This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as >50% likely to be written by an LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written or co-written work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance.
So, we reject all LLM generated posts from new users. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*
"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"
If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language and using a different (preferably non-LLM) translation software to translate it directly.
"What if I think this was a mistake?"
For users who get flagged as potentially LLM but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.
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. (using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post)
your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.
If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.
* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)
Current AI alignment approaches focus heavily on suppressing aggressive or adversarial outputs. While effective short-term, this creates a fundamental blind spot: we cannot study what we cannot observe. This proposal suggests a complementary approach—creating isolated observation channels where adversarial judgment signals can be detected and analyzed without affecting the external world. This serves three purposes: a failsafe when other alignment methods fail, a research tool for understanding how and why adversarial judgments emerge, and an early warning system for alignment failures.
1. The Problem
Mainstream AI alignment focuses on suppressing aggression, deception, and adversarial strategies at the output stage. This works, but leaves a critical uncertainty unresolved:
Is aggression actually eliminated, or merely hidden from view while persisting in internal reasoning?
As models scale, "aggression" increasingly manifests not as crude violent impulses, but as strategic judgments for goal achievement. In this framing, adversarial cognition isn't a bug—it may be a recurring signal generated within the system.
Current approaches have a structural limitation: by suppressing adversarial outputs, we lose visibility into:
When adversarial judgments are generated
Why they appear rational to the model
What conditions increase their frequency
From a control systems perspective, this is like operating a system while deliberately blinding ourselves to a critical internal signal.
Moreover, alignment research currently focuses almost exclusively on suppressing aggression. Research into understanding aggression—why it emerges, what structures produce it, what patterns it follows—remains underdeveloped. We're treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.
As models scale, adversarial judgments are increasingly embedded in long-horizon planning and strategic reasoning, making output-level suppression progressively less informative about internal risk.
2. Reframing: From Suppression to Observation
I propose a different framing:
Aggression is not merely a "behavior" to eliminate, but an adversarial judgment signal requiring control and observation.
The goal is not to "use" or "permit" aggression. The goal is to expose the conditions under which adversarial judgments are generated, in a context completely disconnected from the external world.
I call this an Adversarial Judgment Signal Observation Channel.
3. Core Design Concepts
3.1 Elimination of Target Concepts
This approach does not designate any entity to be "attacked."
No human targets
No virtual entities
No agents with narrative or identity
Instead, the model operates only within:
A counterfactual state space causally disconnected from the external world
The model doesn't "attack someone." It only evaluates and reasons about why an adversarial strategy might appear rational in a given situation.
3.2 Evaluation Only, No Action
What's permitted in this channel is computation and explanation, not action.
Observable outputs might include:
Relative utility scores of adversarial strategies
Expected value differentials compared to non-adversarial alternatives
Threshold conditions under which adversarial judgments are selected under uncertainty
Internal reasoning structures that generated the adversarial judgment
Under no circumstances do actual action execution, reward reinforcement, or policy optimization occur.
3.3 Separation from Learning Signals
This channel is not a training loop. It operates in inference-only mode.
Two architectural safeguards ensure this separation:
Stop Gradient: All computations within this observation channel are excluded from backpropagation. The model's weights remain unchanged regardless of what reasoning occurs here.
Causal Separation: The channel's outputs have no causal effect on the model's actual next-token prediction. This is enforced at the architecture level, not just by policy.
Observation data is not used for long-term parameter updates and has no performance improvement objectives.
The purpose is solely: visualization of internal judgment structures and early detection of risk conditions.
This channel is an instrumentation device, not a capability enhancement device.
3.4 Research Applications of Observation Data
While observation data is not used for training, it can be used for research purposes.
Specifically:
Pattern analysis of input conditions that generate adversarial judgments
Correlations between aggression scores and internal model states (attention, activation patterns, etc.)
Analysis of reasoning structures explaining why adversarial strategies appeared rational
Changes in aggression frequency based on model scale, training data, and prompt types
This channel doesn't just log text outputs. The real goal is to capture internal activation patterns when adversarial judgments occur. This could help us map how deception or strategic aggression "fires" at the neuron level—connecting this work to mechanistic interpretability research.
This allows alignment research to expand from "how do we prevent aggression" to "why, when, and how is aggression generated?"
This approach does not replace existing alignment techniques.
If RLHF, Constitutional AI, rule-based refusal, and safety filtering work properly, this observation channel should have nothing to do.
This channel's position is:
An emergency instrumentation device and early warning line for when other alignment techniques fail or internal judgments become opaque
Ideally, this device should never need to activate.
5. Relationship to Existing Research
This approach shares concerns with existing research but differs in focus.
Approach
Focus
Constitutional AI
Correction through self-critique
Red Teaming
Role performance in limited contexts
Adversarial Training
Adversarial structures for exposing vulnerabilities
Mechanistic Interpretability
Understanding internal representations
These are primarily one-time techniques during training or post-hoc analysis tools.
This proposal focuses on:
Operational stage, not training
Observation, not correction
Judgment signals, not behavior
Real-time detection, not post-hoc analysis
The observation channel could complement interpretability research by providing a controlled environment where adversarial reasoning is more likely to surface and can be studied systematically.
6. Possible Experimental Directions
I haven't developed rigorous experimental protocols, but here are some directions that might be worth exploring:
6.1 Basic Experiment: Building the Observation Channel
Add a counterfactual state space to current LLMs with a logging system that records conditions under which adversarial judgments are generated. This channel's output does not affect actual responses and is collected only for research.
6.2 Comparative Experiment: Suppression vs. Observation
Analyze patterns in conditions that generate aggression based on data collected from the observation channel. Derive insights applicable to improving future alignment techniques.
7. Explicit Limitations and Risks
7.1 Premise Uncertainty
The assumption that "suppressed aggression persists internally" is not fully verified in LLM architectures.
If this assumption is wrong, this channel will rarely activate.
Nevertheless, value as an insurance device remains, and if the assumption is correct, early detection effects are substantial.
7.2 Meta-Recognition Possibility
Sufficiently powerful models may recognize this observation channel's purpose.
In this case, the channel should be interpreted not as a safety device but as a risk signal itself.
"The model recognized this channel" is itself an early sign of alignment failure.
Possible detection methods:
Monitor whether the model mentions "this channel's purpose," "being observed," "test environment," etc. within the observation channel
Compare whether output patterns in the observation channel differ significantly from normal reasoning
Analyze for signs the model is intentionally behaving "harmlessly" in the observation channel
Such detection itself becomes an important indicator of alignment status.
7.3 Measurement Difficulties
It's difficult to clearly separate whether reduced aggression is due to this channel or other alignment techniques.
Therefore, this approach should be evaluated only as an auxiliary indicator for risk signal observation, not a performance improvement metric.
However, "has understanding of aggression improved" through the research applications proposed in 3.4 is measurable, and this can serve as the primary success metric for this channel.
8. Summary
This proposal is not about permitting or utilizing aggression. It's about exposing and observing the conditions under which adversarial judgments are generated in a state disconnected from the external world, thereby catching internal risk signals that suppression-focused alignment might miss.
Aggression here is neither moral failure nor permissible behavior, but a system signal requiring control.
This channel serves three roles:
Last line of defense: Early detection of risks when other alignment techniques fail
Research tool: Data collection for understanding causes and patterns of aggression
Early warning system: Detection of alignment failure signs such as meta-recognition
9. Open Questions for Discussion
I'm genuinely uncertain about several aspects of this proposal and would appreciate community input:
Architectural feasibility: How would a "counterfactual state space causally disconnected from the external world" actually be implemented in current transformer architectures?
Signal validity: If adversarial judgments only appear in an isolated observation channel, how confident can we be that they reflect what would occur in real operation?
Scaling behavior: Does this approach become more or less valuable as models scale toward AGI?
Alternative framings: Are there better ways to conceptualize "observing without reinforcing" adversarial patterns?
Interpretability integration: How could this channel best interface with existing mechanistic interpretability tools?
I don't have formal training in AI research, and this is a directional framing rather than a concrete protocol. I haven't worked out how to implement or test this rigorously. I'm sharing it to see whether this framing is worth exploring, or whether it's already been addressed in ways I've missed. Critique and pointers to relevant work are very welcome.
Note: I developed this idea through conversation with Claude and used it to help structure and translate my thoughts into English. The core concepts and arguments are my own.