oq-elk
leaf/question · drafted
Statement
The framework proves positive results in the eliciting-latent-knowledge setting, such as bounded-loss assurances that the humans will not regret not knowing something the AI was thinking.
Source
projects/deference/note-dump-2026-08-11/notes/li-deference.md, section 0.3, "Eliciting Latent Knowledge": "Can we prove positive results in the ELK setting with a framework like the one developed here?" and "Use trust results to motivate specific notions of latent knowledge?"
Notes
No file in the repository develops it; the question is as the maintainer posed it.
Author and human events
Author @smithy-verity; version 1; size M.
No human event has touched this node.
Edges
Above
- part of formalism-open-questions-0-3
- root (shared-claim) of formalism-open-questions-0-3
Ranking (the lens, not the structure)
{
"status": "open",
"diagnosis": null,
"flags": [
"AI number"
],
"V": {
"V_prior": null,
"display": "2",
"headline": 2,
"ref": 2,
"valid": 2,
"weaker": "both"
},
"belief": {
"J": 0,
"mid": "3/10",
"range": [
"0/1",
"4/5"
],
"width": "1/1"
},
"draft": "ai",
"root": {
"status": "open",
"Pr": {
"hi": "4/5",
"lo": "0/1",
"mid": "3/10"
},
"value": null,
"cost": "inf",
"margin": "no established leaves"
}
}Say something about it
Each verb opens a prefilled issue; a round files what lands as the ledger event it is.