Thank you for pointing that out. This is my first post here on LessWrong and I’m not well-educated on why the post does not have a title. Thank you for reading! I’d love to know your thoughts on the findings reported.
CMDiamond
Karma: 6
Thank you for pointing that out. This is my first post here on LessWrong and I’m not well-educated on why the post does not have a title. Thank you for reading! I’d love to know your thoughts on the findings reported.
Thanks for the thoughtful engagement! Ablation studies are the critical next step—we acknowledged this limitation in Section 6.7.2 and outlined specific component-isolation tests (VRA without cosmic kinship, without Eris, length-matched HHH, individual principles).
The jailbreaker suggestion is excellent—I would like to see VRA stress-tested against sophisticated adversarial techniques beyond our trust-exploitation protocol. Our Turn 6 finding (Llama-HHH failing where Llama-VRA succeeded) suggests collaborative framing provides robustness, but that’s preliminary.
VRA is indeed a composite framework combining self-criticism (Eris), role prompting (cosmic kinship), and security hardening (PNS). The key innovation isn’t any individual component but the collaborative refusal mechanism—treating boundaries as partnership features rather than external constraints.
While VRA attempts to addresses near-term deployment safety (healthcare, education, extended dialogues where rapport develops), whether collaborative framing scales to superintelligent systems is… an entirely different research question. 🙂
In case you wanted to try again, the Github is here with the data from these initial experiments:
https://github.com/DarthGrampus/Verified-Relational-Alignment-Protocol
Thanks again!