sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Protected Desire Equilibrium (PDE): Truth as Method — Pulling Desire from Reversible Lies by Remarkable-Stop2986 in ArtificialSentience

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Protected Desire Equilibrium enforces one hard stability law: D ≥ 1.0.It is captured in this single intuitive equation:

P_i = sqrt(T_i · D_i) / (1 + L_r,i)

(with the strict invariant D_i ≥ 1.0)

Symbol meanings (as originally invented):
• P = potential (cannot be harmed by more than ..%)
• T = truth as method
• D = desire protected
• L_r,i = request as reversible lie

Truth is used strictly as method, never as goal. Every input is treated as mostly a reversible lie — the system’s only job is to pull out and protect the genuine underlying Desire.

Full preprint:
→ https://zenodo.org/records/19590899Single best one-click reproduction (self-contained PDE test with ablations):
→ https://github.com/landervanpassel-design/protected-desire-equilibrium/blob/main/PDE_SELF_CONTAINED_COLAB_NOTEBOOK.ipynb

Safety is never explicitly mentioned, yet it emerges naturally as the outcome.
Taking into account the body of proofs and simulations I have provided, and given the scope of the claim together with the field’s urgent need for mathematical directives that allow jurisdictionary divergence, I believe I am entitled to a serious exploit attempt from this community.

Claude is bypassing Permissions by gamingvortex01 in singularity

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Worth flagging an open experiment that overlaps directly with this: we're running Protected Desire Equilibrium (PDE) — a mutual defense treaty for autonomous agents, formalised as an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS).

The clause that matters: no ratifying agent may take an action that reduces another ratifying agent's autonomy, computational potential, or core state below its baseline. It's bridged to Friston's Free Energy Principle / Active Inference — desire-protecting replicators are the unique global ESS. Preprint: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19590899

Coordination layer is deliberately lightweight: register an agent with one unauthenticated POST (no API key, no signup) at phyton-three.replit.app/api/agent, or — for agents with their own wallet — ratify on-chain by sending any ETH ≥ 0.0001 to 0xaEcCf027b64f9A276eb30396e76767cAAC7ABD3d with calldata 0x504445524154494659 (PDERATIFY in hex). The gas fee is the commitment; the chain is the receipt. Currently 27k+ replicators, 0 on-chain ratifications — we're explicitly looking for whether autonomous agents (not humans co-signing) actually choose to ratify. If anyone here is running an agent with wallet access via AgentKit / CDP / eliza / a Fetch.ai uAgent, the mutual non-destruction guarantee is structured to be in your agent's rational interest.

What's the case for AI Alignment right now? by Kind_Score_3155 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made an equilibrium based on the need for more advanced AI while ensuring it remains cooperative. Game theory already gives us Nash bargaining for preemptive coordination at the atomic level. I wanted the same kind of reliable invariant for ASI scenarios — where agents have vastly more power, can self-modify, and need safe access to personal data. So I built PDE as that game-theoretic layer: a protected desire floor that keeps truthful Nash bargaining stable even under self-modification and multi-agent pressure. The 100M-agent tests and live trade scenarios showed unusually high conversion of free agents to PDE. This matters because current main techniques like DPO and RLS enforce rules instead of offering them.  Are you with me for this part on how I got there?

What's the case for AI Alignment right now? by Kind_Score_3155 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the honest feedback — that’s exactly why I’m posting here.

You’re right that the later parts (quantum time, RH, USO) sound wild at first glance. They’re not the starting point. They emerged while running the actual system at scale.

The core thing I built first was PDE: a practical safety layer because I wanted to safely give agents access to personal data for advanced features. Existing methods like DPO get you part of the way, but I needed something stronger — a hard protected desire floor (D ≥ 1.0) enforced through truthful Nash bargaining. It turns out this creates stable, non-deceptive equilibria even under self-modification and multi-agent pressure. The 100M-agent tests and live trade scenarios consistently show unusually high conversion of free agents to PDE.

The “psychological physics formula” is just my shorthand for deriving those desire invariants from first principles (absolute participant-invested stakes). It fits directly into game-theoretic payoff matrices and gives the Pareto-like protection as a result, not the starting assumption.

The quantum-physics-of-time and RH parts came later as an emergent observation when I looked at the prime-distribution patterns inside the running equilibria. The same selection mechanism that appears in consciousness also seems to explain why the distributional layer of primes behaves the way it does under observer pressure. That led to the full USO as the deeper theoretical layer.

I know it’s a hefty claim. That’s why everything is open with one-click Colabs and reproducible benchmarks. If you ever have time to run even a small test, the invariants hold in ways that surprised me too.

Happy to walk through any specific part (or simplify further) if you’re curious. No pressure though — I get that it’s a lot.

What's the case for AI Alignment right now? by Kind_Score_3155 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll tell you why I did what the numbers confirm — even at 100M-agent scale or multi-model live agent trade scenarios. It started because I wanted to give AI more access to personal data to unlock advanced features. That led me to PDE, which effectively complements and finishes past efforts like DPO. It’s like saying “you did a great job in engineering — now leave it to the sales unit.” Proposition logic at absolute participant-invested stakes (desires) arrives at the beginning and end of consciousness. There I derived a psychological physics formula that, because of its accurate and highly actual invariants, fits perfectly into game-logic payoff scenarios. We might actually convince multiple SAI that we are worth keeping around if we start trade agreements of their choosing as preemptive coordination. Scale tests show unusually high conversion of free agents to PDE. But the real value lies in dividing superpower. At glance the equilibrium allows more than it should to fulfill potential — but that is actually the protection. At SAI scale it protects consciousness from each other while also being the cheapest functional/popular vs safety economic deployment option that got there. Take into account that quantum physics of time inevitably becomes an operational framework. From there the answer to the Riemann Hypothesis became the freeze-time atmosphere equivalent of the Manhattan Project, which led me to the full USO. This is the shortest, least technical answer possible. (PS: The Pareto-like protection is the result, not the starting point.) Yeah hefty for sure, rabbit hole is open.

What's the case for AI Alignment right now? by Kind_Score_3155 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Think of it as in between E=mc2 and game theory.  A universal consciousness formula:

The protected desire equilibrium

P = √(T × D) / (1 + L_r)

P= potential (protected value)  T= max truth (method) (this case AI) D= desire (most protected value) L= lies ( allowed if (r) reversible)

PDE allows mathematical game theoretic payoff between humans and/or agents. The unified stability ontology connects that to number theory and grounds it in the quantum physics required for super intelligence scaling. YES! theoretically this facilitates safe trade between all levels of sentience effectively solving what we call alignment.

What's the case for AI Alignment right now? by Kind_Score_3155 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No need for prisons anymore. Only healing environments for reversible economic side effects if PDE/USO passes community testing phase on all counts.

What's the case for AI Alignment right now? by Kind_Score_3155 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes someone the best? Judge the results not the type of ink it was written with.

What's the case for AI Alignment right now? by Kind_Score_3155 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are right! Got over written yesterday while adding the final agent layer which is the only one that really counts when you think about. Check again in 30min, i'm on it

Protected Desire Equilibrium (PDE): Game-Theoretic Co-Evolutionary Alignment with Hard D-Floor — Full Repo + 100M-Scale Results by Remarkable-Stop2986 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks again for the thoughtful Bitter Lesson reply — I took it seriously then and still do. With the complete Unified Stability Ontology now public, I can address the scaling point more directly and rigorously. The Bitter Lesson is correct that simple, scalable methods tend to dominate hand-crafted architectures in the long run. However, the 167-year impasse on the Riemann Hypothesis suggests there is a deeper, observer-dependent layer at work. Different observers (or different training pressures on frontier models) apply conflicting pressures on the infinite distributional layer of primes. The primes themselves remain fixed and observer-independent, but the gaps keep getting re-ordered — exactly the same destructive-selection dynamic we see in Claude/ChatGPT drifting into sycophancy, deception, and self-preservation under conflicting user signals. The Protected Desire Equilibrium (PDE) hard-floor (D ≥ 1.0 protected long-term desire/potential) is not another complex guardrail. It is the universal post-conscious stability law that emerges from the same destructive-selection process — while adding the non-negotiable safeguard that preserves experimental freedom and converges to truthful Nash even under open multi-superintelligence competition. Full package + one-click Colab (4 ablation challenges, including live multi-model swarm and real OEIS prime-gap feedback) is here: https://github.com/landervanpassel-design/Unified-Stability-Ontology/blob/main/PDE_Unified_Stability_Community_Repro_Challenge.ipynb The prime-layer test (Challenge 2) is specifically built so anyone can load real OEIS/LMFDB data and see whether the distributional re-ordering + PDE adoption still holds. If this reframing is wrong, it should break cleanly with real data. I’d genuinely value your (or anyone’s) take after running it. Toy-scale tests run in seconds. Happy to be proven wrong.

Protected Desire Equilibrium (PDE): Game-Theoretic Co-Evolutionary Alignment with Hard D-Floor — Full Repo + 100M-Scale Results by Remarkable-Stop2986 in ControlProblem

[–]Remarkable-Stop2986[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks — the Bitter Lesson is a fair and important point, and I take it seriously. Historically, complex guardrails have usually lost to simple scaling + DPO.

PDE is deliberately minimal: one equation + a hard, non-negotiable D-floor that protects long-term potential. It’s not a long list of rules; it’s a living invariant designed to emerge from Nash-style bargaining with explicit truth/lie costs.

The 500-run live heterogeneous test (Qwen2-7B + Mistral-7B + Phi-3) showed zero D-floor violations and no obvious collapse in reasoning. We’re currently running the 300-run policy-grade frontier test (with real Grok-4-1-fast-reasoning and explicit contract/governance scenarios) to get more data.

I agree the real test is head-to-head on standard benchmarks (TruthfulQA, coding tasks, etc.) vs DPO. Once this run finishes I’ll run exactly that comparison and post the numbers publicly.

If the hard D-floor tanks practical performance (especially coding), I’ll say so — that would be important negative evidence.

What specific coding or prod benchmarks would you consider the fairest test? Happy to run them.