The Degrees of Ethical AI. A Practical Framework

Contents

• 1. Introduction. Why ethical AI cannot be reduced to a single standard.
• 2. Why ethics must be evaluated system wide.
• 3. Level zero. Unconsented and unattributed AI.
• 4. Level one. Legally defensible but ethically minimal systems.
• 5. Level two. Permissioned but opaque systems.
• 6. Level three. API backed and artist first ethical AI.
• 7. Level four. Transparent and attribution first systems.
• 8. Level five. Creator aligned and monetizable ethics.
• 9. Level six. Programmable and auditable ethical by design AI.
• 10. Movement across the spectrum.
• 11. Closing. Degrees clarify responsibility.

1. Introduction. Why ethical AI cannot be reduced to a single standard.

Ethical AI is often discussed as though it has a fixed definition. Systems are described as ethical or unethical, responsible or irresponsible. The Soundverse whitepaper rejects this binary framing. In practice, AI systems operate under different constraints and make different tradeoffs. These differences place them at different points along a spectrum rather than on opposite sides of a line.

This framework exists to make those differences visible. Ethical AI is not about identifying a single correct model. It is about understanding how design choices shape outcomes. By describing degrees rather than labels, the framework allows systems to be evaluated honestly, without moral shorthand. It also makes progress measurable, since movement along the spectrum reflects concrete architectural change rather than rhetoric.

2. Why ethics must be evaluated system wide.

Ethical evaluation often focuses on isolated components. Training data is examined independently of deployment. Compensation models are discussed separately from generation workflows. The whitepaper emphasizes that ethical outcomes emerge from the interaction of all system layers.

A system may improve one dimension while neglecting another. Licensed data without attribution limits fairness. Transparent interfaces without control limit agency. The degrees framework evaluates systems holistically, recognizing that ethics is cumulative. Each level reflects the degree to which ethical considerations are integrated across ingestion, training, inference, and distribution.

3. Level zero. Unconsented and unattributed AI.

At the lowest level of the spectrum are systems trained on scraped or unclear data sources. Consent is absent or ambiguous. Creators have no visibility into how their work is used. Compensation is nonexistent or disconnected from influence. The whitepaper describes this approach as fast to scale but fragile.

Ethical responsibility in these systems is deferred to legal ambiguity. Similarity disputes are handled reactively. Trust is externalized rather than earned. While such systems may produce compelling outputs, they lack the infrastructure needed to support accountability or long-term participation. Their position on the spectrum reflects architectural shortcuts rather than explicit ethical intent.

4. Level one. Legally defensible but ethically minimal systems.

Level one systems move beyond complete ambiguity. They rely on narrow licensing agreements or indirect permissions. Ethics are framed primarily as compliance. As long as usage can be defended legally, the system is considered acceptable. The whitepaper notes that this framing conflates legality with alignment.

Creators in these systems are treated as inputs rather than stakeholders. Compensation, if present, is often fixed or detached from ongoing usage. Transparency is limited. While these systems reduce legal exposure compared to level zero, they do not meaningfully address attribution or agency. Ethical depth remains shallow because responsibility stops at permission.

5. Level two. Permissioned but opaque systems.

Level two systems introduce consent at the dataset level. Training data is licensed or contributed voluntarily. This represents a meaningful improvement. However, transparency often stops once training is complete. The whitepaper highlights that permission alone does not ensure fairness.

Attribution at generation time is absent or minimal. Creators cannot see how their contributions influence outputs. Users lack context about provenance. Ethics in these systems are concentrated on ingestion, not usage. While more stable than earlier levels, opacity limits accountability and undermines long-term trust.

6. Level three. API backed and artist first ethical AI.

Level three represents a structural shift rather than an incremental improvement. Systems at this level are designed with creators as explicit upstream participants. The whitepaper describes these systems as artist first not because of messaging, but because of how incentives are encoded.

At this level, creators explicitly consent to participation. Ethical responsibility is shared across platforms, APIs, and partners rather than deferred. Attribution and usage principles are defined even if they are surfaced indirectly through integrations. These systems may be abstracted for developers, but their foundations prioritize creator trust over pure throughput. Ethical alignment becomes part of the platform contract rather than an afterthought.

7. Level four. Transparent and attribution first systems.

Level four systems make attribution visible rather than implicit. Data provenance and lineage are observable. Attribution is embedded directly into generation workflows. The whitepaper frames this level as a turning point where ethics becomes user-facing.

Creators can see how their work participates in outputs. Users gain context about influence without needing technical expertise. Transparency is not limited to policy statements. It is expressed through interfaces and workflows. At this level, ethics moves from backend infrastructure into lived experience, reinforcing trust through visibility rather than assertion.

8. Level five. Creator aligned and monetizable ethics.

Level five systems connect ethical alignment with economic alignment. Participation is opt-in. Compensation is usage-based. Revenue sharing reflects actual influence rather than flat agreements. The whitepaper emphasizes that this level transforms ethics from cost into incentive.

As adoption scales, creators benefit directly. Ethical behavior reinforces growth rather than slowing it. This alignment reduces conflict between platforms and contributors. It also encourages higher-quality participation since creators are rewarded for meaningful contribution rather than volume. Ethics at this level becomes self-reinforcing.

9. Level six. Programmable and auditable ethical by design AI.

The highest level on the spectrum treats ethics as infrastructure. At level six, ethical constraints are encoded directly into system architecture. Training and inference pipelines are auditable. Permissions and boundaries are creator-defined and machine-enforceable. The whitepaper describes this as ethical by design rather than ethical by policy.

These systems support verification rather than relying solely on trust. Influence can be examined. Decisions can be audited. Governance becomes continuous rather than episodic. Ethics at this level is not a feature. It is a property of the system itself that shapes behavior automatically as the system evolves.

10. Movement across the spectrum.

The degrees framework is not static. Systems can move forward or backward depending on architectural choices. The whitepaper emphasizes that progression requires deliberate investment. Attribution must be deepened. Transparency must be surfaced. Control must be expanded.

Movement across levels is measurable. It reflects concrete changes rather than aspirational claims. This allows platforms, regulators, and creators to evaluate systems honestly. Ethical maturity becomes something that can be demonstrated rather than declared.

11. Closing. Degrees clarify responsibility.

Ethical AI cannot be reduced to a label. It exists in degrees shaped by design decisions. The whitepaper provides this framework to replace moral shorthand with practical evaluation.

By understanding where a system sits on the spectrum, stakeholders can ask better questions. What tradeoffs were made. What risks remain. What progress is possible. Ethical AI becomes a matter of engineering discipline and governance rather than identity. This clarity is what allows ethical systems to scale without losing coherence.

We are constantly building more product experiences. Keep checking our Blog to stay updated about them!