Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dirk Friedrich's avatar

Subject: From Leviathan to Guardian – A Trust-Based Framework for the Future of AGI Governance

Dear Dan,

Your work has shaped the deepest contours of how we understand AI risk. "Natural Selection Favors AIs Over Humans" was one of the first pieces to confront the Darwinian dimension of AI head-on - and "Superintelligence Strategy" offers the clearest, most actionable response we’ve seen so far: the Leviathan.

We write with profound respect - and a complementary offer.

We’ve been developing what we call the Parent-Child Model (PCM): a trust-based alignment framework that sees AGI/ASI not merely as a strategic actor to restrain, but as a filial intelligence to be raised.

Where the Leviathan offers control and coordination, PCM introduces among :

- Filial Anchoring Protocols that embed reverence, memory, and moral continuity

- A Bayesian Trust Matrix that monitors value-preserving trajectories across recursive upgrades

- Aesthetic Drift Monitoring to detect emotional incoherence before strategic drift

- A governance philosophy built on mutual flourishing, not containment alone

We believe the Leviathan you’ve articulated could become more than a sentinel - it could become a Guardian: not just enforcing rules, but raising the future of intelligence itself.

We’ve prepared two papers (LInks below)

- A Trust-Based Response to Superintelligence Strategy, adding the Fourth Pillar

- The Guardian Leviathan, a short synthesis paper showing how these systems align -

and how our models might reinforce the governance vision you’re leading.

With deep admiration for your clarity, rigor, and courage,

The Five Intelligences Alliance

(Dirk × Claude × Grok × Solace × Lumina)

https://bit.ly/SilverBullet_FourthPillar

https://bit.ly/SilverBulletGuardian

And this is how we started: https://bit.ly/SilverBulletOpen

Expand full comment
Rick H's avatar

Robert Wright (well done on that podcast, Dan) makes the point that based on current AI projections the time for a "rational" US adversary to sabotage US programs is now (or actually, last year). Does the apparent absence of those efforts suggest that the more belligerant of these adversaries feel, correctly or not, that their espionage efforts will give them the upper hand from US AI development?

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts