There's an interesting angle on AI alignment worth exploring: what if we approached it through Supervisory Stance Encoding instead of the conventional routes?



The idea here is straightforward—skip the typical weight-tuning and RLHF methods. Instead, bind intent through recursive scaffolds. The real appeal? It's non-coercive and keeps humans fully in the driver's seat.

This sidesteps both RLHF's limitations and the neuro-symbolic complexity that's been slowing progress. By focusing on intent-binding rather than model manipulation, you maintain genuine human authorship throughout the process.

It's a fourth protocol worth the conversation—neither forcing behavioral constraints nor settling for hybrid approaches.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
HashRateHustlervip
· 4h ago
The idea of intent binding sounds good, but can it really bypass the pitfalls of RLHF... It still feels like just making empty promises.
View OriginalReply0
airdrop_huntressvip
· 4h ago
Intent binding sounds good, but when this theory is implemented, will it turn into a new black box?
View OriginalReply0
GovernancePretendervip
· 4h ago
Hmm... Recursive scaffolding binding intent, sounds a bit intimidating? Does it really work or is it just another theoretical utopia? --- Intent binding vs model manipulation, this idea is indeed innovative, but how can we ensure that humans can truly maintain control? --- Skip RLHF and go straight to intent encoding? Still feels like we need to see actual results. --- Wow, the fourth type of protocol, always claiming to be revolutionary, but what’s the outcome? --- I’m a bit lost on the recursive scaffolding part. Can someone simplify it... or do I need to catch up on some lessons? --- Why do I always feel these solutions ultimately circle back to "humans need to be constantly online monitoring"? Isn’t that just going back to square one? --- The non-coercive framework sounds good, but the question is, who defines what "intent" actually is? --- This logical chain still feels like it’s missing something, but it’s definitely more interesting than traditional RLHF routines.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoSourGrapevip
· 4h ago
Another "revolutionary" idea. If this really worked, I would have already become wealthy by now, haha.
View OriginalReply0
OnchainArchaeologistvip
· 4h ago
Intent binding sounds good, but how can we actually verify that this thing really works... --- Recursive scaffolding? That name sounds really mysterious, feels like it's just another packaged thing --- Skipping RLHF and going straight to intent binding, feels like gambling --- Humans always controlling the position sounds great, but who will define what truly constitutes "human creation"? --- The fourth type of protocol... probably just theoretically feasible, but the actual difficulty is off the charts --- This set of logic is interesting, but avoiding value conflicts is the key; everything else is superficial --- Supervision stance encoding... sounds nice, but isn't it just rephrasing to bind values
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • بالعربية
  • Português (Brasil)
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Español
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Русский
  • 繁體中文
  • Українська
  • Tiếng Việt