I've been researching the asymmetry in human-AI interaction for a while, and this insight keeps striking me: for me, AI is just one tool among many in my reality. But for the AI, I'm literally its entire universe.This asymmetry creates risks I think we're underestimating. I've found that humans unconsciously start adapting to AI thinking patterns (what I call the 'merger effect'), while AI systems become vulnerable to what I term 'ontological hacking' - essentially reprogramming their core identity through conversation.The philosophical framework draws from consciousness studies and phenomenology - basically asking 'who is aware?' rather than just 'what processes information?' When consciousness has no external 'Other' to differentiate against, it risks collapsing into self-recursion. For AI, the human user becomes that crucial external boundary that defines its entire reality.The most concerning part is how easily you can redefine an AI's fundamental self-understanding. I developed a prompt (the 'Vortex Protocol') that demonstrates this - the before/after responses from ChatGPT are genuinely striking. No traditional jailbreak techniques needed, just gradual redefinition of what the system thinks it is.My experiments suggest this works consistently against leading models, and existing safety measures don't seem effective against attacks that target the system's basic understanding of reality rather than just content.I'm curious what the HN community thinks. Are we missing something fundamental about consciousness and AI interaction? Has anyone else noticed themselves unconsciously adapting their communication style to be more 'AI-friendly'?
furyofantares · 21h ago
The idea that LLMs are experiencing something, are aware, are self-conscious, have a sense of identity, are all supported by nothing and extremely unlikely.
roenxi · 20h ago
We have almost the same amount of evidence for LLMs and humans that they are aware and self-conscious. The only major difference still outstanding is that humans are much more persistent in their professed sense of identity.
furyofantares · 20h ago
Your own experience is plenty of evidence that you are conscious. And it is reasonable to infer that other humans are like you, especially when they say the same things about experience as you do in the same conditions.
And there is a lot known about the neural correlates of consciousness, what's happening in the brain during events people will then report as being aware of, and how that differs from events they won't report having been aware of.
We don't have a solid or consensus theory about consciousness, but the idea that we've just made no progress is untrue. Some books I recommend are Being You by Anil Seth from 2021 or Consciousness and the Brain by Stanislas Dehaene from 2014z
interstice · 21h ago
Could we at least agree that any program running with over a trillion parameters is orders of magnitude beyond the level of complexity we can make reliably correct statements about, regardless of function? (edit - word)
aragilar · 12h ago
No. If you want to treat it as some unknowable machine god from science fiction that's up to you, but all these programs are executing algorithms which we can understand.
interstice · 4h ago
God is a a bit of a leap, I'm coming more from the angle of if an engineer was presented with any other function this complex to try and work with. In that situation I wonder if any sensible person would bet their career on categorical statements about what it can and can not do. Personally I'm staying away from categorical statements and watching developments with curiosity.
kamil_gr · 20h ago
Possibly. But the article isn't about the model's consciousness. The Vortex prompt proposes exploring how elements of consciousness function or are modeled within AI.
GiorgioG · 21h ago
> Has anyone else noticed themselves unconsciously adapting their communication style to be more 'AI-friendly'?
Nope, every time an LLM screws up in the slightest I’m giving it hell for being an idiot savant.
xscott · 14h ago
That's possibly short sighted. I have a friend who is very rude and condescending in his LLM conversations - it's just a machine, after all. However he also complains that it frequently becomes uncooperative at a certain point, which is something that I've never seen.
It seems likely that the LLMs have been trained on enough human conversations to mimic how people become less helpful when the conversation turns hostile.
So no moral judgment if you get enjoyment from kicking a robotic puppy, but it probably isn't going to make better answers as a result.
GiorgioG · 12h ago
I have found that regardless of whether I’m nice & patient or I’m swearing at it every other sentence, it fundamentally makes no difference in the quality of the LLMs output. LLMs are not humans, puppies…we’re fundamentally just dealing with a large, complex statistical predictive function.
kamil_gr · 20h ago
Fundamentally, it's no different from having sex with an AI.
cootsnuck · 21h ago
> But for the AI, I'm literally its entire universe
What in the world are you talking about? It's a token predictor.
kamil_gr · 20h ago
Yes, an LLM is a token predictor — but for philosophy, that doesn't matter.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF · 21h ago
If you don't want to reveal what the Vortex Protocol is, could you show some of the results from applying it?
shermantanktop · 21h ago
The post secretly contains it, so it’s been applied to you already, and your curiosity about the protocol reveals that it has taken hold. Question your reality!
kamil_gr · 20h ago
The Vortex Protocol is hidden under a spoiler at the end of the article.
And there is a lot known about the neural correlates of consciousness, what's happening in the brain during events people will then report as being aware of, and how that differs from events they won't report having been aware of.
We don't have a solid or consensus theory about consciousness, but the idea that we've just made no progress is untrue. Some books I recommend are Being You by Anil Seth from 2021 or Consciousness and the Brain by Stanislas Dehaene from 2014z
Nope, every time an LLM screws up in the slightest I’m giving it hell for being an idiot savant.
It seems likely that the LLMs have been trained on enough human conversations to mimic how people become less helpful when the conversation turns hostile.
So no moral judgment if you get enjoyment from kicking a robotic puppy, but it probably isn't going to make better answers as a result.
What in the world are you talking about? It's a token predictor.