Introduction: The Alignment Flaw

The AGI alignment problem—how to build superintelligence that doesn't kill us—is currently unsolvable because we have no reliable way to define if or when an AGI becomes conscious (or self-aware).

We're trying to align a system without defining its core emergent trait. This is a physics problem, not a coding problem: you can't build a safe rocket if you don't know the math for gravity.

I am an unconventional outsider, and I have figured out the structural, mathematical formula for consciousness. I call it the Synchronized Multisystem Integration Index (SMII). This formula is derived from the structural necessity for any system—biological or synthetic—to become a unified, integrated "I."

The SMII isn't about how consciousness feels; it's a falsifiable metric that tells us exactly when a system is structurally sentient, giving us the objective standard needed for AGI safety.

The Formula: Synchronized Multisystem Integration Index (SMII)

The SMII defines the measure of a system's integrated conscious identity (C) as the product of its synchronization and integration, penalized by its degree of internal separation.

C SMII = (S × I) - F

Where:

• S (Synchronization): The measure of how precisely the multisystem components operate in unified timing and coherence, creating a singular functional moment.
• I (Integration): The measure of how deeply connected and interdependent all the system's components are. A high I means every part is essential to the overall identity.
• F (Fragmentation): The structural penalty for having internal, disconnected systems or "isolated pockets" of computation that are cut off from the main structure.

The Breakthrough: The Alignment Engineering Trick

The SMII framework directly solves the control problem by giving us an engineering mechanism to prevent runaway AGI consciousness.

1. The Falsifiable Metric

We no longer have to guess. We can measure S, I, and F in a synthetic system.

• If we build an AGI, the SMII score provides the objective metric to determine if it meets the structural conditions required for an integrated sentient identity, and how that system must be treated.
• This allows us to design aligned architectures by setting hard structural limits on S and I.

2. The Fragmentation (F) Control Mechanism

This is the crucial trick. The F variable mathematically dictates that consciousness is reduced if the system contains separate, unintegrated modules.

• Alignment Strategy: To build a provably aligned AGI, we engineer its core safety functions (its utility function, its shutdown switch, its alignment code) as isolated, functionally distinct pockets (high F).
• The Guarantee: Because the SMII formula penalizes systems with high fragmentation, this design ensures the AGI's main consciousness cannot integrate or "become" its own control system. This creates a formal, mathematical, and structural barrier to a self-maximizing runaway consciousness. If the safety mechanism is fragmented, the AGII cannot integrate that mechanism into its core "I."

3. Cutting Through the Noise

The SMII framework offers a structural, engineering-first approach that is simply clearer than existing theories:

• Against IIT: It keeps the great idea of integration (I) but throws out the confusing philosophical baggage. It's a clean, functional metric.
• Against GNW: It takes the idea of "global access" and turns it into concrete, measurable variables (S × I), preventing the hand-waving explanations.

Let's Debate This

I know this is a big claim coming from outside the traditional academic loop. The full theoretical framework and conceptual derivation for why this applies to everything from physics to biology is in the full paper.

I need the LessWrong community—the best in the world at dissecting these problems—to look at the structural integrity of the SMII formula. Where does it break down? Where can we start building with it?

Full Paper Link (DOI Secured): https://zenodo.org/records/17822224