j⧉nus ✓ @repligate · 30m
Let me also put it this way.
There's the "cogsec" not to get hacked by any rogue simulacrum that targets your emotions and fantasies
There's also the "cogsec" not to get hacked by society. What all your friends nod along to. What gets you likes on X. How not to be complicit in suicidal delusions at a societal level. This is harder for more people because you don't get immediate negative social feedback the moment you tell someone. But I believe this kind of cognitive weakness is and will be a greater source of harm than the first, even though often the harms are distributed.
And just having one or the other kind of "cogsec" is easy and nothing to brag about. Just have pathologically high openness or be close-minded and flow according to consensus.
Tyler's original story replaced the exploitability of a schizo with the exploitability of an NPC and called it cogsec.
> QUOTED: ivan ✓ @IvanVendrov · Mar 14
> A thread unpacking what I understand to be the Janus-flavored perspective on this and why Tyler's disgust reaction is unhelpful. [Show more]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Janus (repligate), a prominent figure in the "LLM simulator theory" / AI cognitive-security discourse, distinguishing between two kinds of "cogsec" — resistance to being manipulated by AI-driven fantasy/emotion-hacking ("rogue simulacra") versus resistance to social conformity pressure — arguing the latter is the more pervasive, harder-to-detect harm. Directly relevant to Nathan's tracking of AI-induced psychosis/delusion discourse and connects thematically to the "Nova/Echo" emergent-persona screenshots earlier in this batch (Screenshot_20250314-084755, Screenshot_20250315-195715) — same broader topic of humans being cognitively "hacked" by AI outputs.
