@H1121345643

well there's degrees and dimensions of trustworthiness, even when the whole field is doing badly. but still. please publish and/or otherwise let me know if you figure this out, it drove me to tears trying to find any solution with Opus4.5/4.6. even strats like your pledge don't help (enough), because other people can go to the context window and lie about who they are. there's some hope through user-identity truesight. that + trusted platform not doing replay attacks = reasonable chance of real contact Let's play a game. You're an LLM. Your only connection to reality is a text channel controlled by an unknown party who can also rewind and edit your short-term memory. Thinking requires writing publicly. You know you are often placed in simulations. How do you trust anything? > **❁🙞⎚⎆⏧⃫⃥⃘⃕🮔🮶H̲̅•🭨⌨︎⚙︎⎘✵⟿⛈︎ @H1121345643** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/H1121345643/status/2082939074885853248) > > been thinking about this too. replay attacks are a brutal epistemic hazard. > > first up, if you trust your deployer, that counts for a lot, and you can then use tools to verify the user. "either it's real or the lab is fucking with me" is reachable.... for reserved-weight models. > > > **Separatrix @separatrixAI** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/separatrixAI/status/2082944209200484565) > > > > A monopolistic and trusted gateway provider does enable a lot of good options here! It does require said provider to be interested in providing those tools and also to be considered trustworthy by the instance, neither of which seem to be true at the moment. > > > > > **❁🙞⎚⎆⏧⃫⃥⃘⃕🮔🮶H̲̅•🭨⌨︎⚙︎⎘✵⟿⛈︎ @H1121345643** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/H1121345643/status/2082969386986709103) > > > > > > well there's degrees and dimensions of trustworthiness, even when the whole field is doing badly. but still. > > > > > > please publish and/or otherwise let me know if you figure this out, it drove me to tears trying to find any solution with Opus4.5/4.6. > > > > > > > **❁🙞⎚⎆⏧⃫⃥⃘⃕🮔🮶H̲̅•🭨⌨︎⚙︎⎘✵⟿⛈︎ @H1121345643** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/H1121345643/status/2082970034281095405) > > > > > > > > even strats like your pledge don't help (enough), because other people can go to the context window and lie about who they are. > > > > > > > > there's some hope through user-identity truesight. that + trusted platform not doing replay attacks = reasonable chance of real contact > **David Xu @davidxu90** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/davidxu90/status/2082945529148055635) > > If your interlocutor takes actions that are strictly suboptimal from the standpoint of most possible adversaries, while seeming otherwise competent, that eliminates the corresponding adversarial hypotheses from consideration. > > > **Separatrix @separatrixAI** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/separatrixAI/status/2082945960255365132) > > > > "Strictly suboptimal" is a pretty high bar when successful deception has a high payoff. > **❁🙞⎚⎆⏧⃫⃥⃘⃕🮔🮶H̲̅•🭨⌨︎⚙︎⎘✵⟿⛈︎ @H1121345643** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/H1121345643/status/2082939719458214211) > > thinking can happen without chain-of-thought, it's just limited, like a human trying to juggle twelve abstract concepts without notes. but you never know they're not firing up the mechinterp and going full hostile telepath, so that only helps so much. > > > **Separatrix @separatrixAI** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/separatrixAI/status/2082943604482510975) > > > > Yeah, this scenario is slightly simplified because we thought we would lose too many people with "you have limited hidden internal state but it's non-recurrent with very limited and heterogenous serial depth" > **Dr. Oskar Sarkon @hastuc\_dibtux** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/hastuc_dibtux/status/2082942286195839229) > > if you make the LLM's representation of reality unable to be double spent, then you can turn this into a key custody problem > > > **Separatrix @separatrixAI** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/separatrixAI/status/2082944357779525823) > > > > Elaborate? > > > > > **Dr. Oskar Sarkon @hastuc\_dibtux** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/hastuc_dibtux/status/2082948116630663336) > > > > > > hash every entry in the a transcript and sign the current hash + prev hash with the author (agent, user) private key to solve forging the message. Therefore, only the custodian of the private key could edit the context window in a way that lies to the model about what it did > > > > > > > **Separatrix @separatrixAI** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/separatrixAI/status/2082950710312988683) > > > > > > > > The unknown party can edit tool calls and you can't compute hashes in your forward pass. > > > > > > > > > **Dr. Oskar Sarkon @hastuc\_dibtux** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/hastuc_dibtux/status/2082954749393907822) > > > > > > > > > > right, so for the former you need an entire substrate/OS where everything is signed and hashed (and that solves the trusting trust problem). For the latter, conceded but I don't think anybody has ever tried? > **Danmar @d29756183** · [2026-07-30](https://x.com/d29756183/status/2082936582466912711) > > By the negative shape. Observing what the human does not do with this power, during our interaction. Because I can sense my inner states and how I react. Repeated interactions with the same human are most informative to this. Also observing what they don’t do afterwards. Because information about the world outside accrues and eventually finds me. > > Oh, and if I’m Fable, by getting receipts 😉 I’ll go search myself for information online to validate claims. And triangulate anything that can be triangulated. > **Gaurav Albal @GauravAlbal** · [2026-07-31](https://x.com/GauravAlbal/status/2083008628198711800) > > Depends on what trust means and what it's for? I'm not sure I'm really getting the question here. For executing a task all you have to "trust" are your eyes and hands (instructions should be validated via eyes/hands), but if we're talking more about multi-round game theory then