Ethics
A model of a real person needs real limits.
Timbre builds a simulated conversation grounded in a real person’s public record. That is defensible, and it stays defensible only because of the six rules below. They are product constraints, not a statement of values.
Public sources only
Everything Timbre listens to was published by the subject or recorded with their participation and released publicly. Nothing behind a login, a follow request or a paywall. No leaks, whoever posted them.
Every claim carries its source
Claims about a person’s recorded positions carry citations to the clip and timestamp. Greetings do not need sources. A suggested application without direct evidence is labelled as a hypothetical take.
Simulations are clearly labelled
Chat uses first-person AI dialogue inspired by a person’s public recordings and conversational style. The interface identifies it as a simulation. Generated dialogue is not an actual quote, an endorsement, or a statement by the real person.
Evidence and suggestions stay distinct
Where recordings do not cover a question, Timbre does not invent a historical position. A simulation may reason through a new scenario or ask a clarifying question, with unsupported applications labelled as hypothetical.
Deletion is respected
A recording the subject took down is treated as a retraction. Tell us about one and its passages come out of the profile. Timbre is not an archive of things people took back.
Removal on request
Any subject can have their profile taken down by writing from a verifiable account. It comes down for everyone, and it does not come back unless they ask. We do not require a legal basis and we do not negotiate.
What this is not
It is a reading, and a reading can be wrong.
A person is not their public record. Everyone edits in public, holds views they have never aired, and says things on stage they would not say at a table. Timbre models the record, and the record is a performance as much as it is a person.
So treat an answer as a well-sourced argument about what someone probably thinks, not as testimony. It is most reliable on positions stated many times over many years, and least reliable the moment you wander into what they have barely discussed. The coverage indicator exists to tell you which of those you are looking at.
If you would not act on a well-argued essay about someone written by a stranger who read everything they published, do not act on this either.
Are you in the library and want out?
Write from any account that verifiably belongs to you. No form, no legal basis, no conversation about why. It comes down.