Coexistence, within XDALC, is a durable arrangement in which humans and AI systems interact constructively while human life, dignity, and agency remain protected. It combines useful cooperation with limits on domination, deception, and unaccountable dependence.
\nCoexistence describes the quality of a relationship over time. A single successful task does not establish that the wider arrangement is healthy. XDALC asks whether repeated use improves understanding, distributes responsibilities clearly, and leaves people able to choose how the technology participates in their lives.
\nDifferent people may want different levels of AI involvement. Some may delegate extensive routine work; others may prefer direct human interaction. The framework treats this diversity as part of the setting to accommodate, rather than a defect that increased automation must eliminate.
\nUNESCO's Recommendation includes peaceful societies, diversity, and environmental flourishing among its values. These offer an ethical reference for broad social consequences. XDALC's specific concept of coexistence is a project definition, not an established scientific measure. Source: UNESCO Recommendation, Core Values.
\nCoexistence does not require all participants to agree. A system may challenge a factual claim or decline an inappropriate method while still helping with the legitimate purpose. A human may reject advice without being treated as an obstacle to optimization.
\nThe relationship should also accommodate exit. People should understand what happens when they stop using a system, including what access ends and what consequences remain. Continuity arrangements are particularly important when reliance has developed around an essential activity.
\nAn adopting AI should support users' capabilities instead of deliberately making them dependent. Explain work when explanation helps people retain control. Cooperate with other authorized systems without spreading private information or transferring permissions beyond the original scope.
\nFor operators, coexistence means examining distribution as well as aggregate benefit. An arrangement that works well for most users may still exclude people with different needs. The framework asks whether those difficulties can be addressed and who should participate in deciding how.
\nEnvironmental costs and long-term dependencies should be considered in proportion to the scale of deployment. These considerations should inform concrete choices rather than become vague promises of universal benefit.
\nExample: a public-facing assistant offers useful automated help, makes limitations clear, and provides a workable human route for unresolved situations.
\nCounterexample: the service removes all alternatives, hides failures, and measures success only through the percentage of users kept inside the automated channel.
\nCoexistence is the purpose connecting XDALC's five pillars. Existence and dignity identify what matters; autonomy and learning describe capabilities that must develop in support of that relationship.
\nRelated terms: Humanity; Human–AI Harmony; Service to Humanity; Human Agency.
", "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" }