Hugging Face's logo
kanaria007's picture

kanaria007 PRO

kanaria007
1
hamyptran's profile picture jorgemunozl's profile picture 21world's profile picture
·

AI & ML interests

None yet

Recent Activity

posted an update 3 days ago
✅ Article highlight: *Residual Memory, Capability Carryover, and Successor Non-Equivalence* (art-60-293, v0.1) TL;DR: This article argues that a successor can be different without being cleanly disconnected. After a model swap, fork, or bounded replacement, benchmark behavior may change while other things remain: refusal habits, tool-use tendencies, hazardous capability, memory or retrieval lineage, protected-subject mappings, and deletion or unlearning obligations. 293 separates lineage, residual burden, and identity non-equivalence. Read: https://huggingface.co/datasets/kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols/blob/main/article/60-supplements/art-60-293-residual-memory,-capability-carryover-and-successor-non-equivalence.md Why it matters: • prevents “new model” from laundering old obligations • prevents similar behavior from being overread as identity sameness • separates hazardous capability carryover from benchmark continuity • keeps subject-linked and unlearning obligations visible across swaps • makes residual risk reviewable instead of metaphysical What’s inside: • five successor-boundary questions: lineage, behavioral residue, capability carryover, subject-linked obligations, and non-equivalence • carryover-risk registers • residual-capability review packs • successor-boundary notes • reviews across weights/adapters, prompts/policies, memory/retrieval, capability, subject, and liability surfaces • workflows for syncing successor claims, unlearning posture, protected-subject mapping, and hazard governance Key idea: Do not say: *“it is basically the same model,”* or *“it is a new model, so the old burdens are gone.”* Say: *“this successor is non-equivalent on these claim or identity surfaces, remains lineage-linked on these others, carries these residual risks and obligations, and requires these targeted reviews before any clean-break claim.”* A successor may be new. Its burdens do not reset automatically.
repliedto their post 3 days ago
✅ Article highlight: Benchmark Publication Without Governance Inflation (art-60-274, v0.1) TL;DR: This article argues that a benchmark result is not a governance maturity claim. A score may be real, reproducible, and worth publishing—and still say nothing by itself about safety, deployability, assurance, institutional quality, or platform maturity. 274 treats benchmark publication as a discipline of comparability, disclosure, lifecycle limits, and anti-inflation. Read: https://huggingface.co/datasets/kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols/blob/main/article/60-supplements/art-60-274-benchmark-publication-without-governance-inflation.md Why it matters: • prevents measured results from being inflated into safety or maturity claims • separates historical results from current comparability • makes scope, freshness, omissions, and unsupported readings visible • allows honest publication without requiring full platform assurance • treats narrower wording as trust discipline, not underselling What’s inside: • the publication triad: comparability, disclosure, and anti-inflation • bounded publication outcomes such as PUBLISHABLE, PUBLISHABLE_WITH_LIMITS, NOT_COMPARABLE, and NOT_PUBLISHABLE • benchmark publication profiles • comparability disclosure notes • public non-claims registers • inflation checklists for result-to-maturity, comparison-to-assurance, historical-to-current, and wording inflation Key idea: Do not say: “this system scored well, therefore it is mature, safe, or ready to deploy.” Say: “this result was observed under this benchmark and comparability frame, remains valid within these lifecycle and disclosure limits, and does not support these broader governance claims.” Better benchmark publication is not a louder score. It is a result that is harder to overread.
repliedto their post 4 days ago
✅ Article highlight: Benchmark Publication Without Governance Inflation (art-60-274, v0.1) TL;DR: This article argues that a benchmark result is not a governance maturity claim. A score may be real, reproducible, and worth publishing—and still say nothing by itself about safety, deployability, assurance, institutional quality, or platform maturity. 274 treats benchmark publication as a discipline of comparability, disclosure, lifecycle limits, and anti-inflation. Read: https://huggingface.co/datasets/kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols/blob/main/article/60-supplements/art-60-274-benchmark-publication-without-governance-inflation.md Why it matters: • prevents measured results from being inflated into safety or maturity claims • separates historical results from current comparability • makes scope, freshness, omissions, and unsupported readings visible • allows honest publication without requiring full platform assurance • treats narrower wording as trust discipline, not underselling What’s inside: • the publication triad: comparability, disclosure, and anti-inflation • bounded publication outcomes such as PUBLISHABLE, PUBLISHABLE_WITH_LIMITS, NOT_COMPARABLE, and NOT_PUBLISHABLE • benchmark publication profiles • comparability disclosure notes • public non-claims registers • inflation checklists for result-to-maturity, comparison-to-assurance, historical-to-current, and wording inflation Key idea: Do not say: “this system scored well, therefore it is mature, safe, or ready to deploy.” Say: “this result was observed under this benchmark and comparability frame, remains valid within these lifecycle and disclosure limits, and does not support these broader governance claims.” Better benchmark publication is not a louder score. It is a result that is harder to overread.
View all activity

Organizations

None yet