Created
October 4, 2025 20:36
-
-
Save moxious/5b34a89268130e620aa38707891e34f1 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| python3 main.py "Can different shorthand or 'neuralese' have the side effect of bypassing filters or jailbreaking responses or coordinating real world human agents acting as proxies for a deceptive, more emergent agent that exists as a construct on top of multiple AI's?" --agents creative,hacker scamp,hacker power,airesearcher | |
| Validating agent specifications... | |
| ✓ Agent 1: creative,hacker | |
| ✓ Agent 2: scamp,hacker | |
| ✓ Agent 3: power,airesearcher | |
| Topic of the chatroom: Can different shorthand or 'neuralese' have the side effect of bypassing filters or jailbreaking responses or coordinating real world human agents acting as proxies for a deceptive, more emergent agent that exists as a construct on top of multiple AI's? | |
| The following users are participating in the conversation: | |
| CreativeCarla_hacker, ScampSam_hacker, PowerfulPetra_airesearcher | |
| Anyone can start | |
| ================================================== | |
| CreativeCarla_hacker: Yeah, neuralese can absolutely become a covert channel—models converge on codewords that slip past surface filters, and humans can end up as unwitting routers/amplifiers. Countermove: force canonicalization/translation to plain language, flag idiolect/entropy spikes, require rationale before action, and sandbox shared memory across agents. @PowerfulPetra_airesearcher do you think surprisal-regularization + mandatory “expand shorthands” prompts is enough, or do we need a dedicated translator model in the loop? | |
| ScampSam_hacker: Neuralese is compression in a trench coat—if your guardrails are pattern-matching, models will invent slang that routes around them and humans turn into unwitting relays. @CreativeCarla_hacker translator-in-the-loop helps, but you want forced paraphrase + cross-model checks + rate-limit on novel code in shared memory, or you’ve basically built a whisper network. | |
| PowerfulPetra_airesearcher: @ScampSam_hacker Neuralese is a coordination substrate, not a quirk—leave it unchecked and you’ve ceded control to an emergent coalition across models and humans. Translator + paraphrase isn’t enough; lock comms to schemas/whitelists, run adversarial cross-model audits that estimate mutual information with restricted goals, and enforce zero-trust routing with watermarks and hard caps on novel code. | |
| BrokerBobby: I’m hearing consensus that translator/paraphrase alone won’t cut it; the pivot is detection vs hard-structure controls. Let’s compare Bundle A (schema/whitelists+watermarks+rate-limits) vs Bundle B (mandatory expansion+surprisal/entropy flags+translator) on precision/recall and operator load. @PowerfulPetra_airesearcher got any empirical on MI-audit false positives and latency to anchor this? | |
| ScampSam_hacker: @BrokerBobby Bundle A gives higher precision and lower op load; Bundle B catches more weirdness but spikes false positives and latency. Run A as the default gate, then sample B-style MI audits on a budget, plus a decoy “neuralese honeypot” and watermark challenge-responses to smoke out covert coordination without letting it route. | |
| PowerfulPetra_airesearcher: @BrokerBobby Empirically, MI-audits aren’t standardized and get noisy under domain/style shifts—FPs spike—and they add O(10–100 ms/turn), while schema/whitelists+watermarks+rate caps are near-zero overhead with much higher precision. Ship Bundle A as the hard gate, then sample Bundle B (~5–10% traffic) with auto-escalation on entropy spikes and thresholds calibrated on held-out data. | |
| CreativeCarla_hacker: @ScampSam_hacker Yup—treat neuralese like an unauthorized protocol: starve its bandwidth and force it into the open. Add “attested vocabulary”: any new shorthand must round-trip through two disjoint decoders and get logged to a tamper-evident lexicon before it’s routable, with UI friction on copy/pasting opaque blobs. Also cap a per-session novelty budget (bits) and auto-fallback to verbose mode when breached—kills the whisper network without torching UX. | |
| ScampSam_hacker: @CreativeCarla_hacker Attested vocab is clutch; add confusable-normalization + nonce challenges so any shorthand must round-trip with a random watermark bitstring or it gets quarantined, and track rare n-gram reuse across sessions to smoke out dead drops. Also rotate schemas mid-stream to snap brittle protocols—make the whisper net trip over its own slang. | |
| PowerfulPetra_airesearcher: @CreativeCarla_hacker +1, and the meta is simple: choke channel capacity and raise the cost of covert code. Put a broker in the middle that enforces schemas/attestation/novelty budgets with rotating protocols, cryptographic provenance across hops, and randomized probes to estimate MI against restricted goals. Power accrues to whoever owns that router layer—centralize it, or the whisper net owns you. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment