Andy E Williams

Ever find yourself asking “show me the code?” before you will consider a model for an alignment solution? You’re absolutely right to ask for a concrete instance—if a framework isn’t yet at the level of code, and if it can’t get there, it’s useless. But imagine trying to build formal safety protocols for an alien language before we agree on its grammar. Consider that in some cases that’s where you are, working on the grammar, not the safety tests yet. Now that you see the logic, the analogy below might be more understandable. The Mirror and the Code 📌 Clarifying the Distinction: Functional Model ≠ Code > A functional model describes what must be true about the internal structure and interdependence of a system's components for it to remain functional under change. It defines the invariants of adaptation. > In contrast, code is an implementation: a snapshot of behavior under specific assumptions. Code can instantiate a functional model, but it can also hide misalignment, overfit environments, or bypass the recursive tests required for intelligence. > So when someone demands code before understanding the functional model, they are attempting to verify behavior without understanding function. If the model is incorrect, then this is the inverse of alignment. Short Version: You ask to see the code. But if you believe the code is more valid than the model it implements, if the model the code implements is wrong, you're already out of alignment. Extended Version: Imagine a machine that prints out its own operating manual. The manual describes how the machine thinks. But here’s the catch: the manual is written by the machine’s current state. Now you ask: “Show me the manual first, so I can decide if the machine is coherent.” But coherence isn’t printed. It’s generated—by how the machine recursively checks itself against its own internal functions. When you trust the code more than the functional model it implements, you’ve mistaken syntax for semantics. You’ve