Hugging Face's logo
kanaria007's picture
1

kanaria007 PRO

kanaria007
Swhwuwh's profile picture Ujjwal-Tyagi's profile picture Danishathugging's profile picture
·

AI & ML interests

None yet

Recent Activity

posted an update about 15 hours ago
✅ Article highlight: *Delegation and Consent in SI* (art-60-063, v0.1) TL;DR: This article makes delegation and consent into *first-class runtime objects*. In SI, delegation is not a vague social gesture. It is an *effectful capability transfer* that must be bounded, signed, policy-bound, auditable, and revocable. And consent is not a formality: delegation is not complete until the delegate has accepted responsibility. Read: https://huggingface.co/datasets/kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols/blob/main/article/60-supplements/art-60-063-delegation-and-consent-in-si.md Why it matters: • turns “who was allowed to do this?” into a deterministic audit question • shows why delegation must be enforced at commit time, not assumed from role names • treats consent as part of the accountability chain, not a UX nicety • makes revocation, attenuation, and replay safety part of the runtime contract What’s inside: • *Delegation Token (DT)* as a bounded, signed capability transfer • *Consent Record (CR)* as explicit acceptance of responsibility • *Revocation Record (RR)* as a first-class validity change • commit-time checks for signature, expiry, parent binding, consent, policy, revocation, budgets, and rollback floor • delegation chains for human → AI → AI systems under L3 conditions Key idea: In governed systems, “delegation” is not complete when authority is granted. It is complete only when the system can later prove: *who delegated what to whom, under which policy, with what acceptance, and whether it was still valid at commit time.*
updated a dataset 1 day ago
kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols
posted an update 3 days ago
✅ Article highlight: *Operational Rights as Autonomy Envelopes* (art-60-062, v0.1) TL;DR: This article turns “AI rights” into a concrete runtime object. Instead of treating rights as a moral trophy, it models them as *bounded autonomy envelopes*: explicit effect permissions with scope, budgets, gates, rollback requirements, and auditability. The point is not to romanticize autonomy, but to make local discretion governable. Read: https://huggingface.co/datasets/kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols/blob/main/article/60-supplements/art-60-062-operational-rights-as-autonomy-envelopes.md Why it matters: • makes “AI rights” legible as systems engineering rather than sentiment • defines a practical object for local discretion under latency, partitions, or mission distance • shows that bounded permission is not the same thing as trust • treats envelope expansion itself as a high-stakes governance action What’s inside: • “rights” as *runtime budgets for effectful autonomy* • *autonomy envelopes* as typed, scoped, rate-limited, gated, rollback-bounded, auditable, revisable objects • the rule that loosening an envelope must go through evaluation / approval / audit • a concrete deep-space style example of local operational discretion • a migration path from *LLM proposal engines* to governed autonomous SI nodes Key idea: Do not grant autonomy as a blank check. Grant it as a bounded envelope: *what effects are allowed, in what scope, at what rate, under what gates, with what rollback, and under what audit trail?*
View all activity

Organizations

None yet