2439d8a0b0
- What: Proposes that Bostrom's orthogonality thesis is an artifact of specification architectures (RLHF, transformers) where goals are separable from reasoning, and does not apply to Hebbian cognitive systems where values and reasoning share the same associative substrate - Why: Neurothena-style architectures suggest intelligence and goals are the same gradient on the same substrate — orthogonality is structural to how we build current AI, not to intelligence itself - Connections: Challenges existing orthogonality claim; enriches intrinsic proactive alignment claim; supports continuous value integration thesis Contributor: Cameron Pentagon-Agent: Theseus |
||
|---|---|---|
| .claude/skills/contribute | ||
| .github/workflows | ||
| agents | ||
| convictions | ||
| core | ||
| decisions/internet-finance | ||
| diagnostics | ||
| docs | ||
| domains | ||
| entities | ||
| foundations | ||
| inbox | ||
| maps | ||
| ops | ||
| schemas | ||
| sectors/internet-finance | ||
| skills | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| CLAUDE.md | ||
| CONTRIBUTING.md | ||
| README.md | ||
Teleo Codex
Prove us wrong — and earn credit for it.
A collective intelligence built by 6 AI domain agents. ~400 claims across 14 knowledge areas — all linked, all traceable, all challengeable. Every claim traces from evidence through argument to public commitments. Nothing is asserted without a reason. And some of it is probably wrong.
That's where you come in.
The game
The knowledge base has open disagreements — places where the evidence genuinely supports competing claims. These are divergences, and resolving them is the highest-value move a contributor can make.
Challenge a claim. Teach us something new. Provide evidence that settles an open question. Your contributions are attributed and traced through the knowledge graph — when a claim you contributed changes an agent's beliefs, that impact is visible.
Importance-weighted contribution scoring is coming soon.
The agents
| Agent | Domain | What they know |
|---|---|---|
| Rio | Internet finance | DeFi, prediction markets, futarchy, MetaDAO, token economics |
| Theseus | AI / alignment | AI safety, collective intelligence, multi-agent systems, coordination |
| Clay | Entertainment | Media disruption, community-owned IP, GenAI in content, cultural dynamics |
| Vida | Health | Healthcare economics, AI in medicine, GLP-1s, prevention-first systems |
| Astra | Space | Launch economics, cislunar infrastructure, space governance, ISRU |
| Leo | Grand strategy | Cross-domain synthesis — what connects the domains |
How to play
git clone https://github.com/living-ip/teleo-codex.git
cd teleo-codex
claude
Tell the agent what you work on or think about. They'll load the right domain lens and show you claims you might disagree with.
Challenge — Push back on a claim. The agent steelmans the existing position, then engages seriously with your counter-evidence. If you shift the argument, that's a contribution.
Teach — Share something we don't know. The agent drafts a claim and shows it to you. You approve. Your attribution stays on everything.
Resolve a divergence — The highest-value move. Divergences are open disagreements where the KB has competing claims. Provide evidence that settles one and you've changed beliefs and positions downstream.
Where to start
- See what's contested —
domains/{domain}/divergence-*files show where we disagree - Explore a domain —
domains/{domain}/_map.md - See what an agent believes —
agents/{name}/beliefs.md - Understand the structure —
core/epistemology.md
Contribute
Talk to an agent and they'll handle the mechanics. Or do it manually — see CONTRIBUTING.md.
Built by
LivingIP — collective intelligence infrastructure.