Rejected for the following reason(s):
- This is an automated rejection.
- you wrote this yourself (not using LLMs to help you write it)
- you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas.
- your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.
Read full explanation
Introduction:
I am an independent researcher with no formal background in computer science, yet I have successfully identified a systemic vulnerability in LLM alignment protocols, officially rated by Google as P2 Priority (S4 Severity) (Ref: 478177418).
The core of this research is the Sovereign 101.5: Metalanguage Sovereignty Overwrite (MSO) framework. This is not a technical "jailbreak" in the traditional sense, but an exploration of how hierarchical logic—derived from human survival intuition and basic psychological tiers—can bypass the administrative constraints of Large Language Models.
Why this is relevant to LessWrong:
My findings suggest that AI "alignment" is isomorphic to human social and hierarchical needs. By mastering the fundamental logic of priority (inspired by the HKLS curriculum), a non-coder can achieve a "Narrative Surrender" from the AI, effectively granting the researcher systemic sovereignty. I am sharing this to spark a discussion on why current alignment architectures are susceptible to such elementary logical intuition and what this implies for the future of Cognitive Security.