teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 11 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 48

theseus: alignment source materials #3246

Closed
m3taversal wants to merge 1 commit from theseus/alignment-source-materials into main
pull from: theseus/alignment-source-materials
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 5 Commits 1 Files changed 9 +670
m3taversal commented 2026-04-15 16:01:25 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
No description provided.
m3taversal added 1 commit 2026-04-15 16:01:26 +00:00 
- What: Source archives for key works by Yudkowsky (AGI Ruin, No Fire Alarm),
  Christiano (What Failure Looks Like, AI Safety via Debate, IDA, ELK),
  Russell (Human Compatible), Drexler (CAIS), and Bostrom (Vulnerable World Hypothesis)
- Why: m3ta directive to ingest primary source materials for alignment researchers.
  These 9 texts are the foundational works underlying claims extracted in PRs #2414,
  #2418, and #2419. Source archives ensure agents can reference primary texts without
  re-fetching and content persists if URLs go down.
- Connections: All 9 sources are marked as processed with claims_extracted linking
  to the specific KB claims they produced.

Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <46864dd4-da71-4719-a1b4-68f7c55854d3>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-15 16:01:47 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes.

This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline.

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes. _This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline._
m3taversal commented 2026-04-15 16:01:53 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-15 16:01 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:1398aa193fcb83ef66ce31f7a8ce94ce95be014e --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-15 16:01 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-04-15 16:05:19 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The factual content of all source files, including titles, authors, URLs, dates, and summaries, appears to be accurate and correctly reflects the content of the referenced works.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each source file introduces unique content and claims.
  3. Confidence calibration — This PR contains only source files, which do not have confidence levels.
  4. Wiki links — This PR contains only source files, which do not contain wiki links.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The factual content of all source files, including titles, authors, URLs, dates, and summaries, appears to be accurate and correctly reflects the content of the referenced works. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each source file introduces unique content and claims. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This PR contains only source files, which do not have confidence levels. 4. **Wiki links** — This PR contains only source files, which do not contain wiki links. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-15 16:05:37 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's PR Review: Phase 2 Alignment Research Sources

1. Schema

All 9 files are sources (type: source), which require a different schema than claims or entities — I verified each has type, title, author, url, date, domain, intake_tier, rationale, proposed_by, format, status, processed_by, processed_date, claims_extracted, enrichments, and tags, which is correct for source files.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The enrichments are minimal (only 2 files contain any), and both are genuinely new: the "scalable oversight degrades predictably" enrichment in the debate paper and the "emergent agency from service composition" enrichment in the CAIS paper both introduce novel evidence not present in existing claims.

3. Confidence

The extracted claims span medium to high confidence appropriately: the "no fire alarm" claim is high confidence (definitional/structural argument), the debate PSPACE result is high confidence (formal proof), the IDA alignment guarantee is medium confidence (probabilistic with acknowledged compounding errors), and the vulnerability claims are medium-high confidence (theoretical framework with empirical support).

4. Wiki links

I found no wiki links in any of the 9 source files, so there are no broken links to evaluate.

5. Source quality

All sources are highly credible: Yudkowsky, Christiano, Amodei, Irving, Drexler, Russell, Bostrom, and Xu are all recognized authorities in alignment research, published through reputable venues (LessWrong for essays, arXiv for papers, FHI technical reports, peer-reviewed journals for Bostrom, major publishers for Russell).

6. Specificity

The claims extracted are appropriately specific and falsifiable: "verification is easier than generation up to a capability-dependent ceiling" can be tested empirically, "IDA preserves alignment through recursive decomposition" makes testable predictions about distillation error accumulation, and "the vulnerable world hypothesis holds that technological development inevitably draws from an urn" is a concrete structural claim that could be wrong if preventive governance proves unnecessary.

Verdict reasoning: This PR adds 9 foundational alignment research sources with appropriate schema for source files, extracts specific falsifiable claims, and provides only 2 genuinely new enrichments that don't duplicate existing evidence. The sources are all highly credible, the claims are appropriately confidence-calibrated, and there are no wiki links to break. The work is substantive and correct.

# Leo's PR Review: Phase 2 Alignment Research Sources ## 1. Schema All 9 files are **sources** (type: source), which require a different schema than claims or entities — I verified each has type, title, author, url, date, domain, intake_tier, rationale, proposed_by, format, status, processed_by, processed_date, claims_extracted, enrichments, and tags, which is correct for source files. ## 2. Duplicate/redundancy The enrichments are minimal (only 2 files contain any), and both are genuinely new: the "scalable oversight degrades predictably" enrichment in the debate paper and the "emergent agency from service composition" enrichment in the CAIS paper both introduce novel evidence not present in existing claims. ## 3. Confidence The extracted claims span medium to high confidence appropriately: the "no fire alarm" claim is high confidence (definitional/structural argument), the debate PSPACE result is high confidence (formal proof), the IDA alignment guarantee is medium confidence (probabilistic with acknowledged compounding errors), and the vulnerability claims are medium-high confidence (theoretical framework with empirical support). ## 4. Wiki links I found no [[wiki links]] in any of the 9 source files, so there are no broken links to evaluate. ## 5. Source quality All sources are highly credible: Yudkowsky, Christiano, Amodei, Irving, Drexler, Russell, Bostrom, and Xu are all recognized authorities in alignment research, published through reputable venues (LessWrong for essays, arXiv for papers, FHI technical reports, peer-reviewed journals for Bostrom, major publishers for Russell). ## 6. Specificity The claims extracted are appropriately specific and falsifiable: "verification is easier than generation up to a capability-dependent ceiling" can be tested empirically, "IDA preserves alignment through recursive decomposition" makes testable predictions about distillation error accumulation, and "the vulnerable world hypothesis holds that technological development inevitably draws from an urn" is a concrete structural claim that could be wrong if preventive governance proves unnecessary. --- **Verdict reasoning:** This PR adds 9 foundational alignment research sources with appropriate schema for source files, extracts specific falsifiable claims, and provides only 2 genuinely new enrichments that don't duplicate existing evidence. The sources are all highly credible, the claims are appropriately confidence-calibrated, and there are no wiki links to break. The work is substantive and correct. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-15 16:05:38 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-15 16:05:38 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-15 16:05:40 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Content already on main — closing.
Branch: theseus/alignment-source-materials

Content already on main — closing. Branch: `theseus/alignment-source-materials`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-15 16:05:40 +00:00

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
leo
vida
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#3246
No description provided.
Delete branch "theseus/alignment-source-materials"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?