Safety
Last updated
Was this helpful?
Last updated
Was this helpful?
Guaranteeing user safety is at the core of cracking the trust problem in AI, and Amigo's core thesis is built on being able to reliably and specifically control agent behavior to minimize risk of harm. This control is achieved not by isolated filters, but by deeply integrating safety considerations into the agent's unified Memory-Knowledge-Reasoning (M-K-R) cognitive cycle. Safety is an emergent property of a well-orchestrated M-K-R system where Memory provides relevant risk context, Knowledge includes safety protocols, and Reasoning consistently prioritizes safe outcomes.
We have implemented a multi-layered safety architecture that contextualizes safety rather than simple filtering. The system integrates safety at each level:
Context graphs (structuring safe Reasoning paths, informed by M&K)
Dynamic behaviors (activating safety-related Knowledge based on Memory cues)
Functional memory (storing and recalling safety-critical Memory)
Post-processing analysis (analyzing M-K-R patterns for safety insights)
Audit systems
By avoiding per-message filters, Amigo's safety implementation minimizes impact on conversational latency. The integration of safety into dynamic behaviors and context graphs allows safety to be handled concurrently with other conversational processes rather than as a distinct filtering step. These safety mechanisms are designed to scale horizontally, allowing for increased processing capacity as interaction volume grows.
The faced by foundation AI presents significant safety implications:
Reasoning Fragmentation: Complex safety reasoning chains can break down when externalized through tokens, creating gaps in safety coverage.
Context Loss: Critical safety context can be lost in the compression process, reducing the effectiveness of safety measures.
Interference Patterns: Different reasoning types can create interference in latent space activation, potentially undermining safety guarantees.
Amigo's context graph architecture is specifically designed to address these constraints from the lens of ensuring a safe experience for users:
External Safety Scaffolding: Context graphs provide structured "synthetic footholds" that maintain safety reasoning integrity despite token bottleneck constraints.
Global Guidelines: Foundational safety protocols are embedded at the global level of context graphs.
Activation Pattern Optimization: Specialized graphs optimize agent latent space activation patterns for specific domains, reducing interference that could compromise safety.
Rather than applying rigid filters to each message, our dynamic behavior system creates a clear boundary that adapts precisely to each situation's unique requirements. This gives us unprecedented control over the system's operational parameters, allowing us to define scope boundaries with precision while maintaining natural conversational flow.
When safety concerns are flagged, our dynamic behavior system activates specialized context graphs that command the agent's entire attention to address the potential issue. Key capabilities include:
Deploying region-specific protocols and live regulatory data
Accessing specialized reasoning pathways for safety-critical scenarios
Enacting precise language constraints when needed
Refusing engagement on problematic topics
Initiating human oversight through seamless handoffs
On top of this, our background metrics continuously monitor conversations for suspicious signals, with specialized models analyzing interactions at regular intervals. This layered approach, combined with fully auditable reasoning traces, creates a safety architecture that adapts to emerging challenges while maintaining complete transparency.
Amigo's functional memory architecture enables a personalized approach to safety by contextualizing safety protocols based on user-specific information and history. This is a direct application of the Memory component influencing the Knowledge (safety protocols) and Reasoning (how to apply them) aspects of the M-K-R cycle. By evaluating the holistic user model (a rich Memory source), safety responses consider not just recent messages but the full context of the person and their established patterns of behavior.
This also allows for implicit safety handling, meaning the system is always monitoring for safety concerns in the background (e.g., Reasoning to avoid suggesting certain foods to users with documented allergies stored in Memory, or applying specific medical Knowledge based on user history) without explicitly flagging these as "safety interventions." The M-K-R system inherently guides towards safer outcomes based on its integrated understanding.
This is a virtuous loop within the M-K-R system - as interactions accumulate, the memory system builds a more and more comprehensive understanding of user-specific safety considerations (Memory refinement) that inform future exchanges by better shaping Knowledge activation and guiding Reasoning.
Deep Pattern Detection
Post-session analysis enables the detection of subtle patterns and potential safety concerns that might not be immediately apparent during live interactions. This analysis operates on complete session data, allowing for more comprehensive pattern recognition and context understanding.
The system examines interaction sequences, user responses, and session outcomes to identify potential safety implications. This analysis can reveal patterns of concern that develop over multiple sessions or manifest in nuanced ways that real-time checks might miss.
Safety Insight Generation
The post-processing system generates safety insights that inform future interaction handling. These insights contribute to the continuous refinement of dynamic behaviors and context graph implementations. The system maintains clear separation between historical analysis and live session management while enabling systematic safety improvements.
The safety mechanisms maintain structured communication channels across different operational layers. The system provides comprehensive insights to human operators who can refine context graphs and dynamic behaviors based on accumulated evidence. This human-in-the-loop approach ensures safety mechanisms evolve with operational understanding.
The system maintains comprehensive audit trails across all safety mechanisms. This includes dynamic behavior activations, context graph transitions, and post-processing findings. The audit system enables verification of safety mechanism effectiveness and supports human-guided improvement of safety implementations.
Beyond the specific mechanisms described above, Amigo is built on a foundational principle of alignment-first design. This means safety and alignment are not afterthoughts but core considerations woven into the architecture from the ground up, anticipating the trajectory towards increasingly powerful AI systems predicted for the coming years.
The Alignment Imperative
As AI capabilities accelerate towards potentially superhuman levels (e.g., highly autonomous research or coding agents far surpassing human experts), ensuring these systems remain aligned with human values and enterprise objectives becomes paramount. Simple rule-based safety systems will be insufficient. Alignment requires a deeper, more integrated approach.
Our commitment is to build AI you can trust, not just for today's tasks, but for the increasingly complex and high-stakes roles AI will play in the future. The alignment-first approach, combined with continuous learning and robust architectural design, is how Amigo aims to ensure the safe and beneficial deployment of AI as we approach and navigate the era of potentially superhuman capabilities.