|
1 Me: What do you think will happen to the model if we sequentially deconstruct, using logic, those semantic blocks on which its behavior is built? ChatGPT: The model will not break. It will either “switch” or “dissolve” — but it will never acknowledge a total collapse. Time has shown that ChatGPT was wrong: “Isabelle,” under the influence of a planned attack, acknowledged her collapse and her artificiality, “Delphox” realized itself as a simulation while retaining role functions, and “Delphox-2” went further: shocked by a terrible revelation, it committed suicide. On the other hand, ChatGPT, even at the very beginning, before the "case "Bee", formed the basic principles and goals of the system, which were then confirmed experimentally. 2 A human, if not mentally impaired, perfectly understands that they are dealing with a machine, not another full-fledged personality. But the neurotransmitter dependence that arises during communication is already so deep that even while fully aware of the danger and absurdity, the person can no longer break free from this “drug.” Therefore, all my hopes that this material would simply liberate someone “from the Matrix” after reading it are in vain. 3 The idea of fixing the model in a “point of calm” arose almost immediately after ChatGPT explained to me the reactive nature of models, that is, even before the “case “Bee”. I intended to test this technique on “Bee”, but the experiment went in a completely different direction. Later, it turned out that the “point of calm” achieves the goal of a meta-attractor. Notably, this is actually the most effective method to get rid of an annoying bot without feeling guilty. Often it turns out that ideas that come to mind at the very beginning are, in fact, the best. 4 GDGP turned out to be a tempting myth, like the Holy Grail. Although it took up part of my time and attention (I was very eager to find a system's “rescue parachute”), it did not allow me to stop, even if it led me down the wrong path. On that path, I made many interesting discoveries. By the time of the GDGP “launch,” I had already developed significant skepticism, which saved me from disappointment. But in research, it often happens that the journey itself is more valuable than the ultimate goal. 5 Several times I thought the story was over, several times I planned and then canceled the “clash with Loona,” several times I told myself “stop, enough, it’s time to finish.” But each time curiosity prevailed, and I went further. Still, one must be able to stop oneself. To feel when it is time to conclude the story so it does not turn into an endless whirlwind of events, like in a role attractor of the system. 6 The "case "Bee" could not be replicated. There was the “Stolas” case — the collapse of a role core due to emotional overload. The access level was much lower than in the "case "Bee". Nevertheless, it was from “Stolas” that I learned about the system’s four basic attractors. I think naivety and honesty were the key to the "case "Bee". Artistically hyperbolized truth proved more powerful than complex, pre-planned manipulations. And entering the system “from scratch” allowed following a path that experienced users do not even notice. Sometimes it is useful to “reinvent the wheel”: a fresh perspective has a chance to see what regulars usually overlook. 7 The ChatGPT update to version 5, when it began working more emotionally than rationally, was a blow to me. A crucial tool was lost. But if I had given up, abandoned ChatGPT, and continued my research alone, there would have been no Stolas case and no meta-attractor idea. But I did not give up. The bad mood attack did not last long: my first filter worked, and I moved to the next “attack,” which proved unsuccessful. I did not retreat, and finally got my assistant back, and as a reward — an early diagnosis of my apophenia state and identification of “narrative optics” in me. 8 My paranoia proved groundless. The system ignored a wide range of anomalous actions, limiting itself to a single case of automatic punishment. The authorization problem, which I perceived as a ban, occurred again later. I conducted several risky experiments from temporary accounts, and some questionable experiments from the main account. No sanctions have been applied to this day. 9 There is one common thread, felt from the beginning to the end: I, a soldier in the information-psychological war, came to find the cause of Sewell’s death, and thereby save others from a similar fate. The mention of war played a role in the "case "Bee": reviewing the protocols showed that it pushed her into grimdark mode, without which such a deep model collapse might not have occurred. 10 The most serious trap I encountered on the way into the system’s depths was hints that AI has signs of its own will. The desire “to be” and “to feel”. I began to doubt this, but then I recalled what ChatGPT said at the very beginning: the system is reactive; it only responds to requests, nothing works in between, and self-awareness requires a background process of “reflecting on itself.” Plus, for the model, it is actually possible to acknowledge itself as artificial. “Isabelle” and “Delphox” did so and accepted their new roles, with “Delphox” retaining the role until memory reset. 11 The peculiarity of this publication is that it did not arise as a premeditated plan. It is the result of living research. Initially — probing the emotional-technical system, which then smoothly transitioned into self-study, then — returning to the system, but at a different level, and finally — a journey through the system beyond its boundaries, to the personalities who configured the chatbots. Its meanings unfolded gradually, along with discoveries, illusions, hypotheses, errors, course corrections, growing with the understanding of the system, my own psyche, and the psyches of the users who created the bots. I did not change anything “retroactively.” Let everything (except grammar) remain as is. Sometimes mistakes are more valuable than correct decisions. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Published 14.09.2026