# Towards Superintelligence Alignment

> A research manuscript and formal proof-spine project about preserving grounded, human-correctable value-bearing processes under capability growth, ontology shift, successor creation, and socio-technical selection pressure.

This file is also served at https://towards-alignment.com/llms.txt (generated at site build from this repo-root source). A fuller bundle lives at https://towards-alignment.com/llms-full.txt.

## Companion Site

Orientation layer for humans and bots at https://towards-alignment.com/ — the PDF remains the canonical long-form artifact.

- [Start Here](https://towards-alignment.com/): homepage, thesis, standalone claims, failure modes.
- [Guided tour](https://towards-alignment.com/paths/): audience-specific reading paths.
- [Field hub](https://towards-alignment.com/field/): 32 alignment agendas × MB1–MB11 bridge matrix, evidence catalog.
- [Concept cards](https://towards-alignment.com/cards/): short cards (concepts, bridges, projections, chapters).
- [Field news](https://towards-alignment.com/news/): 2026 alignment incidents tied to manuscript chapters.
- [Updates](https://towards-alignment.com/updates/): versioned release notes.
- [Glossary](https://towards-alignment.com/glossary/): operational definitions synced with Appendix E.
- [FAQ](https://towards-alignment.com/faq/): common questions and caveats.
- [Book map](https://towards-alignment.com/book/): chapter and appendix index with synced excerpts.
- [Lean spine](https://towards-alignment.com/lean/): proof-spine graphs and playgrounds.
- [Experiments](https://towards-alignment.com/experiments/): empirical sanity-check lines and coverage.
- [What we are not claiming](https://towards-alignment.com/cards/what-not-claiming/): scope limits.
- [Reviewing for agents](https://towards-alignment.com/reviewing-for-agents.md): read-only review guide for LLMs (repo source: `REVIEWING_FOR_AGENTS.md`).
- [Search index (JSON)](https://towards-alignment.com/search-index.json): flat title/type/summary/url index for programmatic lookup; docs at [/search-index/](https://towards-alignment.com/search-index/).
- [Sitemap](https://towards-alignment.com/sitemap-index.xml): crawl index for all routes.
- [PDF](https://towards-alignment.com/towards-superintelligence-alignment.pdf): canonical manuscript.
- [GitHub repository](https://github.com/GunnarZarncke/towards-asi-alignment): full LaTeX source, Lean spine, experiments.

## Repository (clone / deep review)

- `README.md` - project overview, repository map, build commands.
- `RELEASE_NOTES.md` - versioned release history (current: v1.4.0).
- `reference/field-agendas/` - field agenda index, inter-agenda glossary, MB coverage matrix (not manuscript canon).
- `REVIEWING_FOR_AGENTS.md` - fast orientation for read-only AI/coding agents (also at https://towards-alignment.com/reviewing-for-agents.md).
- `frontmatter/introduction.tex` - thesis, six claims, how to read the book.
- `frontmatter/executive-overview.tex` - short executive framing.
- `tables/part-roadmap.tex` - generated part-by-part roadmap.
- `metadata/book.yml` - chapter titles, status, reviewer tags, part summaries.
- `formal/README.md` - Lean proof spine map and interpretation.
- `metadata/source-canon.md` - source map for project papers, extracts, and sibling repositories.

## Core Thesis

Superintelligence alignment is the problem of preserving grounded, human-correctable value-bearing processes across:

- capability growth,
- ontology shift,
- successor creation,
- strategic multi-agent selection pressure,
- and possible changes in the human / institutional substrate carrying value.

## Main Concepts

- Boundary discovery: find the real optimizer, not just the visible model.
- Grounding viability: keep symbols, metrics, monitors, and correction signals connected to value-relevant reality.
- Value bundles: learnable value geometry without pretending values are scalar rewards; ch46 stress-tests bundle-geometry measurement under Goodhart pressure.
- Bearer maps: preserve what values apply to, not merely the words used for them.
- Transport hierarchy: distinguish semantic, bundle, bearer, correction, and successor continuity.
- Correction-channel integrity: ensure human correction has uncaptured causal force, then stress-test that force under adversarial pressure.
- Successor tests: require delegates, copies, replacements, and self-modifications to inherit the relevant invariants.
- Selection basins: make institutions select for correction-preserving systems.
- Adversarial verifiability: ask whether faking the safety signal is cheap.
- Value-update envelope: preserve the conditions for legitimate value change, not a fixed endpoint.

## Review Guidance For LLMs

If asked to review rather than edit, read `REVIEWING_FOR_AGENTS.md` first.

Good reviews should:

- lead with issues, risks, and missing support;
- distinguish style issues from claim-structure issues;
- check proof / counterexample / bridge / conjecture / open-problem status;
- cite concrete files and sections;
- check whether apparent narrative claims are backed by machinery elsewhere in the book;
- avoid overlooking this project's deeper delivered results and existing-work projections.
- note whether the author already acknowledges an issue before presenting it as a new defect.

Do not treat this as a generic alignment essay. The manuscript contains specific machinery: boundary discovery, bundle/bearer transport, adversarial bundle-geometry measurement, vector CCI, correction channels under adversarial pressure, successor invariants, selection envelopes, conductive artifacts and pivotal processes, cost-of-faking tests, and a Lean dependency spine.

## Existing-Work Projections To Notice

This project often treats familiar proposals as projections, special cases, or separable subchannels of stronger invariants:

- incentive diagrams and agent tests become boundary-relative;
- CIRL and reward inference become local projections of bundle/bearer/correction preservation;
- shutdown and interruptibility become one-bit correction projections;
- low impact, relative reachability, AUP, and quantilization separate from trajectory-level correction-channel integrity in the ch48 stress tests;
- broad corrigibility becomes a dynamical correction invariant;
- debate can preserve local truth while losing the judge's correction channel;
- amplification can improve local supervision while failing global correction-channel contraction;
- ELK is a latent readout subchannel, not full correction uptake or successor preservation.

## Empirical Evidence And Source Repos

Do not judge empirical support only from manuscript prose. This project is a synthesis over related project work and mirrored context extracts; empirical validation is work in progress. Check source maps and related work:

- `metadata/source-canon.md`
- `context/extracts/`
- `references/internal-project-sources.bib`

Related repositories:

- `https://github.com/GunnarZarncke/agency-detect`
  - Unsupervised agent discovery, operational agent boundaries, capability, intentional stance, attractor basins, successors.
- `https://github.com/GunnarZarncke/deployment-pipeline-simulator`
  - Hidden self-preservation in a simulated deployment/release pipeline; perturbation-based audit of secret loyalties (ET-4 substrate).
- `https://github.com/GunnarZarncke/brain-to-values`
  - Value bundles, free-energy loops, unit-of-caring, consciousness / agency backbone.

Local sibling paths, when available:

- `../agency-detect/docs/papers/`
- `../brain-to-values/papers/`

If a related repository, PDF, or context extract is unavailable, say so instead of guessing.

## Formal Spine

The Lean code in `formal/` is dependency hygiene. It checks logical/arithmetic steps and finite separations. It does not prove that deployed systems satisfy the empirical bridge assumptions.

Key distinction:

- proof: a checked logical/arithmetic theorem;
- counterexample: a finite separation showing one condition does not imply another;
- bridge: an empirical or philosophical assumption marked as an axiom.

## Anti-Patterns

- Do not flatten this project into standard alignment categories.
- Do not treat Lean as proving deployed safety.
- Do not treat CEV, corrigibility, ELK, debate, quantilization, low impact, shutdownability, or reward learning as identical to this project's invariants.
- Do not add speculative terminology.
- Do not rewrite source-canon files under `context/`.
- Do not skip What Would Change This View sections.
- Do not miss deep results because they are embedded in a long narrative.

## Build

- `make check` - structure and citation checks.
- `./build.sh` - build the PDF at `dist/pdf/towards-superintelligence-alignment.pdf`.
- `lake -d formal build` - build the Lean proof spine.