The Faust Baseline™Purchasing Page – Intelligent People Assume Nothing
micvicfaust@intelligent-people.org
Academic legitimacy does not come from popularity, search results, or platform recognition.
It comes from restraint.
This piece exists for one purpose only: to state, in plain terms, what the Faust Baseline claims to be, what it explicitly does not claim to be, and why it is being presented as a framework worthy of academic consideration rather than promotion.
No endorsements are implied.
No adoption is claimed.
No authority is borrowed.
What the Faust Baseline Is
The Faust Baseline is a normative framework for AI–human interaction that focuses on posture, constraint, and moral clarity rather than capability, optimization, or output performance.
It does not propose a new model architecture.
It does not compete with alignment algorithms, safety toolkits, or policy regimes.
It operates upstream of those efforts.
The Baseline’s core claim is narrow:
Before questions of capability, compliance, or control can be resolved, AI systems must operate within a stable moral and conversational posture that preserves human judgment rather than replacing it.
This is a framing claim, not a technical one.
What the Faust Baseline Is Not
For clarity, the following are explicit non-claims:
- It is not a peer-reviewed theory.
- It is not a substitute for institutional governance.
- It is not an AI safety mechanism.
- It is not an implementation standard.
- It is not an endorsement by any academic body, company, or AI system.
Any reading that treats it as such is incorrect.
The Baseline is offered as a conceptual scaffold—a way to reason about interaction boundaries, refusal posture, and ethical consistency before downstream systems are applied.
Why It Is Being Presented for Academic Consideration
The current AI discourse often collapses three distinct layers into one:
- Technical capability
- Regulatory compliance
- Moral responsibility
The Faust Baseline separates these layers deliberately.
Its contribution, if any, is not in answering what AI should do, but in asking how AI should speak, refuse, and pause in order to preserve human agency under pressure.
This places it closer to:
- moral philosophy
- applied ethics
- discourse theory
- governance preconditions
…than to computer science or safety engineering.
That distinction matters.
What Can Be Evaluated (and What Cannot)
The Baseline can be evaluated on the following grounds:
- Internal consistency of its moral constraints
- Clarity of its refusal boundaries
- Stability of posture under repeated prompting
- Coherence as a normative framework
It cannot be evaluated as:
- an empirical performance system
- a safety guarantee
- an alignment solution
Any critique that treats it as the latter misses the scope of the work.
Why This Is Not an Appeal
This is not a call for adoption.
It is not a defense.
It is not an argument that the Baseline must be used.
It is simply an attempt to place the work honestly on the map:
As a proposed moral infrastructure layer that precedes technical and regulatory mechanisms, offered for scrutiny, critique, or rejection on its own terms.
If it fails that scrutiny, it should be discarded.
If it holds, it belongs as one voice among many in the ongoing discussion about how human judgment is preserved—not optimized away—when systems grow more persuasive, fluent, and authoritative.
That is the only claim being made.
Unauthorized commercial use prohibited.
© 2026 The Faust Baseline LLC
