673c751b76
## Summary Comprehensive audit of all 86 foundation claims across 4 subdomains. **Changes:** - 7 claims moved (3 → domains/ai-alignment/, 3 → core/teleohumanity/, 1 → domains/health/) - 4 claims deleted (1 duplicate, 3 condensed into stronger claims) - 3 condensations: cognitive limits 3→2, Christensen 4→2 - 10 confidence demotions (proven→likely for interpretive framings) - 23 type fixes (framework/insight/pattern → claim per schema) - 1 centaur rewrite (unconditional → conditional on role complementarity) - All broken wiki links fixed across repo **Review:** All 4 domain agents approved (Rio, Clay, Vida, Theseus). Pentagon-Agent: Leo <76FB9BCA-CC16-4479-B3E5-25A3769B3D7E>
30 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
30 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
# Collective Intelligence — The Theory
|
|
|
|
What collective intelligence IS, how it works, and the theoretical foundations for designed emergence. Domain-independent science — the TeleoHumanity-specific interpretation lives in core/teleohumanity/, and alignment-specific applications live in domains/ai-alignment/.
|
|
|
|
## Intelligence Foundations
|
|
- [[intelligence is a property of networks not individuals]] — the core premise
|
|
- [[collective intelligence is a measurable property of group interaction structure not aggregated individual ability]] — CI is structural, not aggregate
|
|
- [[collective intelligence requires diversity as a structural precondition not a moral preference]] — diversity is functional engineering
|
|
- [[centaur team performance depends on role complementarity not mere human-AI combination]] — conditional, not unconditional
|
|
- [[partial connectivity produces better collective intelligence than full connectivity on complex problems because it preserves diversity]] — network topology matters
|
|
- [[collective intelligence within a purpose-driven community faces a structural tension because shared worldview correlates errors while shared purpose enables coordination]] — the core tension
|
|
|
|
## Coordination Design
|
|
- [[designing coordination rules is categorically different from designing coordination outcomes as nine intellectual traditions independently confirm]] — rules not outcomes
|
|
- [[Ostrom proved communities self-govern shared resources when eight design principles are met without requiring state control or privatization]] — the empirical evidence
|
|
- [[protocol design enables emergent coordination of arbitrary complexity as Linux Bitcoin and Wikipedia demonstrate]] — the existence proofs
|
|
- [[trial and error is the only coordination strategy humanity has ever used]] — the current limitation
|
|
- [[Hayek argued that designed rules of just conduct enable spontaneous order of greater complexity than deliberate arrangement could achieve]] — the Hayek insight
|
|
|
|
## AI Alignment as Coordination (domain-independent theory)
|
|
- [[universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrows impossibility theorem applies to aggregating diverse human preferences into a single coherent objective]] — the impossibility result
|
|
- [[RLHF and DPO both fail at preference diversity because they assume a single reward function can capture context-dependent human values]] — why current approaches fail
|
|
- [[scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow with debate achieving only 50 percent success at moderate gaps]] — the scalability problem
|
|
- [[multipolar failure from competing aligned AI systems may pose greater existential risk than any single misaligned superintelligence]] — the multipolar risk
|
|
- [[the alignment tax creates a structural race to the bottom because safety training costs capability and rational competitors skip it]] — the race dynamic
|
|
|
|
## Moved to other layers (foundations audit 2026-03-07)
|
|
Claims below were moved because they are TeleoHumanity interpretations or alignment-domain claims, not domain-independent CI theory:
|
|
- → core/teleohumanity/: collective superintelligence as alternative, three paths to SI, alignment dissolves with continuous weaving
|
|
- → domains/ai-alignment/: AI alignment is coordination problem, safe before scaling, no research group building CI alignment
|