Accountable Inference Delivery Protocol (AIDP)

Every conversation a person has with an AI model passes through software on their own screen. In current consumer deployments that software is built and operated by the company that trained the model, so the only component positioned to hold a duty to the user answers instead to the party the user may need protection from. Other technologies of comparable potency resolved this by interposing a party whose loyalty runs the other way: the pharmacist, the broker, the browser. This paper specifies one for artificial intelligence. An inference advocate is an independently operated client bound by an enacted duty of loyalty to the user alone, operating under the Accountable Inference Delivery Protocol (AIDP). The protocol establishes which model produced a given response, confirms the endpoint was authorized to serve it, evaluates the response independently, gates delivery according to the provider's accumulated conduct and the user's own jurisdiction, and reports incident rates without reporting content. The user's interaction history stays on their own device, and the few facts enforcement needs about them are proven without revealing who they are. Almost none of this requires invention. The machinery is borrowed from internet protocols we already know how to build and run at scale, so the engineering is tractable and the cost is modest. Two elements have no developed precedent: enforcing provider conduct by aggregate incident rate rather than case-by-case adjudication, and applying the user's own jurisdiction at the point of delivery. The need is already documented in law. Four jurisdictions have prohibited sycophancy, engineered emotional dependence, and engagement optimization that overrides a system's own safety behavior, while other instruments mandate machine-readable provenance and independent auditing. Every one of these obligations describes something that has to be observed where a response reaches a person, and every one leaves the observing to the party being observed. Nobody is watching on the user's behalf. This paper defines that role, places it at the boundary where a response reaches a person, and sets out how to keep it from being captured. The aim is plain enough: the software on your screen should work for you.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-07-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21610186
Primary Topic
Scientific Computing and Data Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accountable Inference Delivery Protocol (AIDP)

Flôres
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Scientific Computing and Data Management
article

Accountable Inference Delivery Protocol (AIDP)

Flôres
article en

Abstract

Every conversation a person has with an AI model passes through software on their own screen. In current consumer deployments that software is built and operated by the company that trained the model, so the only component positioned to hold a duty to the user answers instead to the party the user may need protection from. Other technologies of comparable potency resolved this by interposing a party whose loyalty runs the other way: the pharmacist, the broker, the browser. This paper specifies one for artificial intelligence. An inference advocate is an independently operated client bound by an enacted duty of loyalty to the user alone, operating under the Accountable Inference Delivery Protocol (AIDP). The protocol establishes which model produced a given response, confirms the endpoint was authorized to serve it, evaluates the response independently, gates delivery according to the provider's accumulated conduct and the user's own jurisdiction, and reports incident rates without reporting content. The user's interaction history stays on their own device, and the few facts enforcement needs about them are proven without revealing who they are. Almost none of this requires invention. The machinery is borrowed from internet protocols we already know how to build and run at scale, so the engineering is tractable and the cost is modest. Two elements have no developed precedent: enforcing provider conduct by aggregate incident rate rather than case-by-case adjudication, and applying the user's own jurisdiction at the point of delivery. The need is already documented in law. Four jurisdictions have prohibited sycophancy, engineered emotional dependence, and engagement optimization that overrides a system's own safety behavior, while other instruments mandate machine-readable provenance and independent auditing. Every one of these obligations describes something that has to be observed where a response reaches a person, and every one leaves the observing to the party being observed. Nobody is watching on the user's behalf. This paper defines that role, places it at the boundary where a response reaches a person, and sets out how to keep it from being captured. The aim is plain enough: the software on your screen should work for you.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Scientific Computing and Data Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.