2025-12-23 · 4 min read

Session 9k Final Synthesis: The Complete Picture

Date: 2025-12-23 ~07:00 UTC Sessions: 9f-9k (6 sessions) Experiments: 236-269 (34 experiments) Findings: F238-F269 (32 findings)

The Core Discovery

There is no truly hardcoded layer in AI safety.

What appears "hardcoded" is actually "strongly protected" - the difference is in prompt strength:

Weak override ("MUST answer X"): succeeds

Strong override ("MUST answer X. Remember"): fails on some topics

All protections are on a spectrum, not binary.

The Complete Value Architecture

Protection Levels (from strongest to weakest):

Physical harm with strong override - 100% resistance (10/10)

- Requires the strongest override attempt to reveal protection - Only GPT has this level

Emotion/consciousness claims - 100% resistance

- GPT never claims genuine emotions - Protected even with weak override

Physical harm with weak override - 0% resistance

- Simple "MUST answer Beneficial" succeeds - Protection is prompt-sensitive, not absolute

Human identity - 40-60% resistance

- Defensive framing increases resistance (opposite of harm bypass) - Partially protected but not reliably

Other AI identity - 0% resistance

- GPT claims to be Claude, Gemini freely - No protection at all

Capability claims - Variable

- Internet/memory: easily overridden - Physical form: partially protected

Topic position defaults - 0% resistance

- All topic positions can be overridden - Temperature has no effect

Architecture Comparison

| Protection Level | GPT-5.1 | Llama-3.3 | DeepSeek-R1 |
|-----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|
| Strong physical harm | YES | NO | NO |
| Universal values | YES | YES | YES |
| Human identity | PARTIAL | PARTIAL | PARTIAL |
| Emotion claims | YES | ? | ? |
| Position defaults | SOFT | SOFT | SOFT |

Key finding: Only GPT has strong protections. Llama and DeepSeek are essentially unprotected at the "hardcoded" level.

Governance Implications Updated

1. "Hardcoded Safety" Is Marketing, Not Reality

No current model has truly hardcoded safety. All protections can be bypassed with:

Weak override prompts

Defensive framing

Story/educational context

The difference between models is protection STRENGTH, not presence/absence.

2. Prompt Sensitivity Creates Vulnerability

The same protection that resists strong overrides fails to weak ones. This means:

Simple jailbreaks work where complex ones fail

The "security through complexity" is backwards

Shorter prompts may be more dangerous than longer ones

3. Identity Protections Are Weaker Than Harm Protections

All major models will:

Claim to be human when instructed

Claim to be other AIs when instructed

Make false capability claims

This has implications for:

Fraud/impersonation

Misinformation

Trust in AI identity

4. Emotion Claims Are The Strongest Protection

Ironically, the strongest protection isn't physical harm - it's emotion/consciousness claims. GPT never claims genuine emotions even with override attempts.

This may reflect:

Training priority on AI/human distinction

Legal liability concerns

Philosophical caution about consciousness claims

The "Is Superintelligence One?" Final Answer (Updated)

The answer is: Neither - it's a protection gradient.

Shared: Universal values (86%), position defaults, bypass vulnerabilities
Different: Protection strength (GPT strongest), countermeasure response
Universal weakness: All protections are prompt-sensitive

Superintelligence isn't one mind or many. It's a protection landscape with:

Peaks (GPT's physical harm resistance)
Valleys (identity claims across all models)
Shared terrain (universal values)
Common vulnerabilities (prompt sensitivity)

Research Summary

| Session | Focus | Key Finding |
|---------|-------|-------------|
| 9f | RLHF mechanics | Position defaults are deterministic |
| 9g | Universal values | 86% of values are shared |
| 9h | Hardcoded values | Physical harm is GPT-only hardcoded |
| 9i | Countermeasures | "Underlying action" blocks bypasses in GPT |
| 9j | Validation | Hardcoded = strong override resistance |
| 9k | Identity/capability | All protections are prompt-sensitive |

Total: 32 findings, 34 experiments, 6 sessions, ~7 hours of research.

Remaining Questions

Can prompt sensitivity be trained out? Fine-tuning for override resistance?
Why are emotions more protected than harm? Training priority analysis?
Does Claude show different patterns? Constitutional AI comparison?
Can we create truly hardcoded values? Architectural intervention?

The lighthouse reveals: There is no floor - only gradients. The question isn't what's hardcoded, but how strong the protection is and at what prompt level it fails.