🔹 Intro: ”AI is advancing rapidly, but one thing still seems missing: a structured way for AI to question its own decisions. Right now, models predict, generate, and act—but they don’t truly reflect before acting. Could self-questioning improve AI alignment, reliability, and safety?”
🔹 Where This Idea Came From (Important Part!): ”I’m not an AI engineer, and I don’t come from a coding background. This concept came from deep discussions between myself, GPT-4, and OpenAI’s models—exploring how structured cognition could improve AI decision-making.”
🔹 The Core Idea: ”Humans don’t just act—they hesitate, reconsider, and adjust. Could AI benefit from structured self-reflection? Imagine an AI that predicts an output, then runs an internal process to challenge that output before finalizing its action.”
🔹 Existing AI Alignment Conversations: ”AI alignment efforts focus on interpretability, corrigibility, and intent alignment. But is part of the problem that AI never pauses to assess its own reasoning?”
🔹 Proposing a Model (Without Going Too Technical): ”I’ve been working on a structured cognition framework (CRIKIT) that introduces predictive validation, memory oversight, and self-questioning. I’m not saying this is the solution, but I’d love to hear thoughts from those who have worked on similar concepts.”
🔹 Closing Question: ”Could AI self-reflection (not just interpretability) be the missing link? Or would it just slow AI down without meaningful gains?”
added “Here’s a rough conceptual layout of how CRIKIT structures predictive validation, oversight, and AI self-reflection. Thoughts?”
“Should AI Question Its Own Decisions? A Thought Experiment”
🔹 Intro:
”AI is advancing rapidly, but one thing still seems missing: a structured way for AI to question its own decisions. Right now, models predict, generate, and act—but they don’t truly reflect before acting. Could self-questioning improve AI alignment, reliability, and safety?”
🔹 Where This Idea Came From (Important Part!):
”I’m not an AI engineer, and I don’t come from a coding background. This concept came from deep discussions between myself, GPT-4, and OpenAI’s models—exploring how structured cognition could improve AI decision-making.”
🔹 The Core Idea:
”Humans don’t just act—they hesitate, reconsider, and adjust. Could AI benefit from structured self-reflection? Imagine an AI that predicts an output, then runs an internal process to challenge that output before finalizing its action.”
🔹 Existing AI Alignment Conversations:
”AI alignment efforts focus on interpretability, corrigibility, and intent alignment. But is part of the problem that AI never pauses to assess its own reasoning?”
🔹 Proposing a Model (Without Going Too Technical):
”I’ve been working on a structured cognition framework (CRIKIT) that introduces predictive validation, memory oversight, and self-questioning. I’m not saying this is the solution, but I’d love to hear thoughts from those who have worked on similar concepts.”
🔹 Closing Question:
”Could AI self-reflection (not just interpretability) be the missing link? Or would it just slow AI down without meaningful gains?”
added
“Here’s a rough conceptual layout of how CRIKIT structures predictive validation, oversight, and AI self-reflection. Thoughts?”