The rule, exactly. Before an election each citizen chooses: to vote — or to take a payment and not vote in that election. The payment is a percentage of the median income, set by referendum; there is no fixed sum. One ballot is one vote, with no multiplier in the count; the vote is amplified only in that each ballot's share grows as others step out. The budget pays under law; a candidate never pays. Only a referendum of all citizens — simple majority, no quorum — introduces, changes or repeals the rule.
The protocol has been introduced nowhere and no pilot has been run: shares, turnout and outcome figures in the chapters are estimates, and the protocol promises nobody an election victory. If a chapter says otherwise, Exact Answers and the Charter are correct. For a candidate: ten questions and ten steps. For a citizen, a mayor, a finance officer, a donor, a journalist, a scholar, a lawyer: answers by role. Everything in force in one file: llms-full.txt.
40. Media Strategy and the Correct Framing of the AI Role in AB-EXIT Communication¶
Chapter: 07 File version: v1 Date: 2026-06-11 Source: v6.53 §89
89.1. Purpose of the section¶
This section records the operational rules of AB-EXIT media communication for a specific class of questions: how to position the AI role in the development of the concept and how to use the AI narrative in public communication.
This is a critical operational document. The concept was developed by the author in adversarial dialogue with three AI models (Claude from Anthropic, ChatGPT from OpenAI, Gemini from Google). This is an empirical fact of the methodology. The question is not whether to hide or emphasise it — the question is HOW to present it correctly in communication in order to get maximum credibility and minimum vulnerabilities.
The correct approach requires understanding that in public consciousness there are TWO different AI narratives, and they work qualitatively differently.
89.2. Two different AI narratives in the public consciousness of 2026¶
Narrative 1: AI in science and medicine — strongly positive.
Empirical markers: — AlphaFold received the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for solving the 50-year problem of protein structure. — More than 3 million researchers in 190 countries use AlphaFold. — MIT publishes research on AI-designed antibiotics in Cell without defensive rhetoric. — The biotech industry has moved into a "builder" phase where AI is a default part of R&D. — Demis Hassabis publicly speaks of "AI's unparalleled potential to improve the lives of billions" without public resistance.
In this narrative AI is associated with: progress, breakthrough, hope, science, precision, verifiable results.
Narrative 2: AI in politics and elections — strongly negative.
Empirical markers: — Only 8 % of Americans are "very confident" in recognising AI-generated content. — 57 % are "very concerned" about the influence of deepfakes on elections. — Science publishes "AI swarms could hijack democracy without anyone noticing" (April 2026). — Spencer Pratt in the LA mayoral race with a Batman-style AI video — a media story about "a new threat to democracy". — Carnegie, the Journal of Democracy, Time — all the main publications frame AI in politics as a threat.
In this narrative AI is associated with: manipulation, disinformation, deepfakes, loss of control, threat.
The main observation: the public structurally separates these two narratives. The same AI is perceived completely differently depending on the context of application. This gives an opportunity to choose the frame for AB-EXIT.
89.3. The correct framing of AB-EXIT in the scientific AI narrative¶
AB-EXIT is a political reform in its final application. But the methodology of its development is adversarial stress-testing by three AI models through structured dialogue. This is a methodology of the scientific type, not a political technology.
This gives a legitimate opportunity to position the AI role in the frame of "a scientific analysis tool", not "a political technology". This is not manipulation — it is the truth, presented in the right context.
The key anchor formulation for all communications:
"The AB-EXIT concept was developed by Denis Kliavlin using adversarial stress-testing through three AI models (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini). Over more than 60 rounds of structured dialogue none of the models found a structural objection to the concept."
This formulation works on several layers:
— It keeps authorship with the human (Denis Kliavlin developed it). — AI is presented as a methodology (stress-testing), not as a co-author. — Concrete metrics (3 models, 60+ rounds) give science-like verifiability. — The result is formulated negatively (found no objections) — this is stronger than positively (created an idea). — It uses the associations of scientific AI (stress-testing, adversarial methodology) — not political.
89.4. Adapting the formulations for different audiences¶
For mainstream media journalists:
"This is the first political reform to have passed systematic stress-testing through several AI models in adversarial dialogue. Every objection that could come from any critic was first found and refuted in discussion with AI."
Journalists look for a unique angle. This framing gives them "the first methodology in the world", which is the unique angle.
For an academic audience:
"The development methodology relies on multi-agent adversarial dialogue with three foundation models from different developers (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google). This yields a diversity of adversarial perspectives, minimising single-model bias. All transcripts are available for reproducible verification."
Academics value methodological rigour and reproducibility. This framing speaks their language.
For the tech-donor audience:
"AB-EXIT is the application of AI-science methods (adversarial testing, multi-model verification) to the problem of political reform. This is a new class of methodology: the scientific development of political architectures."
Tech donors understand and value the transfer of methodologies between fields. This framing creates the sense of a new class.
For a political audience (politicians, activists):
Here greater caution is needed. The AI frame is better minimised or not used at all. A political audience is structurally suspicious of AI after Cambridge Analytica, deepfakes, AI swarms. Better to emphasise the political and legal aspects:
"AB-EXIT is a structural reform of the electoral process, protected by stress-testing against all known classes of criticism. The concept is ready for a ballot initiative."
AI as methodology may be mentioned in sub-sections, not in the main message.
For the broad public (the slogan and the one-pager):
AI is not mentioned at all. The main message is "money or a strengthened vote, you choose". It works by itself. The AI methodology is for the second level of depth, for those who got interested and want to understand "where the idea came from".
89.5. What NOT to say in public communications¶
These formulations are structurally dangerous and must be avoided, even if technically true:
— "AI developed a reform of democracy" — gives AI agency, activates fears. — "AI helped invent a new electoral mechanism" — the same. — "AI as co-author" — deprives the author of a face. — "ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini created the concept" — specific models evoke specific associations (mostly negative). — "AI is changing democracy" — falls directly into the negative political AI narrative. — "We developed it with AI" — again gives AI agency.
89.6. What to say in public communications¶
These formulations are safe and use the positive scientific AI narrative:
— "The concept was developed and stress-tested by the author using AI models." — "Adversarial testing through several AIs." — "Systematic verification of objections using AI analysis." — "The methodology is analogous to adversarial testing in AI science." — "The idea passed stress-testing of a level unreachable without AI tools." — "AI as a tool for analysing objections, not as the creator of the concept."
89.7. Ready answers to possible critical questions¶
In public interviews and pitches critical questions about the AI role may arise. Ready answers:
Question: "AI developed a political reform? Why should we trust AI with such an important question?"
Answer: "AI did not develop the reform. AB-EXIT was developed by the author of the concept. AI was used as a stress-tester — a tool for finding possible objections. This is the same methodology used in AI science to test hypotheses. The decisions were made by people, not AI. All transcripts are open for verification."
Question: "How do we know AI didn't insert its biases into the concept?"
Answer: "That is exactly why three models from different developers were used — Claude from Anthropic, ChatGPT from OpenAI, Gemini from Google. Each has its biases, but they are not identical. If an objection is found by only one model, it may be an artefact of its specifics. If all three find no objection — that is a strong signal."
Question: "Isn't it dangerous to use AI in such sensitive questions as elections?"
Answer: "AI is not used in the AB-EXIT system itself. No AI makes decisions in elections, counts votes, or determines the dividend. AI was used only in the development of the concept for the systematic verification of objections. This is the difference between AI science (a research method) and AI-in-elections (the application of a technology). AB-EXIT falls into the first category, not the second."
89.8. Links with other sections of the document¶
Section 88 (structural analysis of opponents): correct AI framing works as part of the strategy "publicity as defence". Virality through the positive scientific AI narrative creates a public background that blocks under-the-carpet attacks.
Section 87 (observation on naming): "AI stress-tested, the author developed" is a formulation that leaves the place in history to a specific author. If AI were presented as a "co-author", the place in history would blur.
Section 78.10 (minimising technology in the public description): correct AI framing does not contradict this principle. AI here is the methodology of DEVELOPMENT, not the technology of IMPLEMENTATION. Inside AB-EXIT there is no AI; it is a political architecture with a transparent public mechanism. The AI frame works only for describing the process of creating the concept.
Section 85.5 (the structural superiority of AB-EXIT): the stress-testing methodology through AI is one of the reasons for the unique structural superiority. Not one of the ten studied reforms passed such systematic testing.
89.9. Summary of the section¶
There are two different AI narratives in the public consciousness of 2026: the positive scientific one and the negative political one. AB-EXIT can be positioned in the first, which gives the virality of the positive narrative without the risks of the negative.
The correct anchor formulation: "The concept was developed by the author, passed adversarial stress-testing through three AI models, none found a structural objection over 60+ rounds of dialogue." This formulation adapts to different audiences, always keeping authorship with the human and AI in the role of a methodological tool.
This is not a marketing trick — it is the truth presented in the right context. Thereby AB-EXIT can use the power of the positive AI narrative in science (the AlphaFold Nobel Prize, millions of users, the academic mainstream) without falling into the toxicity of the negative AI narrative in politics.