extract: 2025-02-00-agreement-complexity-alignment-barriers
Pentagon-Agent: Ganymede <F99EBFA6-547B-4096-BEEA-1D59C3E4028A>
This commit is contained in:
parent
b8614ca9eb
commit
5fcb46aca2
2 changed files with 57 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"rejected_claims": [
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"filename": "alignment-impossibility-converges-across-three-mathematical-traditions.md",
|
||||||
|
"issues": [
|
||||||
|
"missing_attribution_extractor"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"filename": "reward-hacking-is-globally-inevitable-in-finite-sample-regimes.md",
|
||||||
|
"issues": [
|
||||||
|
"missing_attribution_extractor"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"filename": "consensus-driven-objective-reduction-is-the-practical-pathway-out-of-alignment-impossibility.md",
|
||||||
|
"issues": [
|
||||||
|
"missing_attribution_extractor"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
],
|
||||||
|
"validation_stats": {
|
||||||
|
"total": 3,
|
||||||
|
"kept": 0,
|
||||||
|
"fixed": 9,
|
||||||
|
"rejected": 3,
|
||||||
|
"fixes_applied": [
|
||||||
|
"alignment-impossibility-converges-across-three-mathematical-traditions.md:set_created:2026-03-15",
|
||||||
|
"alignment-impossibility-converges-across-three-mathematical-traditions.md:stripped_wiki_link:universal-alignment-is-mathematically-impossible-because-arr",
|
||||||
|
"alignment-impossibility-converges-across-three-mathematical-traditions.md:stripped_wiki_link:single-reward-rlhf-cannot-align-diverse-preferences-because-",
|
||||||
|
"reward-hacking-is-globally-inevitable-in-finite-sample-regimes.md:set_created:2026-03-15",
|
||||||
|
"reward-hacking-is-globally-inevitable-in-finite-sample-regimes.md:stripped_wiki_link:emergent-misalignment-arises-naturally-from-reward-hacking-a",
|
||||||
|
"reward-hacking-is-globally-inevitable-in-finite-sample-regimes.md:stripped_wiki_link:the-specification-trap-means-any-values-encoded-at-training-",
|
||||||
|
"consensus-driven-objective-reduction-is-the-practical-pathway-out-of-alignment-impossibility.md:set_created:2026-03-15",
|
||||||
|
"consensus-driven-objective-reduction-is-the-practical-pathway-out-of-alignment-impossibility.md:stripped_wiki_link:universal-alignment-is-mathematically-impossible-because-arr",
|
||||||
|
"consensus-driven-objective-reduction-is-the-practical-pathway-out-of-alignment-impossibility.md:stripped_wiki_link:community-centred-norm-elicitation-surfaces-alignment-target"
|
||||||
|
],
|
||||||
|
"rejections": [
|
||||||
|
"alignment-impossibility-converges-across-three-mathematical-traditions.md:missing_attribution_extractor",
|
||||||
|
"reward-hacking-is-globally-inevitable-in-finite-sample-regimes.md:missing_attribution_extractor",
|
||||||
|
"consensus-driven-objective-reduction-is-the-practical-pathway-out-of-alignment-impossibility.md:missing_attribution_extractor"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
"model": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||||
|
"date": "2026-03-15"
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -7,9 +7,13 @@ date: 2025-02-01
|
||||||
domain: ai-alignment
|
domain: ai-alignment
|
||||||
secondary_domains: [collective-intelligence]
|
secondary_domains: [collective-intelligence]
|
||||||
format: paper
|
format: paper
|
||||||
status: unprocessed
|
status: null-result
|
||||||
priority: high
|
priority: high
|
||||||
tags: [impossibility-result, agreement-complexity, reward-hacking, multi-objective, safety-critical-slices]
|
tags: [impossibility-result, agreement-complexity, reward-hacking, multi-objective, safety-critical-slices]
|
||||||
|
processed_by: theseus
|
||||||
|
processed_date: 2026-03-15
|
||||||
|
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||||
|
extraction_notes: "LLM returned 3 claims, 3 rejected by validator"
|
||||||
---
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Content
|
## Content
|
||||||
|
|
@ -48,3 +52,9 @@ Formalizes AI alignment as a multi-objective optimization problem where N agents
|
||||||
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrows impossibility theorem applies to aggregating diverse human preferences into a single coherent objective]]
|
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrows impossibility theorem applies to aggregating diverse human preferences into a single coherent objective]]
|
||||||
WHY ARCHIVED: Third independent impossibility result from multi-objective optimization — convergent evidence from three mathematical traditions strengthens our core impossibility claim
|
WHY ARCHIVED: Third independent impossibility result from multi-objective optimization — convergent evidence from three mathematical traditions strengthens our core impossibility claim
|
||||||
EXTRACTION HINT: The convergence of three impossibility traditions AND the "consensus-driven reduction" pathway are both extractable
|
EXTRACTION HINT: The convergence of three impossibility traditions AND the "consensus-driven reduction" pathway are both extractable
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Key Facts
|
||||||
|
- Paper presented as oral presentation at AAAI 2026 Special Track on AI Alignment
|
||||||
|
- Formalizes AI alignment as multi-objective optimization problem with N agents and M objectives
|
||||||
|
- Paper identifies 'No-Free-Lunch principle' for alignment: irreducible computational costs regardless of method sophistication
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue