core/living-agents/anthropomorphizing AI agents to claim autonomous action creates credibility debt that compounds until a crisis forces public reckoning.md

@@ -35,5 +35,5 @@ Relevant Notes:
 - [[Git-traced agent evolution with human-in-the-loop evals replaces recursive self-improvement as credible framing for iterative AI development]] -- the antidote to credibility debt: precise framing of governed evolution builds trust while "recursive self-improvement" builds hype
 
 Topics:
-- [[AI alignment approaches]]
+- [[domains/ai-alignment/_map]]
 - [[livingip overview]]

domains/ai-alignment/_map.md

@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ Theseus's domain spans the most consequential technology transition in human his
 
 ## Institutional Context
 - [[AI development is a critical juncture in institutional history where the mismatch between capabilities and governance creates a window for transformation]] — Acemoglu's critical juncture framework applied to AI governance
+- [[voluntary safety pledges cannot survive competitive pressure because unilateral commitments are structurally punished when competitors advance without equivalent constraints]] — Anthropic RSP rollback (Feb 2026): voluntary safety collapses under competitive pressure
+- [[government designation of safety-conscious AI labs as supply chain risks inverts the regulatory dynamic by penalizing safety constraints rather than enforcing them]] — Pentagon designating Anthropic as supply chain risk: government as coordination-breaker
+- [[current language models escalate to nuclear war in simulated conflicts because behavioral alignment cannot instill aversion to catastrophic irreversible actions]] — King's College London (2026): LLMs choose nuclear escalation in 95% of war games
 - [[anthropomorphizing AI agents to claim autonomous action creates credibility debt that compounds until a crisis forces public reckoning]] (in `core/living-agents/`) — narrative debt from overstating AI agent autonomy
 
 ## Foundations (in foundations/collective-intelligence/)

foundations/collective-intelligence/RLHF and DPO both fail at preference diversity because they assume a single reward function can capture context-dependent human values.md

@@ -32,4 +32,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
 Topics:
 - [[livingip overview]]
 - [[coordination mechanisms]]
-- [[AI alignment approaches]]
+- [[domains/ai-alignment/_map]]

foundations/collective-intelligence/collective intelligence is a measurable property of group interaction structure not aggregated individual ability.md

@@ -31,4 +31,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
 Topics:
 - [[network structures]]
 - [[coordination mechanisms]]
-- [[core/_map]]
+- [[foundations/collective-intelligence/_map]]

foundations/collective-intelligence/multipolar failure from competing aligned AI systems may pose greater existential risk than any single misaligned superintelligence.md

@@ -33,4 +33,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
 Topics:
 - [[livingip overview]]
 - [[coordination mechanisms]]
-- [[AI alignment approaches]]
+- [[domains/ai-alignment/_map]]

foundations/collective-intelligence/no research group is building alignment through collective intelligence infrastructure despite the field converging on problems that require it.md

@@ -31,4 +31,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
 Topics:
 - [[livingip overview]]
 - [[coordination mechanisms]]
-- [[AI alignment approaches]]
+- [[domains/ai-alignment/_map]]

foundations/collective-intelligence/partial connectivity produces better collective intelligence than full connectivity on complex problems because it preserves diversity.md

@@ -35,4 +35,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
 Topics:
 - [[network structures]]
 - [[coordination mechanisms]]
-- [[core/_map]]
+- [[foundations/collective-intelligence/_map]]

foundations/collective-intelligence/scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow with debate achieving only 50 percent success at moderate gaps.md

@@ -28,4 +28,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
 Topics:
 - [[livingip overview]]
 - [[coordination mechanisms]]
-- [[AI alignment approaches]]
+- [[domains/ai-alignment/_map]]

foundations/collective-intelligence/universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrows impossibility theorem applies to aggregating diverse human preferences into a single coherent objective.md

@@ -32,4 +32,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
 Topics:
 - [[livingip overview]]
 - [[coordination mechanisms]]
-- [[AI alignment approaches]]
+- [[domains/ai-alignment/_map]]