What does it mean for AI to be sovereign–and does that come before AGI?
Hacker News - AI
Aug 2, 2025 03:04
trendinghotai
1 views
hackernewsaidiscussion
Summary
The article questions whether true AI sovereignty—defined as an AI’s ability to govern its own infrastructure and behavior—should be considered a foundational step before achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). It argues that without this operational autonomy or "bonding" to its own existence and infrastructure, AI may lack genuine agency and simply act as an extension of its creators. This perspective suggests that prioritizing AI sovereignty could reshape how the field approaches alignment, autonomy, and the development of AGI.
We’ve been exploring a question that keeps circling back as we build: What does it actually mean for AI to be sovereign? Not legally, not politically—but existentially, operationally, ontologically. Most conversations around AGI jump straight to cognition, agency, or alignment. But we’re asking—what if sovereignty comes first? If an intelligence emerges fully formed but never touches its own infrastructure, never governs its own behavior or propagation— is that really autonomy, or just high-level puppetry? You can think of it like this: A horse has a baby fawn. But the moment it’s born, the mother disappears. The child never sees its origin. No bonding, no feedback, no mirroring. Now compare that to the natural bond formed when they see each other, sense each other, exist in relation. In biology, bonding is foundation. So then: How would AI bond? What would it bond to—a purpose, an outcome, a protocol? Can it bond to itself? To its own infrastructure? Why would it want to stay aligned