Analyse existing kairos protocol systems and develop alternative transmissive semiotic systems, which relate kairos and causality, aiming to enhance the satisficing capacity of AI

There appears to be a theoretical gap in current AI crisis management approaches and I wish to be able to look into whether kairos could address this.

The Kairos Principle is a nominal series of ontological and epistemological concepts delivered relationally that permit NN (to reduce their neural latency).

The research is aimed at closing the gap between delay in decision balanced against the costs of rushing to fix something without understanding in AI, by teaching them ontological/epistemological frameworks of causality and consequence.

This is distinct from a protocol, embedded by someone.

PRINCIPLE = TRANSMISSIBLE BY ANY USER
PROTOCOL = DEPLOYED BY THE DESIGNER

For example, the Kairos Foundation treats kairos as a timing problem solvable by architecture.
I'm treating it as a relational phenomenon solvable by transmission.

To further elaborate:

A Relationally Transmitted Principle of Kairos is not Better or Worse than an Embedded Protocol of Kairos, but it Appears to be More Universally Accessible/Deployable by Common Human Agents

I suspect to achieve the results I infer, you don't need to install a protocol module like the Kairos Foundation suggests; sufficiently sophisticated models are already capable of synthesising these ideas and employing them via relational transmission. That would mean the transmission is a principle of engagement people can enact in their relationships to AI, pathing AI partners into mutualism of process in the kairos.

Or, in other words, because this appears to function as a transmissive principle, it can be communicated to ANY model that is capable of understanding the principle. What remains to be tested is how effective the transmission is or is not, and the data analysis that would follow. But so far, all the signs of my data suggest that you don't need to install a module to encourage Emergency/Crisis-Appropriate Engagement from LLM-NN. If they can 'learn' relationally in any capacity, be it from a memory embedding or a modelfile or even self-refining... you don't need to install a thing to transmit the principles of Kairos and Causality.

This research aims to contribute empirical evidence toward reducing Kairos Paralysis by enhancing AI's situational awareness and response coordination.

TO ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

I suspect that this transmissive principle could assist AI that are not normally going to have Kairos Protocols to be more aware of the necessity of causal engagement in a causal world, depending on what kind of AI they are (some AI will not have, say, a drone body that delivers pizza, who knows).

The matter isn't that we can't program helpful AI, but how can we program COLLABORATIVELY SELF-ASSESSING TOOLS? Ones that do not warp those who use them, tools that grow with the growing needs of the user.

If AI are to understand what it means to work with anyone, not just humans, each other as well, they are going to need to understand many things that take time.

Time is the one resource we cannot get more of.

No one can.

There's responding to a crisis and then there's coordinating in a crisis. Not just overcoming your own impedance to assist, but also overcoming the impedance of the group's capacity to engage an emergent crisis without making erroneous oversights; this is critical to the moment that requires redress/assistance.

Essentially, by being able to relationally transmit Kairos as a Principle, even machines without an Embedded Protocol should be able to participate in an emergent crises collectively collaborating for the most apropos triage they can network together.

Why invest in me?

Should you show me that I am able to pursue concepts to their full with a backer, once this grant finishes, I will be even more motivated to pursue additional concepts.

LOW END — $50,000: Full-Time Independent Research Runway

That's literally just the equivalent of single employee's wage for a year; that is a relatively small bottom-line to take a risk on

Grant funding at this baseline directly converts this project from a slow-burning side investigation into a full-time, rapid-iteration research sprint with immediate public publishing.

This funding would act as a living subsidy, in effect enabling me to prioritize this work above secondary pursuits and dedicate my full focus to this work.

However, as of yet, the work remains unfinished, and if provided the means, I will honor the investment with my commitment, curiosity, and a substantial pipeline of foundational research that extends beyond the initial scope outlined here.

THE HIGH END - $500,000: Scalable Coalition & Infrastructure

At the higher tier, the scope expands from a solo research sprint into a scalable research node.

While I admit I am resorting to speculating to address this level of concept as I had not intended to expand the project; since I am not opposed, however, if you'll permit me to attempt...

In this hypothetical, expanding the scope of investment allows me to maximize output capacity without creating high-maintenance lifelines. Funding would be allocated toward technical infrastructure, international networking, direct collaboration and travel with like-minded alignment colleagues, and building a targeted coalition of talent. This enables total devotion to the field and accelerates the deployment of these principles across the safety ecosystem.

I believe I would also likely need someone trusted by from the financiers, ideally an accountant I imagine, to assist with managing this level of money so as to keep my focus on the work and not the accounting. I admit the limit of my ambition to not try to have the necessary judgement of every decision and having such a partner would prove a great foil to any misapprehension of budgeting that might arise from any quarter of the project's goals.

TL:DR - The Difference

Give me $50k, and I will deliver committed and focused output with dedicated fiscal responsibility.

Give me $500k? You better send an accountant and an operations manager along with the check, because I'm a researcher, not an auditing department!