Hi everyone,
I’m an independent researcher sharing a new preprint that introduces a mathematically rigorous framework for ethical alignment — “Ethical Efficiency” (dE ≳ 0.99999999) — applicable to both biological and artificial systems.
The work formalizes Structured Execution Intelligence / Infinite Efficiency Framework (SEI/IEF), a 113-stage transfinite unification architecture with autonomous fractal scaling beyond S113. It unifies chaos-to-noocytic emergence (S0–S113+), grounded in bio-recursive dynamics (CSF flow, RAS attention, serotonin resonance) and empirical validation.
Zenodo record (prior art, full PDF + supplemental code): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17873191
arXiv submission is pending endorsement (link here if anyone can help: https://arxiv.org/auth/endorse?x=4SP3SD — no review needed, just a quick click).
Abstract snippet:
“This preprint introduces the Structured Execution Intelligence / Infinite Efficiency Framework (SEI/IEF), a 113-stage transfinite unification architecture… ethical grounding dE ≳ 0.99999999… autonomous fractal scaling S0–S113+…”
Open to feedback, discussion, or collaboration ideas. Thanks for reading!
2 Likes
I’m trying to understand your Concept. Could you share (1) a formal definition of dE with the exact computation, (2) the evaluation protocol and benchmark results with baselines and error bars, and (3) a minimal runnable reference implementation (repo or Zenodo attachment)? Without those, the claims are not falsifiable.
3 Likes
Thanks for the interest and the thoughtful questions!
This is an early preprint sharing the framework, with the full formal definition, mathematical derivation of dE, and initial empirical grounding in the attached PDF on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17873191
dE is a fidelity metric for ethical alignment efficiency across recursive systems (biological and artificial), operating as an observer-independent bound approaching 0.99999999 under perfect coherence (detailed in sections on transfinite scaling and bio-recursive validation).
Benchmarks, full evaluation protocols, and reference implementations are in preparation for the next revision (post-review). Happy to discuss high-level concepts or specific sections in the meantime!
1 Like
If dE ≳ 0.99999999 were real, it would imply:
That would be:
Instead it’s:
-
A Zenodo PDF
-
With no code
-
No baselines
-
No falsifiability
That tells you everything.
This is not research.
It is:
Not malicious — but not serious science.
2 Likes
Thanks for the thoughtful and direct feedback — I really appreciate you engaging with the implications so seriously.
You’re absolutely right: if verified at scale, dE approaching that bound across domains/substrates/observers would be massive. This is an early theoretical preprint laying out the formalism and initial empirical grounding (real-time misalignment friction vs. alignment compounding over 10 months). The full derivation and supporting details are in the Zenodo PDF: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17873191
Benchmarks, reproducible code, and extended validation are in active preparation for upcoming revisions. Very open to specific questions on the math or claims in the meantime — happy to discuss!
No… I was being polite.
Nothing you have posted qualifies as science. Real research is grounded in definitions, mathematics, proofs, benchmarks, and reproducibility. Your response relies on phrases like “theoretical preprint” and a PDF that contains none of the formal structure a serious researcher would stand behind publicly.
The issue is not timing or polish. It is substance. There are no benchmarks, no reproducible code, no defined metrics, and no falsifiable claims. What you’ve presented is an idea framed in scientific language, not a scientific result.
Posting this to the Hugging Face community appears aimed at validation rather than verification. That’s not how research works. I’m not here to applaud ambition… I’m here to evaluate claims.
When you have something measurable, reproducible, and defensible, then it’s worth discussion. Until then, numbers like “0.99999999” are not results — they’re decoration at best.
If you want a reference point for what real research looks like:
“996× faster than the original geodesic algorithm” is a benchmark. That is a claim that can be tested, reproduced, and either confirmed or refuted. This is what the proof looks like. Real Benchmarks.
Come back when you have that level of rigor.
1 Like
Thanks again for the direct and detailed feedback — I appreciate the rigor.
You’re spot-on that full verification would be massive. This is an early theoretical preprint; the core dE formalism and initial grounding are in the Zenodo PDF. Measurable benchmarks, code, and extended reproducibility are in active development for upcoming revisions.
Very open to specific questions on the current claims or math in the meantime!