# Collective Intelligence — The Theory

What collective intelligence IS, how it works, why alignment is a coordination problem, and the theoretical foundations for designed emergence. This is the science, not the LivingIP-specific application — that lives in core/.

## Intelligence Foundations
- [[intelligence is a property of networks not individuals]] — the core premise
- [[collective intelligence is a measurable property of group interaction structure not aggregated individual ability]] — CI is structural, not aggregate
- [[collective intelligence requires diversity as a structural precondition not a moral preference]] — diversity is functional engineering
- [[centaur teams outperform both pure humans and pure AI because complementary strengths compound]] — the human-AI pattern
- [[partial connectivity produces better collective intelligence than full connectivity on complex problems because it preserves diversity]] — network topology matters
- [[collective superintelligence is the alternative to monolithic AI controlled by a few]] — the alternative path
- [[three paths to superintelligence exist but only collective superintelligence preserves human agency]] — why collective is the right path
- [[collective intelligence within a purpose-driven community faces a structural tension because shared worldview correlates errors while shared purpose enables coordination]] — the core tension

## Coordination Design
- [[designing coordination rules is categorically different from designing coordination outcomes as nine intellectual traditions independently confirm]] — rules not outcomes
- [[Ostrom proved communities self-govern shared resources when eight design principles are met without requiring state control or privatization]] — the empirical evidence
- [[protocol design enables emergent coordination of arbitrary complexity as Linux Bitcoin and Wikipedia demonstrate]] — the existence proofs
- [[trial and error is the only coordination strategy humanity has ever used]] — the current limitation
- [[Hayek argued that designed rules of just conduct enable spontaneous order of greater complexity than deliberate arrangement could achieve]] — the Hayek insight

## AI Alignment as Coordination
- [[AI alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem]] — the reframe
- [[universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrows impossibility theorem applies to aggregating diverse human preferences into a single coherent objective]] — the impossibility result
- [[RLHF and DPO both fail at preference diversity because they assume a single reward function can capture context-dependent human values]] — why current approaches fail
- [[scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow with debate achieving only 50 percent success at moderate gaps]] — the scalability problem
- [[the alignment problem dissolves when human values are continuously woven into the system rather than specified in advance]] — the LivingIP answer
- [[no research group is building alignment through collective intelligence infrastructure despite the field converging on problems that require it]] — the gap we fill
- [[multipolar failure from competing aligned AI systems may pose greater existential risk than any single misaligned superintelligence]] — the multipolar risk
- [[the alignment tax creates a structural race to the bottom because safety training costs capability and rational competitors skip it]] — the race dynamic
- [[safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability]] — the sequencing requirement
