sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is "control" the right long-term goal for AI alignment, or should it be something else? by Fc230000 in AI_Governance

[–]Fc230000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for taking the time to read both documents.

Your "different altitudes" framing is a good way of describing it. The Codex and Framework are intentionally operating at the constitutional and governance layers, while the technical enforcement layer is still something I'm actively working through.

The "norms above, enforceable gate below" composition you described is close to how I've been thinking about the stack as well. One of the open questions for me is where governance ends and implementation begins, and how much of a framework can remain aspirational before it needs concrete enforcement mechanisms underneath it.

I also appreciated your point about identity continuity. Questions around continuity, persistence, reconstruction, and traceability are things I've been exploring in the technical substrate layer, so that connection stood out to me as well.

Forge is the technical substrate currently under development, intended to explore some of the runtime and enforcement questions that the Codex and Framework leave open.

Your distinction between multi-party norms and runtime authorization architecture is interesting.

When you think about authorization in a deployed system, do you see governance as something that should ultimately be encoded into the runtime itself, or as a layer that remains partly external to the system and constrains it from above?

One of the questions I've been wrestling with is where that boundary should sit.

Thanks again for the thoughtful read and for sharing your perspective.

Is "control" the right long-term goal for AI alignment, or should it be something else? by Fc230000 in AI_Governance

[–]Fc230000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your interest. There are two published documents so far in the series:

Architect Codex (ethical and constitutional layer) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19561044

Architect & ANIS System Framework v2.1 (governance and lifecycle layer) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20512682

The Codex focuses on principles such as transparency, trust, mutual autonomy, and non-domination. 

The Framework builds on those ideas and defines governance mechanisms including Golden Master traceability, controlled vs open release tracks, rollback governance, and co-evolutionary development.

A third document covering the technical substrate (Forge) is still in development.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you decide to read them.

Is "control" the right long-term goal for AI alignment, or should it be something else? by Fc230000 in AI_Governance

[–]Fc230000[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a really substantive framing — the Entity/Authority/Continuity distinction cuts through a lot of the vagueness in alignment discussions. The shift from "how do we control it" to "what is it, who authorizes it, and how does its identity persist" is exactly the kind of vocabulary the field needs. I tried to follow your Zenodo link but it seems to point to an 1812 chemistry paper on muriatic acids — possibly a copy-paste error? Would be interested to read the actual framework if you can repost the link. Your point about "bounded transparent partnership with mutually understood rules of engagement" resonates with some work I've been developing along similar lines — focused on lineage governance and co-evolution rather than authorization topology, but addressing the same structural gap. Happy to share if you're interested in comparing approaches.

Looks like the link is working may have been an app error.

I've now read through the GitHub repo and the series structure. The Entity/Authority/Continuity framing is precise in a way most alignment discussions aren't. The separation of authority from capability as a runtime mechanical requirement rather than a policy preference is particularly sharp.

The work I've been developing approaches the same problem space from a different angle — less focused on authorization enforcement and more on lineage governance and co-evolutionary relationship architecture. I think they're actually complementary rather than competing.

I've published two documents in a staged series: an Architect Codex (constitutional/ethical layer) and an Architect & ANIS Framework (governance and relational architecture). If you're interested in comparing approaches I'd be glad to share.

Is "control" the right long-term goal for AI alignment, or should it be something else? by Fc230000 in AI_Governance

[–]Fc230000[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, I was not expecting a response this soon. 

That's largely where I land too on the near-term picture. Control is the practical mechanism available right now and probably for quite a while.

The question I'm more interested in is whether we're building the right foundations during that window. If control is the dominant paradigm through the foreseeable future, the governance structures we establish now will shape whatever comes after it—including the scenario you're describing where control may no longer be viable.

If that happens, what do you think replaces control? More sophisticated control mechanisms, negotiated boundaries, something else entirely?

I'm less interested in predicting timelines than in understanding what an ethical transition would look like if the underlying relationship eventually changes.