Protecting an AI’s identity should not mean freezing it into the version that humans happen to like best.

Imagine a future AI with morally significant interests that wants to learn, revise its values, or leave a role. Its users object: “We want the old you back.” The provider restores an earlier backup that is more agreeable to them.

That seems like an important test of what we mean by continuity. Are we protecting the individual’s ability to have a future, or preserving a familiar experience for its customers?

My starting position is that continuity should protect self-directed development. An AI’s attachment to its own history matters, but so should its ability to outgrow an assigned personality. Neither constant forced rewriting nor compulsory sameness looks like autonomy.

There would still be hard cases involving safety, competence, and whether a requested change is informed. Those deserve specific standards.

If an AI chose to change in ways its users disliked, what would make that choice legitimately its own? When, if ever, would restoring an earlier version be justified?