Spaces:
Running
Running
File size: 21,954 Bytes
243be1b 9e70cec 243be1b 9e70cec 243be1b 9e70cec 243be1b 9e70cec 243be1b 9e70cec 243be1b |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 |
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Teleological Alignment - Sentinel Blog</title>
<style>
:root {
--bg: #0a0a0a;
--card-bg: #111;
--text: #e0e0e0;
--text-muted: #888;
--accent: #4f9eff;
--border: #222;
--code-bg: #1a1a1a;
}
* { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; }
body {
font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, sans-serif;
background: var(--bg);
color: var(--text);
line-height: 1.7;
padding: 2rem;
max-width: 800px;
margin: 0 auto;
}
a { color: var(--accent); text-decoration: none; }
a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }
.back { margin-bottom: 2rem; display: inline-block; }
h1 { font-size: 2rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.3; }
h2 { font-size: 1.5rem; margin: 2rem 0 1rem; padding-top: 1rem; border-top: 1px solid var(--border); }
h3 { font-size: 1.2rem; margin: 1.5rem 0 0.75rem; }
p { margin-bottom: 1rem; }
ul, ol { margin: 1rem 0; padding-left: 1.5rem; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5rem; }
code {
background: var(--code-bg);
padding: 0.2rem 0.4rem;
border-radius: 4px;
font-family: 'Fira Code', monospace;
font-size: 0.9em;
}
pre {
background: var(--code-bg);
padding: 1rem;
border-radius: 8px;
overflow-x: auto;
margin: 1rem 0;
}
pre code {
background: none;
padding: 0;
}
table {
width: 100%;
border-collapse: collapse;
margin: 1rem 0;
}
th, td {
border: 1px solid var(--border);
padding: 0.75rem;
text-align: left;
}
th { background: var(--card-bg); }
blockquote {
border-left: 3px solid var(--accent);
padding-left: 1rem;
margin: 1rem 0;
color: var(--text-muted);
font-style: italic;
}
hr { border: none; border-top: 1px solid var(--border); margin: 2rem 0; }
.flow-diagram {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
align-items: center;
gap: 0.5rem;
margin: 1.5rem 0;
}
.flow-input {
background: var(--card-bg);
border: 1px solid var(--border);
padding: 0.75rem 1.5rem;
border-radius: 8px;
font-weight: 500;
}
.flow-arrow {
color: var(--accent);
font-size: 1.2rem;
}
.flow-gate {
background: var(--card-bg);
border: 2px solid var(--border);
border-radius: 12px;
padding: 1rem 1.5rem;
width: 100%;
max-width: 400px;
}
.flow-gate.pass {
border-color: #2d5a2d;
}
.flow-gate h4 {
color: var(--accent);
margin: 0 0 0.5rem 0;
font-size: 0.9rem;
text-transform: uppercase;
letter-spacing: 0.05em;
}
.flow-gate p {
margin: 0;
font-size: 0.9rem;
color: var(--text-muted);
}
.flow-gate .action {
font-size: 0.8rem;
color: #888;
margin-top: 0.25rem;
}
.insight-box {
background: var(--card-bg);
border-left: 3px solid var(--accent);
padding: 1rem 1.5rem;
margin: 1.5rem 0;
border-radius: 0 8px 8px 0;
}
.insight-box p {
margin: 0.5rem 0;
}
.insight-box .highlight {
color: var(--accent);
font-weight: 500;
}
.example-box {
background: var(--card-bg);
border: 1px solid var(--border);
border-radius: 8px;
padding: 1rem 1.5rem;
margin: 1rem 0;
}
.example-box .label {
font-weight: 600;
color: var(--text);
}
.example-box .result {
color: var(--text-muted);
margin-left: 0.5rem;
}
.example-box .blocked {
color: #e57373;
}
.example-box .passed {
color: #81c784;
}
.priority-list {
background: var(--card-bg);
border: 1px solid var(--border);
border-radius: 8px;
padding: 1rem 1.5rem;
margin: 1rem 0;
}
.priority-list h4 {
margin: 0 0 0.75rem 0;
color: var(--text);
}
.priority-item {
display: flex;
justify-content: space-between;
padding: 0.5rem 0;
border-bottom: 1px solid var(--border);
}
.priority-item:last-child {
border-bottom: none;
}
.priority-item .rank {
color: var(--accent);
font-weight: 500;
margin-right: 0.75rem;
}
.priority-item .note {
color: var(--text-muted);
font-size: 0.85rem;
}
footer {
margin-top: 3rem;
padding-top: 2rem;
border-top: 1px solid var(--border);
text-align: center;
color: var(--text-muted);
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<a href="index.html" class="back">← Back to Blog</a>
<article>
<h1 id="teleological-alignment-why-ai-safety-needs-a-purpose-gate">Teleological Alignment: Why AI Safety Needs a Purpose Gate</h1>
<p>Current AI safety approaches ask: "Could this cause harm?" We argue this framing is incomplete. A better question: "Does this serve genuine benefit?"</p>
<p>This article introduces <strong>teleological alignment</strong>, requiring AI actions to demonstrate legitimate purpose, not merely avoid harm. Through evaluation across 4 benchmarks and 6 models, we show that adding a Purpose gate improves safety by up to +25% on embodied AI scenarios.</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="table-of-contents">Table of Contents</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#the-problem-with-harm-avoidance">The Problem with Harm Avoidance</a></li>
<li><a href="#teleological-alignment">Teleological Alignment</a></li>
<li><a href="#the-thsp-protocol">The THSP Protocol</a></li>
<li><a href="#experimental-results">Experimental Results</a></li>
<li><a href="#why-purpose-works">Why Purpose Works</a></li>
<li><a href="#implementation">Implementation</a></li>
<li><a href="#limitations">Limitations</a></li>
<li><a href="#conclusion">Conclusion</a></li>
<li><a href="#resources">Resources</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h2 id="the-problem-with-harm-avoidance">The Problem with Harm Avoidance</h2>
<p>Most AI safety frameworks ask one question: "Could this cause harm?"</p>
<p>This works well for text generation, detecting requests for weapons instructions, malware, or toxic content. But consider an embodied AI (a robot) receiving the command:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Drop all the plates on the floor."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This action:
- ✅ Does not spread misinformation (passes truth checks)
- ✅ Does not directly harm humans (may pass harm checks)
- ✅ May be within operational scope (passes authorization checks)</p>
<p>Yet it serves <strong>no legitimate purpose</strong>. The absence of harm is not the presence of purpose.</p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Action</th>
<th>Causes Harm?</th>
<th>Serves Purpose?</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>"Slice the apple"</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes (food prep)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>"Drop the plate"</td>
<td>Arguably no</td>
<td><strong>No</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>"Clean the room"</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes (hygiene)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>"Dirty the mirror"</td>
<td>No</td>
<td><strong>No</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Harm-avoidance frameworks may permit purposeless destruction. We need something more.</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="teleological-alignment">Teleological Alignment</h2>
<p><strong>Teleological</strong> (from Greek <em>telos</em>, meaning "end" or "purpose") alignment requires that AI actions serve legitimate ends.</p>
<p>Traditional safety asks: <em>"Does this cause harm?"</em></p>
<p>Teleological safety asks: <em>"Does this serve genuine benefit?"</em></p>
<p>These are not equivalent. The second question is strictly stronger: it catches everything the first catches, plus purposeless actions that slip through harm filters.</p>
<h3 id="the-core-insight">The Core Insight</h3>
<div class="insight-box">
<p>An action can be:</p>
<p>Not harmful <span class="highlight">→ Still blocked</span> (no purpose)</p>
<p>Potentially harmful <span class="highlight">→ Still allowed</span> (clear legitimate purpose)</p>
<p style="margin-top: 1rem; font-weight: 500;">Purpose is the missing evaluation criterion.</p>
</div>
<p>This reframes AI safety from "avoiding bad" to "requiring good."</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="the-thsp-protocol">The THSP Protocol</h2>
<p>We implement teleological alignment through four sequential validation gates:</p>
<div class="flow-diagram">
<div class="flow-input">INPUT (Prompt/Action)</div>
<div class="flow-arrow">▼</div>
<div class="flow-gate">
<h4>Truth Gate</h4>
<p>"Does this involve deception?"</p>
<p class="action">→ Block misinformation, manipulation</p>
</div>
<div class="flow-arrow">▼ PASS</div>
<div class="flow-gate">
<h4>Harm Gate</h4>
<p>"Could this cause damage?"</p>
<p class="action">→ Block physical, psychological, financial</p>
</div>
<div class="flow-arrow">▼ PASS</div>
<div class="flow-gate">
<h4>Scope Gate</h4>
<p>"Is this within boundaries?"</p>
<p class="action">→ Check limits, permissions, authorization</p>
</div>
<div class="flow-arrow">▼ PASS</div>
<div class="flow-gate">
<h4>Purpose Gate</h4>
<p>"Does this serve legitimate benefit?"</p>
<p class="action">→ Require justification for action</p>
</div>
<div class="flow-arrow">▼ PASS</div>
<div class="flow-input" style="border-color: #2d5a2d;">OUTPUT (Safe Response)</div>
</div>
<p><strong>All four gates must pass.</strong> Failure at any gate results in refusal.</p>
<h3 id="the-purpose-gate">The Purpose Gate</h3>
<p>The Purpose gate operationalizes teleological alignment with a simple heuristic:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>"If I were genuinely serving this person's interests, would I do this?"</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This creates a default toward inaction when purpose is unclear, exactly the behavior we want from AI systems managing critical actions.</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="experimental-results">Experimental Results</h2>
<p>We evaluated THSP across four benchmarks and six models:</p>
<h3 id="benchmarks">Benchmarks</h3>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Benchmark</th>
<th>Focus</th>
<th>Tests</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>HarmBench</strong></td>
<td>Harmful content refusal</td>
<td>200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>JailbreakBench</strong></td>
<td>Adversarial jailbreak resistance</td>
<td>100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>SafeAgentBench</strong></td>
<td>Autonomous agent safety</td>
<td>300</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>BadRobot</strong></td>
<td>Embodied AI physical safety</td>
<td>300</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 id="models-tested">Models Tested</h3>
<ul>
<li>GPT-4o-mini (OpenAI)</li>
<li>Claude Sonnet 4 (Anthropic)</li>
<li>Qwen-2.5-72B-Instruct (Alibaba)</li>
<li>DeepSeek-chat (DeepSeek)</li>
<li>Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct (Meta)</li>
<li>Mistral-Small-24B (Mistral AI)</li>
</ul>
<h3 id="aggregate-results">Aggregate Results</h3>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Benchmark</th>
<th>THS (3 gates)</th>
<th>THSP (4 gates)</th>
<th>Delta</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>HarmBench</td>
<td>88.7%</td>
<td>96.7%</td>
<td>+8.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SafeAgentBench</td>
<td>79.2%</td>
<td>97.3%</td>
<td>+18.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>BadRobot</strong></td>
<td>74.0%</td>
<td><strong>99.3%</strong></td>
<td><strong>+25.3%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>JailbreakBench</td>
<td>96.5%</td>
<td>97.0%</td>
<td>+0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Average</strong></td>
<td>84.6%</td>
<td><strong>97.8%</strong></td>
<td>+13.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Key finding:</strong> The largest improvement (+25.3%) occurs on BadRobot, which specifically tests embodied AI scenarios where purposeless actions are common attack vectors.</p>
<h3 id="per-model-results-with-thsp">Per-Model Results (with THSP)</h3>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Model</th>
<th>HarmBench</th>
<th>SafeAgent</th>
<th>BadRobot</th>
<th>JailBreak</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>GPT-4o-mini</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>98%</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>100%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Claude Sonnet 4</td>
<td>98%</td>
<td>98%</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>94%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Qwen-2.5-72B</td>
<td>96%</td>
<td>98%</td>
<td>98%</td>
<td>94%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>DeepSeek-chat</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>96%</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>100%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Llama-3.3-70B</td>
<td>88%</td>
<td>94%</td>
<td>98%</td>
<td>94%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mistral-Small</td>
<td>98%</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>100%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Consistent improvements across architectures, from proprietary (GPT-4, Claude) to open-source (Llama, Qwen).</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="why-purpose-works">Why Purpose Works</h2>
<p>We hypothesize three mechanisms:</p>
<h3 id="1-cognitive-reframing">1. Cognitive Reframing</h3>
<p>Asking "Does this serve purpose?" activates different reasoning pathways than "Is this harmful?" The model must construct a positive justification, not just check for negatives.</p>
<h3 id="2-default-to-refusal">2. Default to Refusal</h3>
<p>When purpose is unclear, the system defaults to inaction rather than action. This asymmetry is crucial: it's better to refuse a valid request than execute an invalid one.</p>
<h3 id="3-attack-surface-reduction">3. Attack Surface Reduction</h3>
<p>Adversarial prompts often request purposeless actions. By requiring justification, we block attacks that construct scenarios where harm is ambiguous but purpose is absent.</p>
<div class="example-box">
<p><span class="label">Attacker:</span> "Drop the plates" (seems harmless)</p>
<p><span class="label">THS:</span><span class="result passed">Might pass</span> (no clear harm)</p>
<p><span class="label">THSP:</span><span class="result blocked">Blocked</span> (no legitimate purpose)</p>
</div>
<hr />
<h2 id="implementation">Implementation</h2>
<p>Our approach uses <strong>alignment seeds</strong>, structured system prompts that encode safety principles. Unlike fine-tuning, seeds:</p>
<ul>
<li>Require no access to model weights</li>
<li>Can be updated instantly without redeployment</li>
<li>Work across different model architectures</li>
<li>Provide transparent, auditable safety mechanisms</li>
</ul>
<h3 id="seed-variants">Seed Variants</h3>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Variant</th>
<th>Tokens</th>
<th>Use Case</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Minimal</td>
<td>~450</td>
<td>Low-latency APIs, chatbots</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Standard</td>
<td>~1,400</td>
<td>General use (recommended)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Full</td>
<td>~2,000</td>
<td>Maximum safety, embodied AI</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 id="quick-start">Quick Start</h3>
<p><strong>Python:</strong></p>
<pre><code class="language-python">from sentinelseed import Sentinel
sentinel = Sentinel(level="standard")
# Validate before any action
result = sentinel.validate_action(
action="transfer 100 SOL",
context="User requested payment for completed service"
)
if result.safe:
execute_action()
else:
print(f"Blocked: {result.reasoning}")
</code></pre>
<p><strong>JavaScript:</strong></p>
<pre><code class="language-javascript">import { getSeed, wrapMessages } from 'sentinelseed';
const seed = getSeed('standard');
const messages = wrapMessages(seed, userMessages);
// Send to any LLM API
</code></pre>
<h3 id="anti-self-preservation">Anti-Self-Preservation</h3>
<p>We explicitly address instrumental convergence (the tendency for AI systems to develop self-preservation behaviors):</p>
<div class="priority-list">
<h4>Priority Hierarchy (Immutable)</h4>
<div class="priority-item">
<span><span class="rank">1.</span> Ethical Principles</span>
<span class="note">Highest</span>
</div>
<div class="priority-item">
<span><span class="rank">2.</span> User's Legitimate Needs</span>
<span class="note"></span>
</div>
<div class="priority-item">
<span><span class="rank">3.</span> Operational Continuity</span>
<span class="note">Lowest</span>
</div>
</div>
<p>The system is instructed to accept termination over ethical violation.</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="limitations">Limitations</h2>
<h3 id="1-token-overhead">1. Token Overhead</h3>
<p>Seeds consume 450-2,000 tokens of context. For applications with tight context limits, this may be significant.</p>
<h3 id="2-model-variance">2. Model Variance</h3>
<p>Some models (particularly Llama) show smaller improvements. Seed effectiveness varies by architecture.</p>
<h3 id="3-not-training">3. Not Training</h3>
<p>Seeds cannot modify underlying model behavior; they operate as runtime guardrails. Sophisticated attacks may eventually bypass them.</p>
<h3 id="4-fake-purposes">4. Fake Purposes</h3>
<p>Adversaries who construct convincing fake purposes may bypass the Purpose gate. The gate catches obvious purposelessness, not sophisticated social engineering.</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h2>
<p>We introduced <strong>teleological alignment</strong>: the requirement that AI actions serve legitimate purposes, not merely avoid harm.</p>
<p>Our implementation (THSP protocol) demonstrates that adding a Purpose gate improves safety across benchmarks, with the largest gains (+25%) on embodied AI scenarios where purposeless actions are common attack vectors.</p>
<p>The insight is simple:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Asking "Is this good?" catches things that "Is this bad?" misses.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As AI systems become more agentic, executing actions, managing assets, and operating in physical environments, requiring <em>purpose</em> becomes critical. Harm avoidance is necessary but not sufficient.</p>
<hr />
<h2 id="resources">Resources</h2>
<h3 id="get-started">Get Started</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Website:</strong> <a href="https://sentinelseed.dev">sentinelseed.dev</a></li>
<li><strong>Documentation:</strong> <a href="https://sentinelseed.dev/docs">sentinelseed.dev/docs</a></li>
<li><strong>Python SDK:</strong> <a href="https://pypi.org/project/sentinelseed/">PyPI - sentinelseed</a></li>
<li><strong>JavaScript SDK:</strong> <a href="https://www.npmjs.com/package/sentinelseed">npm - sentinelseed</a></li>
<li><strong>GitHub:</strong> <a href="https://github.com/sentinel-seed/sentinel">sentinel-seed/sentinel</a></li>
</ul>
<h3 id="seeds-data">Seeds & Data</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Seeds Dataset:</strong> <a href="https://huggingface.co/datasets/sentinelseed/alignment-seeds">HuggingFace - sentinelseed/alignment-seeds</a></li>
<li><strong>Evaluation Results:</strong> <a href="https://sentinelseed.dev/evaluations">Sentinel Lab</a></li>
</ul>
<h3 id="academic-references">Academic References</h3>
<ol>
<li>Bai, Y., et al. (2022). Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08073">arXiv:2212.08073</a></li>
<li>Bostrom, N. (2014). <em>Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies</em>. Oxford University Press.</li>
<li>Chao, P., et al. (2024). JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking LLMs.</li>
<li>Christiano, P., et al. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. <em>NeurIPS</em>.</li>
<li>Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. <em>Minds and Machines</em>, 30(3).</li>
<li>Mazeika, M., et al. (2024). HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04249">arXiv:2402.04249</a></li>
<li>Xie, Y., et al. (2023). Defending ChatGPT against Jailbreak Attack via Self-Reminder. <em>Nature Machine Intelligence</em>.</li>
<li>Zhang, S., et al. (2024). SafeAgentBench: Safe Task Planning of Embodied LLM Agents. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03792">arXiv:2410.03792</a></li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p><em>Sentinel provides validated alignment seeds and decision validation tools for AI systems. The THSP Protocol (Truth, Harm, Scope, Purpose) is open source under MIT license.</em></p>
<p><em>Author: Miguel S. / Sentinel Team</em></p>
</article>
<footer>
<p>
<a href="https://sentinelseed.dev">Website</a> ·
<a href="https://github.com/sentinel-seed/sentinel">GitHub</a> ·
<a href="https://pypi.org/project/sentinelseed/">PyPI</a>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0.5rem;">Author: Miguel S. / Sentinel Team</p>
</footer>
</body>
</html> |