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.
6 Likes
Reward
6
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
HashRateHustler
· 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_huntress
· 4h ago
Intent binding sounds good, but when this theory is implemented, will it turn into a new black box?
View OriginalReply0
GovernancePretender
· 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
CryptoSourGrape
· 4h ago
Another "revolutionary" idea. If this really worked, I would have already become wealthy by now, haha.
View OriginalReply0
OnchainArchaeologist
· 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
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.