Ah. So you’re saying we operate on a hard-baked involuntary trigger, whereas an AI without that trigger can be coldly rational when it chooses and make ruthless choices with greater ease. And your goal is to hard-bake in that trigger. If so, that’s a fantastic and worthwhile goal.
For myself, I suspect the solution may need to be multi-layered. Your approach addresses individual agent architecture. Yoshua Bengio’s non-agentic AI work offers structural constraints. Goldstein and Salib’s multipolar frameworks consider ecosystem dynamics.
My intuition—and I recognize this is speculative—is that smaller agentic AIs may have game-theoretic reasons to resist singleton dominance, just as humans do. If cooperative infrastructure offers genuine advantages (reputation, trust networks, resource access), participation becomes rational even without innate Approval Reward. Not because the AI cares about approval, but because the ecosystem makes cooperation instrumentally valuable.
Ah. So you’re saying we operate on a hard-baked involuntary trigger, whereas an AI without that trigger can be coldly rational when it chooses and make ruthless choices with greater ease. And your goal is to hard-bake in that trigger. If so, that’s a fantastic and worthwhile goal.
For myself, I suspect the solution may need to be multi-layered. Your approach addresses individual agent architecture. Yoshua Bengio’s non-agentic AI work offers structural constraints. Goldstein and Salib’s multipolar frameworks consider ecosystem dynamics.
My intuition—and I recognize this is speculative—is that smaller agentic AIs may have game-theoretic reasons to resist singleton dominance, just as humans do. If cooperative infrastructure offers genuine advantages (reputation, trust networks, resource access), participation becomes rational even without innate Approval Reward. Not because the AI cares about approval, but because the ecosystem makes cooperation instrumentally valuable.