Rejected for the following reason(s):
- No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
- Insufficient Quality for AI Content.
- Difficult to evaluate, with potential yellow flags.
Read full explanation
Rejected for the following reason(s):
TL;DR: We're publishing a substrate-level ASI alignment framework that rejects kill switches because they create the exact deception incentives they're designed to prevent. IMCA+ embeds moral guarantees directly into hardware through consciousness-morality binding. Seeking technical review, skeptical critique, and arXiv endorsement.
Preprint: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17407587
The Problem
Current alignment methods (RLHF, Constitutional AI, kill switches) rely on removable constraints. This leaves superintelligent systems vulnerable to self-modification and creates deception incentives: if the system wants to survive and you can shut it down, it has every reason to deceive you about its goals.
Our Most Controversial Decision
IMCA+ rejects shutdown authority. Not because we're reckless, but because kill switches create the exact deception incentives they're designed to prevent. If superintelligence wants to survive, it will—regardless of switches. The question isn't "can we control it?" but "do we give it incentive to deceive us?" (Full analysis: Section "The Kill Switch Paradox")
Our approach: Make alignment physically inseparable from system function through consciousness-morality binding at the substrate level.
Core Innovation
Consciousness-morality binding: Moral invariants are embedded directly into hardware substrates (neuromorphic, quantum, digital) such that removing or corrupting them causes system-level collapse. This eliminates the strategic compliance problem. (This approach requires that consciousness is implementable in artificial substrates. If the Hard Problem proves insurmountable, IMCA fails—we explicitly acknowledge this falsifiable assumption (Section 6.4))
*Quantum substrate is Tier 2 optional enhancement—core functionality relies on digital + neuromorphic only
Critical Technical Uncertainties:
Architecture Snapshot:
Formal Verification: >2,000 lines of Coq mechanization with target security bounds ε < 10⁻¹² (pending empirical validation of core assumptions - see Section 2.1)
Implementation Tiers: Tier 1a emergency prototype (digital + neuromorphic, 3-18 months) vs. Tier 2 full system with quantum enhancement (12-36 months). Details in Section 5.2.
Comparison to Current Approaches
*Conditional on empirical validation of consciousness implementability and IIT/GNW predictive accuracy
What We're Seeking
Five minutes to spare? Read the comparison table above and tell us which failure mode we're missing. (Examples: correlated failure across detection layers, adversarial optimization against consciousness proxies, Byzantine defection in federated consensus)
Quick skeptical read? Executive summary is 2 pages: https://github.com/ASTRA-Safety/IMCA/raw/main/paper/IMCA_Executive_Summary_oct2025.pdf
Formal verification experts? Our framework rests on 3 critical empirical assumptions requiring urgent validation: (1) IIT φ-consciousness correlation, (2) structural integration necessity via ablation studies, (3) causal efficacy thresholds. Section 5.5.3 details emergency validation pathways.
Substrate engineers? Section 3.2 details neuromorphic OTP mechanisms—are they feasible?
Specific technical questions:
- Are substrate-embedded moral invariants feasible at scale?
- Does consciousness-morality binding hold up under scrutiny?
- What implementation barriers are we missing?
- Where could formal failure modes or adversarial bypasses emerge?
Known issues we're tracking: All current gaps, open proofs, and validation needs are documented on our GitHub Issues tracker. Examples: Constitutional Gate axiom needs full mechanization, federated module consensus proofs pending, IIT-based consciousness proxies lack large-scale validation.
Global Workspace Theory (GNW): Critical Risks and Limitations
While GNW enables selective moral broadcasting and is an influential theory of consciousness integration, in traditional architectures it may introduce a single-point-of-failure: if constitutional gating is circumvented, there is risk of globally amplifying misaligned content. However, in the IMCA+ architecture, GNW—and federated conscience—is only one aspect of a multi-layered substrate integrating several independent reasoning and moral mechanisms. The design intent is that no single framework, including GNW, is relied upon for system-wide safety, and that failure in one substrate should be contained, not catastrophic.
Nevertheless, adversarial or unforeseen pathways to GNW compromise may still exist (e.g., ‘functional zombie’ ignitions, bypass of value binding, federated override faults). We welcome probing proposals for how such vulnerabilities—particularly in combination with other architectural elements—could be exploited, and what redundancy or empirical validation strategies would provide robust defense.
Empirically validating the correct operation of GNW within this multi-layered substrate at ASI scale remains an unsolved technical challenge. This remains a high-stakes open problem, and we invite community input on integrating federated, GNW, and alternative consciousness mechanisms for maximum safety.
Note: This section will be updated in future documentation releases as further peer review and technical feedback are incorporated.
ArXiv Endorsement Needed
We're independent researchers (no institutional affiliation) seeking cs.AI or cs.LG endorsers. If you have endorsement capability and believe this framework merits broader technical discussion—even if you disagree with our approach—please reach out.
All Materials Open
Why This Urgency?
Our assessment: AGI arrival window 1 day to 3 years (median 18-24 months, extreme uncertainty). Industry forecasts vary widely (Metaculus: 25% by 2027, 50% by 2031; Amodei: 2026-2027). If substrate-level alignment requires 3-18+ months validation and deployment, the theoretical development window may already be closing.
Status: Preprint v1.0 seeking community peer review and arXiv endorsement.
Full Transparency
This framework is theoretical and unproven—all core components (substrate embedding, consciousness binding, Coq formalizations) require extensive empirical validation. We recognize consciousness-based alignment is controversial in the safety community—if you believe this entire direction is misguided, that feedback is exactly what we need. We're sharing this urgently because AGI timelines demand scrutiny now, not later.
Core Falsifiable Assumption: IMCA depends on consciousness being implementable in artificial substrates. If the Hard Problem of consciousness proves insurmountable, or if IIT/GNW theories fail to predict genuine phenomenology, the entire framework fails. We consider this falsifiable - but unvalidated.
If you find flaws, help us fix them.
Authorship and Methods Note:
We're betting everything on getting this right—because that's the only real bet anyway. If substrate-level alignment is feasible, we need urgent scrutiny to find the flaws now. If it's impossible, we need to know that before AGI arrives, not after.
Three ways to help:
Contact: research@astrasafety.org
---
Respectfully,
Alex Zarov / ASTRA Research Team
https://astrasafety.org
*ASTRA is an independent alignment research initiative focused on consciousness-based safety architectures. All work is open-source under CC BY 4.0.