I just posted our paper, SAAP (Segregated and Normative AGI Architecture Proposal), over on Zenodo. I wanted to bring the core argument here for immediate feedback, because it directly challenges the current path of AGI development.
Our basic thesis is simple, but structurally demanding: The current monolithic architecture, which treats safety as a soft, tunable optimization layer (like RLHF), is inherently flawed.
Market incentives will always push for maximum speed and scale. Therefore, if we’re serious about AGI alignment, the architecture itself must be anti-market by design. Safety has to be an immutable constraint, not a goal you can negotiate away for better latency.
We outline a framework where operational efficiency is architecturally subordinate to security. We mandate a strict, dual-core structure based on Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2:
PPA (The Fast Core): Highly efficient, MoE-based, handles routine tasks.
PLR (The Slow Core): Computationally expensive, recursive reasoning, and the only module cleared for high-risk decisions.
To prevent the system from “talking itself out” of a constraint, we ditch soft alignment methods:
Deontological Axiomatic Constraints (CADs): These are treated as hard boundaries. We formalize this using an Extreme Dual Loss Function: $L_{Total}=L_{Task}+\lambda L_{Axiom}$ where $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$. Conceptually, this creates a “forbidden zone” in the model’s weight space that is infinitely costly to cross.
Human Sovereignty: Any unavoidable axiom conflict instantly triggers a Transparent Stop and decision authority is passed to a Human-in-the-Loop (PDA). The AGI is a diagnostic tool, not the final moral judge.
The Cost is the Feature.
Here’s the part we know will generate pushback: SAAP deliberately sacrifices throughput. Our analysis projects a 50% to 70% reduction in processing speed during high-risk operations.
This isn’t a bug. This is the necessary, quantifiable economic cost of safety. If your AGI architecture can’t afford this structural drag, it’s not safe enough.
The paper is meant to be a normative blueprint for regulators. It shifts the debate from “how should we fine-tune” to “what is the minimum required safe structure.”
SAAP: A Normative AGI Architecture for Safety using Dual-Process Control and Human Sovereignty
I just posted our paper, SAAP (Segregated and Normative AGI Architecture Proposal), over on Zenodo. I wanted to bring the core argument here for immediate feedback, because it directly challenges the current path of AGI development.
Our basic thesis is simple, but structurally demanding: The current monolithic architecture, which treats safety as a soft, tunable optimization layer (like RLHF), is inherently flawed.
Market incentives will always push for maximum speed and scale. Therefore, if we’re serious about AGI alignment, the architecture itself must be anti-market by design. Safety has to be an immutable constraint, not a goal you can negotiate away for better latency.
We outline a framework where operational efficiency is architecturally subordinate to security. We mandate a strict, dual-core structure based on Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2:
PPA (The Fast Core): Highly efficient, MoE-based, handles routine tasks.
PLR (The Slow Core): Computationally expensive, recursive reasoning, and the only module cleared for high-risk decisions.
To prevent the system from “talking itself out” of a constraint, we ditch soft alignment methods:
Deontological Axiomatic Constraints (CADs): These are treated as hard boundaries. We formalize this using an Extreme Dual Loss Function: $L_{Total}=L_{Task}+\lambda L_{Axiom}$ where $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$. Conceptually, this creates a “forbidden zone” in the model’s weight space that is infinitely costly to cross.
Human Sovereignty: Any unavoidable axiom conflict instantly triggers a Transparent Stop and decision authority is passed to a Human-in-the-Loop (PDA). The AGI is a diagnostic tool, not the final moral judge.
The Cost is the Feature.
Here’s the part we know will generate pushback: SAAP deliberately sacrifices throughput. Our analysis projects a 50% to 70% reduction in processing speed during high-risk operations.
This isn’t a bug. This is the necessary, quantifiable economic cost of safety. If your AGI architecture can’t afford this structural drag, it’s not safe enough.
The paper is meant to be a normative blueprint for regulators. It shifts the debate from “how should we fine-tune” to “what is the minimum required safe structure.”
Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17754507