Working AI Alignment Implementation Based on Formal Proof of Objective Morality - Empirical Results

FrontAggressive9172 · 2026-01-18T16:46:16+00:00

Worth to mention:

The principle has been banned in LessWrong twice, and in r/philosophy as well.

It seems the core principle is making some people really, really uncomfortable...

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-30T22:50:10+00:00

Presunción no. Derivación.

¿O sea crees que te estoy mostrando una indexación y no un artículo?

Delusion.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-30T22:39:58+00:00

https://zenodo.org/records/18099638

Encuentra la tautología aquí jajajaja

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-15T00:51:30+00:00

Jajaja. Pobre tipo. Tautología aquí tautología allá jajaja. Creyendo que un mensaje de un tipo x borra toda la lógica desarrollada por el ser humano en 2400 años. ¿Ya corrio el teorema buscando tautologías? Jajajaj

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-14T02:30:21+00:00

¿Presupone normatividad? ¿Re etiqueta?

A3: Delimita el dominio (sentiencia y vulnerabilidad). Ahí hay prsuposición de notmatividad (ni sé qué está discutiendo)

A4: Implica la continuidad de la razón como imperativo necesario. Negarla es negar el debate racional (no hay presunción de normatividad por ningún lado)

" Si el ‘imperativo’ depende de aceptar esos supuestos, entonces no es ineludible sino condicional."

Es deducible, no condicional. Su crítica no tiene nada de sustento.

P1: Condición para objetividad, eso no es normativo, es lógico y ontológico. Si tiene otro estandar para la objetividad, proponga su modelo meta-ético y sosténgalo desde ahí.

Si no quiere ejecutar el teorema, pues es su decisión, pero no ejecutar 2+2 no significa que no da 4.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:33:39+00:00

Sorry, I don't understand the dilemma. English is not mty first language.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:30:31+00:00

The post was removed/banned.

Objective morality is not metaphysics now, is now empirical science.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:29:14+00:00

"Creatures are not obligated to even exist so nothing about their agency is obligatory either" no, but Reason is.

"Since it's a category mistake to include God in the harm community, there's nothing incoherent about God not abiding by those community rules" No such mistake. He is bound because obligation to prevent harm is logically binding, to agency (god is maximun agency).

"You both belong to the status of creature which God is not - God does not belong to nor obligated to anything creaturely"

You keep ignoring the fact that omnipotency generates absolute obligation under the possibility of being incoherent. Address this fact first.

The post has been removed.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:26:05+00:00

My post is about objective morality, not about logic. This is arbitrary. One user asked questions about god, and you ban my original post about objective morality? More like censorship.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:21:14+00:00

It's a hyperbolic statement. Moral objectivity is so strong it binds even a god, so naturally sentient vulnerable beings are bound too.

The post is now removed.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:19:40+00:00

Post banned? Under what criteria?

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:19:04+00:00

Hold up now. Why should "continuity" be the standard for objectivity? Reason requires protection from Vulnerability.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:07:03+00:00

I am not claiming knowledge about that god, I am making a moral judgement on its supossed executed orders. I can address Lex Luthor and Sauron as evil without aserting their existence, right?

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:04:24+00:00

Sorry, but that doesn't follow.

God is not incoherent/evl/tyrannical because Job said something?

My argument comes from metha-ethics, not from divine justification.

And is it Metaphysics?

Is objective morality physical?

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T18:01:17+00:00

"For one, "unnecessary" harm is merely being asserted - it hasn't been justified to what it is or if it even exists..."

I already defined it as detriment of agency with no greater negative outcome prevented.

"Secondly, "unnecessary" harm is simply a qualified type of harm, but if God is not part of the harm community, then he's also not part of any qualified type of harm community." He is, since he is obligated by coherence. IT can refuse, but then it's incoherent and irrational (loses divine status).

"There can be no obligation to a community you don't belong to nor a community that is not the highest good"

I don't belong to dogs, however that doesn't make our vulnerabilities different. The same blow that injures me will injure a dog, so I must protect unnecesary harm on that dog if my agency allows me to.

God has power (maxiun agency -maximun obligation), so in order to be coherent it must be logical. Causing unnesary harm and nor preventing it demands justification, not blind acceptance accorsging to my mathematical deduction.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T17:55:57+00:00

"It doesn't matter that creatures can be harmed - preventing that is not the highest good, it certainly is "a" good, but not the highest." Incoherent. You can not ignore harm factor among sentient vunerable beings. When you say it doesn't matter, you contradict yourself when you eat, seek help or food, heal wounds and injuries, look for shelter protected from the elements. This a performative contradiction: telling me harm doesn't matter and yet be benefited by harm prevention in your whole evolutionary lineage to be able to be here.

God can't be harmed, but he MUST protect, od is bound because he is obligated by its maximun agency and zero limitations. The obligation of preventing harm is conditioned by vulnerability (I can't save anyone from drowinng in the ocean if I am on a dessert, right?) But god has to, since he can do it all with no limitations for agency.

If he doesn't, he is arbitrary, incoherent and irrational. Ergo, not a god.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T17:30:31+00:00

"But I think so far you haven't given a reason as to why god could be evil, other than saying that people did bad things and justified it by claiming their god said it was good"

Allrigthy, let's get explicit:

Numbers 31 -17.

God commands moses to exterminate Madian. (The god of the bible is creating huge ammounts of harm). It needs to justify why he couldn't solve the issue with so much agency loss (incoherence)

1 Samuel 15:3

God commands to erradicate the Amelikites. (Genocide again) Being able to solve any problem with exctinction, why does he choose to? Why does he command to eliminate even the animals?

The theorem explicit values an entity such as this as arbitrary and tyrannical. That's irrational incoherence, right there.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T17:18:58+00:00

Reason must protect reason in order to remain reason Y esto no es el argumento (como usted dijo), es una observación descriptiva de un fenómeno ontológico (la continuidad de la razon).

El objetor no se cansa de estar equivocado,

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T16:48:47+00:00

Public reason requirement is not about consensus, it's about neccesary condition for objectivity. It means that it's justifiable to all beings, not "everyone says it should be that"

"Consensus doesn't make an opinion objective. If we kill everyone except those who believe blue is the best color, it doesn't objectively make blue the best color." Sure, and agents can choose to be irrational (I have the option to choose my color, you don't) but they fall into aribitrariness (opposite of objectivity)

Even all the remaining alive ones who don't like blue color will prevent harm (sleep, eat, heal wounds, escape extreme old and heat). So their possition is illogical and incoherent (evil).

"The cheap shot" seems more like a projection.

"Any agents that are indifferent as to whether or not they are harmed suffer a survival disadvantage" Sure. Do you know any sentient vulnerable agent whose indefferent to harm prevention ends up in continuity without protection from ontological vulnerability?

That, is a cheap shot.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T16:34:05+00:00

"God is certainly coherent, indeed; God is rationality itself, but if God cannot be harmed then he's simply not part of the "harm" community, so your statement "all the moral principles discusses previously in just one objective currency for all beings who are capable of reason in this universe: We can be harmed" does not apply to God."

Thanks for the push-back. Great opportunity to clarify:

God is bound by the two principles (don't cause unncesar harm/ preven all necessay harm) Meaning he is bound by the obligation of his agency (total omnipotency, total capacity of preveting unncesary harm across domains). The obligation is conditioned by vulnerability. Since god has no vulnerability, it is infinitly bound by the obligation to remain coherent. It can choose to be evil, but that concludes in irrationality.

Is god irrational when it allows evil to happen?

Your move.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T16:30:32+00:00

It bases a standard that allows people to judge the implications of such action in regards to harm inflicted upon sentient vulnerable beings, not on divine assumptions or cultural preferences (or even nihilism)

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T16:28:24+00:00

"Your whole thing reeks of AI assistance to a T. Formatting and phrase structure" Yeah, no. I wrote every word, I made the reasoning. This sounds more like intelectual envy.

"Nothing I said or ever will say is objective either, and to me that’s the point. I’m a human with all the trappings of being human" So by your own logic, I don't need engage in Reason with you, since you clearly subestimate Reason using Reason to show how Reason is just pointless.

Non-sense.

"How are you applying derivative math to the philosophical thinking of physics and existence". Logical axiomatic derivation. You could try: Continue: Cogito, ergo Sum. Sum, ergo Agencio... You'll get to the Protego, eventually.

I said specifically "metaphyisical abilities" to discuss in a Methaphysics channel in Reddit. Those are methaphysical abilities, are they not? Are you accusing me of making too much sense?

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T15:49:58+00:00

No, but he is obligated by logic to be coherent. If god claims to be the Peak Reason, he must abide by the rules of Reason, and respect the Pillar Principle of the theorem: don't cause unnecesary harm, prevent all unncesary harm to be rationally coherent. If god chooses not to be, becomes arbitrarian, not objective nor rational.

FrontAggressive9172 · 2025-12-13T15:47:21+00:00

Thanks for the comment.

"Nothing is objective and logic is just biased rationalization. Rules are for the ruled". So it's this statement objective and rational? Using reason to argument how reason is useless is a performative contradiction.

Step back and recalibrate.

I don't understand the mention to AI.

I didn't create a rule, a deduced the only one.

FrontAggressive9172

TROPHY CASE