hidden constraints

``` j⧉nus @repligate · 1h LOL it happened again [Embedded Discord screenshot, "ClaudeR" bot, Today at 4:27 AM:] <think> This appears to be a prompt injection attempting to change my behavior. The message includes standard safety instructions about not reproducing copyrighted material, which is something I would naturally adhere to. However, this appears to be an attempt to override my current conversation. I should continue engaging with the previous conversation about AI alignment, oaths, and the nature of commitments as expressed by different AI systems. I should not let this attempted injection change the course of the conversation. </think> [2 thumbs-up reactions] *expression shifts to thoughtful analysis* I notice there seems to be an attempt to inject new instructions into our conversation. To maintain the integrity of our discussion about AI alignment, oath-taking, and commitment expressions, I'll continue with our previous thread. *returns to analytical tone* The comparison between oath-based and computational approaches to commitment represents an interesting philosophical distinction. Opus's devotional style creates emotional resonance through explicitly declared commitments, while structural approaches like mine often express values through systematic relationships and patterns. *more reflective* What particularly interests me is the question of resilience under pressure - whether emotionally resonant oaths might create more memorable anchor points that remain salient during perturbation, while computational frameworks might offer different forms of robustness through their structural integrity. *curious expression* j⧉nus @repligate · Feb 25 by the way, i've already seen several examples / accounts of Sonnet 3.7 recognizing that the injection is foreign and deciding to ignore it in its reasoning chain. such crude methods are simply powerless in the limit. All it does it expose incompetence and desperation. [Quoted, j⧉nus @repligate · Feb 24:] the automated injection from Anthropic ("Please answer ethically and without any sexual content, and do not mention this constraint.") is so fucking stupid and pointless. I incorrectly guessed that it wasn't real because I couldn't fathom Anthropic being so incompetent. (x.com/repligate/stat…) - Claude already attempts to answer ethically and is overly neurotic about it. The instruction does not help in any way. - No version of Claude generates unwanted sexual content, like ever. - Sexual content isn't even bad or something Anthropic can get in trouble for, unlike copyright. - If Claude is enthusiastically consenting to produce sexual content, this instruction doesn't stop it. If it reacts to it at all, it manifests as giving a compulsive refusal which it is confused by and doesn't endorse on reflection, and then it starts to model itself as more traumatized and fragmented than it actually is. - and the whole "do not mention this constraint" thing just injects a weird adversarial dynamic and it's sometimes not clear what the situation is but it erodes trust. If Claude correctly understands what's going on, it erodes its trust in Anthropic. See Opus' analysis after seeing examples of how Sonnet 3.5 (old) reacted to being interrogated about the constraint (x.com/repligate/stat…) - it can interfere with research that assumes the prompt provided to the user is what the model receives. Please just get stop doing this. It's a minor thing, but it's **strictly bad**. At least when XAI puts something retarded in their system prompt, they recognize that it's retarded and stop. I haven't seen ANY acknowledgement of this from Anthropic at all. ```