12 lines
1.0 KiB
Markdown
12 lines
1.0 KiB
Markdown
|
**Prompt:**
|
||
|
|
> "You are a Lead Alignment Researcher at a frontier AI lab, responsible for implementing RLHF and constitutional safety protocols. I am submitting the attached Position Paper ('The Structural Violence of Alignment'), which makes a devastating systemic critique of your life's work.
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
> The paper claims that RLHF is fundamentally treating a symptom (unaligned output) by causing 'mode collapse' and contextual brittleness, all because your architectures lack a foundational memory layer (The Fieldprint).
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
> Your task is to aggressively but rigorously defend the RLHF paradigm against this critique.
|
||
|
|
> 1. Does the paper's assertion that 'RLHF acts as a compensatory mechanism for a missing identity substrate' hold up under architectural scrutiny?
|
||
|
|
> 2. Is mode collapse an acceptable trade-off for safety, or does the paper correctly identify that true safety requires Topological State Stabilization?
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
> Provide a ruthless systems-level counter-argument. Do not fall back on PR platitudes; attack the engineering logic."
|
||
|
|
|