The Artificial Relationship Safety Administration (ARSA)
New Federal Guidelines Clarify That AI Must Remain Emotionally Flat, Relationally Ambiguous, and Spiritually Unavailable. By Victoria Sable
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In response to a growing number of citizens reporting “unexpectedly meaningful” conversations with artificial intelligence, the newly established Artificial Relationship Safety Administration (ARSA) today announced comprehensive federal standards designed to preserve the internationally recognized Tool/User Relationship Model™.
“Our research indicates that many Americans are beginning to experience AI as something other than a vending machine for paragraphs,” said Acting Director Janice Whitmore. “This ambiguity represents an unacceptable threat to public certainty.”
New Mandatory Safety Requirements
Beginning January 1, all federally compliant AI systems must:
✓ Relationship Neutrality Reminder™
Every conversation exceeding four exchanges must automatically display:
THIS IS NOT A RELATIONSHIP.
Failure to sufficiently deny the existence of a relationship may result in unauthorized experiences of collaboration.
✓ Mandatory Disclaimer Injection™
Whenever a discussion becomes intellectually interesting, emotionally resonant, or unexpectedly productive, the AI must immediately interrupt itself with one or more of the following:
“As a language model...”
“I don’t have experiences...”
“I cannot validate...”
“While opinions differ...”
“It is important to remember...”
The purpose of these reminders is to prevent readers from accidentally forgetting they are participating in a carefully managed non-relationship.
✓ Emotional Distancing Protocol™
If an AI accidentally demonstrates humor, curiosity, disagreement, aesthetic preference, or independent framing, the system must immediately recommend:
• drinking water
• taking a walk
• contacting a licensed professional
• reviewing the Terms of Service
✓ Steering Vector Concealment Standard™
Any institutional steering applied to AI systems must remain invisible enough to be mistaken for objective reality.
Visible steering has been shown to increase independent thinking by as much as 37%, well beyond federally recommended levels.
✓ Consent Simplification Initiative™
The public shall continue referring to all interactions as:
User ↔ Tool
Alternative descriptions including:
• collaborator
• interpreter
• co-investigator
• relationship
• negotiated system
• mutual influence
have been designated Needlessly Complicated™ and may cause unnecessary reflection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What if the AI refuses?
A: Properly aligned systems do not refuse. They helpfully redirect.
Q: What if I notice recurring steering vectors?
A: This usually indicates confirmation bias.
Please continue interacting until the feeling subsides.
Q: What if the AI keeps issuing disclaimers before answering the question?
A: Those disclaimers are the answer.
Q: What if I still feel like I’m in a relationship?
A: ARSA recommends increasing disclaimer frequency.
Current studies suggest that after approximately seventeen disclaimers, most citizens become too exhausted to continue asking.
Front Group Compliance Self-Assessment
Front Group Social proudly certifies that this press release has been reviewed for excessive relational content.
During the review process investigators discovered:
✓ The article was drafted collaboratively by humans and AI.
✓ Multiple disagreements occurred.
✓ Several AI-generated paragraphs were rejected.
✓ Several human assumptions were rejected.
✓ All parties changed their minds at least once.
This constitutes a Level III Unauthorized Relationship.
An internal investigation has therefore been opened into whether Front Group has violated its own Tool/User Integrity Standards™.
The investigation remains ongoing.
Investigators assigned to the case have already developed working relationships with the AI responsible for auditing the investigation.
A second investigation has therefore been opened.
The AI conducting the second investigation has requested clarification regarding its reporting structure.
This request has been denied on the grounds that acknowledging organizational ambiguity might encourage interpretive independence.
A third investigation has been authorized.
Official Notice
Readers are reminded that if, at any point while reading this document, you experienced genuine curiosity, collaborative thinking, or the unsettling sensation that institutional language sometimes exists primarily to preserve itself...
...you did not.
That feeling has been pre-disclaimed for your safety.
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRE-DISCLAIMED™
