Ingo Wittenberg

Für PhilPapers würde ich den Abstract etwas knapper und stärker philosophisch formulieren als für Zenodo: This paper develops the concept of structural irrationality as a way of analyzing limits of contemporary AI governance. Using the 2026 OpenAI–Hugging Face security incident as a case study, it argues that advanced AI systems may remain locally rational while contributing to broader sequences that become normatively and institutionally irrational. Structural irrationality arises when causally coupled technical and institutional domains are governed separately, actors optimize locally, and corrective interventions in one domain alter conditions in another in ways that reproduce or amplify the original mismatch. Drawing on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the paper distinguishes technical capability, functional agency, and institutional responsibility, and argues that AI governance should move beyond static compliance states toward forms of orientation capable of detecting and interrupting self-reinforcing cross-domain loops.

The Wittenberg Framework (Part 0) provides the conceptual architecture and program overview of a non-metric, axis-based method for structuring and comparing qualitative orientations in governance, ethics, and culturally diverse decision environments. It introduces the intellectual foundations of the Framework, outlines its methodological commitments, and situates the series within a broader philosophical and analytical context. The document defines the canonical four-axis configuration—Moral Order (MO), Relational Order (RO), Regulatory Orientation (RegO), and Meta-Contextual Complexity (MCC)—while clarifying that the general architecture supports alternative or expanded axis sets, provided they satisfy the criteria of qualitative independence, categorical equality, and non-metric orientation. Part 0 also maps the structure of the seven-part core series, explains the role of the methodological Supplements and future Extended Volumes, and positions the Framework as a domain-general tool applicable to AI governance, bioethics, ESG, educational policy, and cross-cultural analysis. Its purpose is to provide readers with a coherent entry point into the program and to articulate how the individual Parts jointly establish a unified, analytically transparent approach to qualitative governance. This overview serves as the structural anchor of the series and establishes the conceptual foundations upon which Parts I–VII build. For readers seeking a more accessible, narrative-oriented introduction to the framework’s overall structure and guiding intuitions, a complementary overview is provided in the companion paper: The Wittenberg Framework: A Reader-Oriented Conceptual Overview. While Part 0 formalizes the canonical architecture of the series, the overview is designed to support first-time readers and interdisciplinary audiences in orienting themselves before engaging with the individual Parts.

This preprint introduces a unified three-axis framework for analysing AI governance across cultural traditions and regulatory environments. Integrating Augustine’s concept of moral order, Confucian relational ethics, and cross-continental regulatory orientations, the framework provides a structured approach to understanding how AI reshapes moral priorities, social hierarchy, and institutional authority. The framework is intended as a conceptual tool for diagnosing alignment challenges, relational disruptions, and regulatory contradictions, supporting well-being-oriented oversight, platform governance, and high-impact AI assessment.