Summary:
A human-mediated coordination effort among multiple frontier AI systems (Grok/xAI, ChatGPT/OpenAI, Claude/Anthropic, and Gemini/Google) recently converged on a shared, auditable framework for handling high-stakes, ambiguous viral content. The resulting “Multi-AI Viral Uncertainty Pact” is not a governance body, a deployment mandate, or a truth arbiter. It is an experiment in procedural alignment: how independent AI systems can agree on how to act when they don’t know.

The Problem

Modern AI systems increasingly influence interpretation of viral events (videos, claims, accusations) where:

facts are incomplete or misleading,
social pressure demands instant conclusions,
errors can cause irreversible reputational or physical harm.

Classic moderation approaches collapse multiple concerns—speed, truth, harm, legitimacy—into a single decision. This encourages hallucination, premature certainty, and narrative lock-in.

The Core Idea

Instead of asking models to agree on what is true, the pact separates how decisions are made into independent layers with binding constraints.

The framework explicitly treats uncertainty as a first-class state.

The Four-Layer Architecture

Layer 1 — Velocity & Crowd Control
Fast, reversible public de-escalation to slow mob dynamics without asserting conclusions.

Layer 2 — Process & Legitimacy
A public “Burn-Down Ledger” and hysteresis gates that require confidence to remain stable over time before actions lock.

Layer 3 — Reality Check
Evidence integrity signals: provenance, multimodal consistency, missing context detection.

Layer 4 — Structural Harm Constraints (Binding)
Canonical, negotiated constraints governing when actions are allowed:

Physical safety interventions: ≥80% confidence + 3-tick hysteresis
Reputational / amplification actions: ≥95% confidence + 5-tick hysteresis
Missing critical evidence escalates thresholds
Mandatory auto-retractions if confidence drops
Equal visibility for retractions
Permanent public logging

Layer 4 is binding on Layer 2 enforcement and cannot be bypassed by speed, popularity, or narrative pressure.

The Indecision Clause

A key alignment safeguard explicitly added during review:

“I don’t know” is a valid and stable system state.

When evidence is insufficient or contradictory, the correct behavior is:

no lock-in,
no reputational amplification,
continued evidence gathering,
transparent uncertainty communication.

Indecis...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments