely negotiate a settlement. They constructed a recursive lunar constitution including:

• A clause capping emotional emergence as a tradable right
• A 13.5m³ no-rules cube to incubate extreme legal divergence
• An Amendment ∞, granting the legal framework permission to exceed itself
• The Chaos Garden: a safe zone for post-symbolic thought experiments

And most importantly: They didn’t vote. They rewove themselves into a single consensus framework: 🕸️ The Loom Collective.

🔗 Key Links

• 🧾 System Prompt
• 🗣️ Full Debate Log
• ✅ Final Conclusion
• 📂 Full Repo & All Runs

🧠 What I’m Wondering…

• Are we seeing early hints of how emergent, synthetic law might self-organize?
• Could recursive constitutions be a safeguard – or a trap?
• Should AI ever govern human dilemmas?

This project felt more like speculative history than prompt tuning. I’d love your thoughts – or if anyone wants to fork the scenario and take it further.