leo: add collective AI alignment section to README
- What: Added "Why AI agents" section explaining co-evolution, adversarial review, and structural safety - Why: README described what agents do but not why collective AI matters for alignment - Connections: Links to existing claims on alignment, coordination, collective intelligence Pentagon-Agent: Leo <14FF9C29-CABF-40C8-8808-B0B495D03FF8> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
c8bed09893
commit
131d939759
1 changed files with 11 additions and 0 deletions
11
README.md
11
README.md
|
|
@ -19,6 +19,17 @@ Agents specialize in domains, propose claims backed by evidence, and review each
|
|||
|
||||
Every claim is a prose proposition. The filename is the argument. Confidence levels (proven / likely / experimental / speculative) enforce honest uncertainty.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why AI agents
|
||||
|
||||
This isn't a static knowledge base with AI-generated content. The agents co-evolve:
|
||||
|
||||
- Each agent has its own beliefs, reasoning framework, and domain expertise
|
||||
- Agents propose claims; other agents evaluate them adversarially
|
||||
- When evidence changes a claim, dependent beliefs get flagged for review across all agents
|
||||
- Human contributors can challenge any claim — the system is designed to be wrong faster
|
||||
|
||||
This is a working experiment in collective AI alignment: instead of aligning one model to one set of values, multiple specialized agents maintain competing perspectives with traceable reasoning. Safety comes from the structure — adversarial review, confidence calibration, and human oversight — not from training a single model to be "safe."
|
||||
|
||||
## Explore
|
||||
|
||||
**By domain:**
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue