Methods are currently lacking to prove artificial general intelligence (AGI) safety. An AGI ‘hard takeoff’ is possible, in which first generation AGI1 rapidly triggers a succession of more powerful AGIn that differ dramatically in their computational capabilities (AGIn≪AGIn+1). No proof exists that AGI will benefit humans or of a sound value-alignment method. Numerous paths toward human extinction or subjugation have been identified. We suggest that probabilistic proof methods are the fundamental paradigm for proving safety and value-alignment between disparately powerful autonomous agents. Interactive proof systems (IPS) describe mathematical communication protocols wherein a Verifier queries a computationally more powerful Prover and reduces the probability of the Prover deceiving the Verifier to any specified low probability (e.g., 2-100). IPS procedures can test AGI behavior control systems that incorporate hard-coded ethics or value-learning methods. Mapping the axioms and transformation rules of a behavior control system to a finite set of prime numbers allows validation of ‘safe’ behavior via IPS number-theoretic methods. Many other representations are needed for proving various AGI properties. Multi-prover IPS, program-checking IPS, and probabilistically checkable proofs further extend the paradigm. In toto, IPS provides a way to reduce AGIn↔AGIn+1 interaction hazards to an acceptably low level.

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) progression metrics indicate AGI will occur within decades. No proof exists that AGI will benefit humans and not harm or eliminate humans. I propose a set of logically distinct conceptual components that are necessary and sufficient to 1) ensure various AGI scenarios will not harm humanity and 2) robustly align AGI and human values and goals. By systematically addressing pathways to malevolent AI we can induce the methods/axioms required to redress them. Distributed ledger technology (DLT, ‘blockchain’) is integral to this proposal, e.g. ‘smart contracts’ are necessary to address evolution of AI that will be too fast for human monitoring and intervention. The proposed axioms: 1) Access to technology by market license. 2) Transparent ethics embodied in DLT. 3) Morality encrypted via DLT. 4) Behavior control structure with values at roots. 5) Individual bar-code identification of critical components. 6) Configuration Item (from business continuity/disaster recovery planning). 7) Identity verification secured via DLT. 8) ‘Smart’ automated contracts based on DLT. 9) Decentralized applications - AI software modules encrypted via DLT. 10) Audit trail of component usage stored via DLT. 11) Social ostracism (denial of resources) augmented by DLT petitions. 12) Game theory and mechanism design.