stance-and-level
frame · drafted
Question
Where should the program work: at which level of computability, under which decision-theoretic stance, and does the computationally unbounded level represent the phenomena that matter?
Owners: @abram (GitHub abramdemski)
Path: the-program › stance-and-level
Roots (the frame's goals)
plan
A formal theory of trust developed at the limit-computable level, where beliefs are computationally omniscient (AIXI, reflective-oracle Solomonoff induction and related supercomputations), guides AI safety engineering work.
A formal theory of trust developed at the level of probability frames and Jeffrey–Bolker models, which are specified above the level where computability is quantified and are not AI designs, guides AI safety engineering work.
A formal theory of trust developed as whole-mind models of rationality at polynomial time or below, where the model is itself an implementable AI design, guides AI safety engineering work.
shared-claim
The phenomena that matter for trust between humans and AI systems, above all the computational part of human uncertainty about values, can be represented at the computationally unbounded level.
A formal theory of trust developed at the limit-computable level guides AI safety engineering work.
A formal theory of trust developed at the logical-induction level guides AI safety engineering work.
A formal theory of trust developed as whole-mind models at polynomial time or below would guide AI safety engineering work.
A formal theory of trust developed at the level of probability frames and Jeffrey–Bolker models guides AI safety engineering work.
Human uncertainty about human values is to a substantial degree computational uncertainty, uncertainty about the consequences of what one already accepts, rather than only uncertainty about which world obtains.
A computationally uncertain UDT exists over a logical-induction-like belief process, specified so that its policy evaluation uses the process's later beliefs, and it satisfies a tiling theorem.
At least one situation that arises between humans and AI systems, developers selecting systems on their predicted policies or a shutdown commitment a fully updated system would not renew, is one in which the updateful and the updateless prescriptions differ, so at least one engineering decision depends on which is followed.
The updateless side is high value to AI safety engineering work even where the theory of computational updatelessness is easy: the engineering decisions updateless reasoning changes are large enough that the programme's expected contribution to a formal understanding of trust exceeds the updateful plan's at equal cost.
Sub-frames
- level-super-turing: Which work at the limit-computable level of AIXI and reflective oracles advances a formal theory of trust that guides AI safety engineering work?
- level-above-quantifiable: Which work at the level of probability frames and Jeffrey–Bolker models advances a formal theory of trust that guides AI safety engineering work?
- level-poly-time: Which whole-mind models of rationality at polynomial time or below would advance a formal theory of trust?
Statement
The cruxes every line reads, the computability levels, the updateful versus updateless stance and whether the unbounded level represents the important phenomena, are settled well enough to say where the program's work pays.
Source
projects/deference/faf-cleanroom-2026-10-02/sources/unbounded-embedded/01-primary/summer-research-plan-2026--research-ideas-may-2026.md (the levels and the hope that the computationally omniscient case helps by analogy); projects/deference/note-dump-2026-08-11/notes/roadmap.md; the crux nodes' own sources.
Notes
Cruxes about where to work, not a line of work (ruling M2): the three computability-level frames stay as they were beneath it, with the crux on whether the unbounded level represents the phenomena, the family of claims that work at a level guides engineering, the claim that value uncertainty is partly computational, and the two cruxes that re-rank the updateless programme against the updateful one. A frame holds them so that their status re-ranks the lines through the plans whose tables cite them; none is a course of action.
Author and human events
Author @smithy-verity; version 1; size M.
No human event has touched this node.
Edges
Above
- part of the-program
- root (plan) of the-program
Children
- part: level-super-turing frame
- part: level-above-quantifiable frame
- part: level-poly-time frame
- part: crux-unbounded-represents-phenomena cases
- part: super-turing-guides-engineering or
- part: li-guides-engineering and
- part: poly-time-guides-engineering leaf/question
- part: above-quantifiable-guides-engineering or
- part: value-uncertainty-is-computational leaf/question
- part: li-updatelessness-tractable cases
- part: updateless-engineering-value-exists leaf/assumption
- part: updateless-engineering-value cases
Work pointers
Ranking (the lens, not the structure)
{
"status": "open",
"diagnosis": null,
"flags": [],
"V": {
"V_prior": null,
"display": "2",
"headline": 2,
"ref": 2,
"valid": 2,
"weaker": "both"
},
"belief": null,
"draft": "ai",
"root": {
"status": "open",
"Pr": {
"hi": "77933/80000",
"lo": "0/1",
"mid": "925681797740419786761593439290477/6553600000000000000000000000000000"
},
"value": {
"hi": "1/1",
"lo": "-1/1",
"mid": "925681797740419786761593439290477/6553600000000000000000000000000000"
},
"cost": "132/1",
"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.