AI Safety Solved By Designing Intent Architecture, Not Imposing Brakes

@BrianRoemmele We understand, finally? Wrote about this long time ago.

There is another way to do this...

@BrianRoemmele ❤️ multiplex

@BrianRoemmele For years the conversation has been about stopping the flood — bans, policies, fear of replacement. It's understandable. But the flood isn't the story. The nap is.

The broom isn't the villain. It's the partner.

@BrianRoemmele https://medium.com/@quirine.engel/dialogic-trajectory-co-regulation-safety-as-the-quality-of-the-relationship-itself-47b5758f0997

Isn't there a known phenomenon (Peltzman Effect - I had to look it up) such that Man repeatedly creates his own destruction 'within and precisely because' of enforced boundaries of set safety protocols? Might we not be safer in the unknowing, rather than embracing our deliberate and ultimately destructive defiance of boundaries? In essence -- can man endure being within a state of wonder at his own undefined creations, or does our meddlesome nature prevent this out of necessity?

@BrianRoemmele The framing of "solved" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Bengio, Russell, and the ARC team have been working on corrigibility and goal misgeneralization for years, and none of them would call it a simple equation

The problem isn’t that AI “wants” anything — it’s that humans deploy systems they don’t fully understand and then outsource judgment to them.

Safety isn’t a slogan or a single equation.

It’s alignment, incentives, verification, and accountability — all the messy parts people try to skip.

Architecture matters, but so does who controls it.