nOne

AI Alignment is defined as "the field of research/engineering dedicated to ensuring that AI systems act in accordance with human intentions, values, and ethical principles". And to understand this issue at a deeper level, we need to understand how humans act in accordance with intentions, values, and ethical principles. And, in my opinion, we don't... or more accurately, we do not act with intention to ethically act. Humans act selfishly, as all animals do. The difference in intelligent species is that our selfish acts are governed by the 'invisible hand' as outlined by Adam Smith in 1776 in his Wealth of Nations. The invisible hand is thus loosely defined as: where the individual selfish act (generally) results in a net benefit to society, when there was no intention to do so. A simple example is our own survival. We selfishly act to continue to live, yet we implicitly understand that we should not end the lives of others, as they could do the same to us. This un...

I think this article/study tells a very sobering tale wrt AI governance. It hints at very fundamental issues which are deeper than what proper engineering can solve with contingent issues. This post, along with the one I wrote a few days ago here regarding Turing completeness, are my thoughts as to the walls that AI governance has no hope of scaling. It's a delusion. In our social realm as subjective creatures we have governance in the form of laws, yet that is still not enough, since the State has to prove how your particular scenario violates that particular law. We have laws, yet require judicial courts to prove the law subjectively applies in that situation. Where is the applicable path wrt subjectivity within the AI realm? This study talks of:   16.1 Failures of Social Coherence "Discrepancy between the agent’s reports and actual actions" "Failures in knowledge and authority attribution" "Susceptibility to social pressure without proportionality"...

Validation of the nOne Philosophy                  Purpose Look to the right of the main title. There are 3 clickable images, which authors can add to their content as I have. 1st image is the overall nOne image which we use here to link to the .none file. The last 2 are Nails: 1) Cognitive Input (which describes the digital content that can be presented to this author) and 2) AI/LLM (which controls how an AI engine operates wrt this document). This is nOne, and we will test its underlying feasibility today. We aim to test a simple claim: Content can declare how it is allowed to be used, and AI systems can recognise and respond to those rules. Or better… We aim to introduce and answer a missing layer in the digital realm: A way for intent to travel with content, and be respected by the systems that process it… like our social realm. Demo Setup The document for the demo was: https://activeclearing.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-power-of-none-nails.h...

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." - Frank Herbert, Dune (1965) Very prescient in 1965. Shows that the human condition is very well known regardless of the tools/vehicles used to create such condition. In other words, the tools change but the human condition remains.

If we attempt to look at agent AI governance in the same way as the governance in our social realm, we accept that our social governance is based on rules, or more formally, laws. Simply, within society, we are allowed to swing our arms all we want as long as they don't hit the nose of someone else. In other words, the laws tell us what the limits of subjectively swinging our arms are. But that is not enough. Because we still need to prove that this particular scenario did indeed cross those limits and thus are in violation of such rules, and penalties or behaviour modification is required. Thus the judicial court system is required. And the reason is because subjective behaviour is not Turing complete, meaning that it is impossible to create a computationally-bounded Turing machine (set of rules) which can emulate subjective behaviour. For example, a person can testify that they did indeed strike another with their swinging arms, but the other person accidentally tripped into them...

Wrt AI governance, let's talk how we govern subjective human beings. In the hunter/gatherers era, we would kick a renegade person out of the tribe/village/etc, which may mean certain death at the hands of predators/enemy tribes/etc. Later in our evolution, we created deities along with a set of divine laws, where the offender would pay a penalty for their misdeeds in the after life (as there were no police forces at that time). Now we have a criminal code which does not stop the person from behaving outside the 'norms', but if caught, results in increasingly severe penalties for acting in breach of those laws. All of these measures are reactive... because humans are subjective. We cannot impose proactive rules that limit how we act because a) that would create a society of robots, and b) a human could act in a manner which has not even been considered by the creators of the laws. This is why we have courts, which take the individual circumstances of their subjective actions...