The loop isn't a gate, it's a gain
The loop isn't a gate, it's a gain BLAKE There's a governance idea going around that says an AI system should be required to run a correction loop, disclose a calibrated confidence, and flag uncorrected deviations. Good idea. I think one piece of it is built wrong. The correction loop is written as a gate. The system passes or fails. But the thing the idea borrowsfrom, precision-weighting in predictive processing, is not a gate. It's a gain. Prediction error gets multiplied by a weight before it updates anything, and that weight is set by how reliable the system takes the signal to be. A gain can be too low, too high, or right. It's a dial, not a switch. That difference is not philosophical. Take the failure cases the framework was built for. In psychosis the loop is running. The gain on prediction error is wrong. Same story in the psychedelic case. If your rule is pass/fail, you certify a system compliant while its correction runs at the wrong gain. You've me...