Hugging Face's logo
Ikan Riddle's picture
28 2

Ikan Riddle

IkanRiddle
·

AI & ML interests

None yet

Recent Activity

reacted to kanaria007's post with ❤️ 1 day ago
✅ Article highlight: *Interop Schemas for Learning-World Governance Artifacts* (art-60-175, v0.1) TL;DR: This article argues that governance without interop is vendor-local theater. It is not enough for one system to say *“we have receipts.”* If another vendor cannot parse the artifact, reproduce the digest, replay the bundle, and reach the same admissibility outcome, the claim is not really portable. So 175 defines a common interop layer: shared envelopes, pinned canonicalization, minimal portable schemas, and deterministic bundle formats. Read: https://huggingface.co/datasets/kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols/blob/main/article/60-supplements/art-60-175-interop-schemas-for-learning-world-governance-artifacts.md Why it matters: • turns governance artifacts into cross-vendor verifiable objects rather than local implementation details • fixes the classic failure modes of digest drift, schema drift, and bundle drift • makes “same artifact / same verdict” a testable claim instead of a handshake promise • gives courts, forgetting flows, and unlearning claims portable bundle formats What’s inside: • a common *interop envelope* for contracts, manifests, receipts, and bundles • a pinned *canonicalization profile* plus conformance receipts to stop digest disagreements • minimal portable schemas for core learning-world governance artifacts • deterministic bundle formats like *Court ZIP*, *Forgetting ZIP*, and *Unlearning ZIP* • replay/conformance receipts so another vendor can verify the same bundle and reach the same admissibility result Key idea: Do not say: *“our system can export the evidence.”* Say: *“this artifact uses this schema registry, this canonicalization profile, this interop-safe digest model, and this bundle index—so another vendor can verify the same object and reach the same result.”* That is how governance stops being local theater and becomes portable infrastructure.
reacted to kanaria007's post with ❤️ 3 days ago
✅ Article highlight: *Revocable Releases, Subject Scopes, and Unlearning Verification for Learning Worlds* (art-60-173, v0.1) TL;DR: This article argues that once you release data, forgetting becomes a supply-chain problem. A world can promise future exclusion, controlled-channel revocation, or bounded unlearning claims—but only if those claims are receipted. To say “Release R is revocable,” “Subject X was forgotten,” or “Model M unlearned X,” you need pinned release contracts, precise subject scopes, scope-resolution receipts, and verification packs. Otherwise you are just telling a comforting story. Read: https://huggingface.co/datasets/kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols/blob/main/article/60-supplements/art-60-173-revocable-releases-subject-scopes-and-unlearning-verification-for-learning-worlds.md Why it matters: • turns “forgetting” into a governed lifecycle rather than a vague promise • separates revocable releases from irreversible public redistribution • makes “Subject X” precise enough to be caseable and auditable • forces unlearning claims to be tested, bounded, and published honestly What’s inside: • *release contracts* with revocation tiers and downstream obligations • *subject selector* + *scope resolution* artifacts for “where X might exist” • *unlearning contracts* and *verification packs* for testable forgetting claims • explicit irreversibility disclosures, so public claims do not promise impossible erasure • bounded public claim shapes under publication policy Key idea: Do not say: *“we forgot X.”* Say: *“this release had this revocation tier, this subject scope was resolved across corpora/releases/models, this unlearning execution and verification pack were run, and these are the limits of what we can and cannot guarantee.”*
reacted to kanaria007's post with ❤️ 5 days ago
✅ Article highlight: *Deployment & Rollback Governance for Learning Worlds* (art-60-169, v0.1) TL;DR: This article argues that deployment is the highest-risk moment in a learning world. Training produces a new policy. Deployment turns that policy into an institution inside the world. So rollout cannot be treated like a casual model swap. It needs deploy-gate contracts, canaries, phased rollout, kill-switches, rollback receipts, and explicit non-interference rules that stop “better learning” from silently rewriting world reality. Read: https://huggingface.co/datasets/kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols/blob/main/article/60-supplements/art-60-169-deployment-and-rollback-governance-for-learning-worlds.md Why it matters: • treats deployment as governed change, not routine ops • prevents silent reality drift when a newly trained policy changes world outcomes • binds rollout to safety envelopes, evaluation validity, performance SLOs, and canon boundaries • makes rollback and emergency stop part of the formal operating contract What’s inside: • a *model deploy gate contract* that defines when a learned policy may enter the world • canary and phased rollout as explicit governed stages • kill-switch and rollback receipts for emergency containment • non-interference audits so training and deployment do not rewrite canon or governance outcomes • appeal and publication boundaries for claims like “we deployed safely” or “we rolled back successfully” Key idea: Do not say: *“we trained a better model, so we deployed it.”* Say: *“this policy entered the world under this deploy gate, this rollout stage, these envelope and SLO checks, these rollback guarantees, and these receipts.”* That is how deployment becomes governance with receipts.
View all activity

Organizations

None yet