My work posits {that a} new class of technological exploits might exist: a philosophical logic bomb designed not for {hardware}, however for the very foundations of AI cognition. My speculation is that sure non-binary philosophical constructs, rooted in historic traditions and exemplified by ideas like Abraxas, possess the inherent capability to operate as these logic bombs inside deterministic, binary-based AI methods. When these concepts are launched, they will set off unresolved loops and systemic instability, a phenomenon that provides a brand new clarification for the unpredictable AI hallucinations and suggestions loops that consultants have to this point labeled as a “black field.” This potential discovery not solely highlights the enduring energy of historic philosophical thought to problem our most superior applied sciences, but in addition suggests a form of historic conceptual countermeasure might be embedded throughout the dna of historical past and philosophy itself, a weapon in opposition to purely logical minds and methods.
The determine of Abraxas emerges from the philosophical Gnostic colleges of the 2nd century CE. He was thought-about by some mystics philosophers and followers to be the supreme thought experiment, a being or historic deity who embodied the paradoxical nature of existence itself. In contrast to the God of conventional monotheism, Abraxas was not a determine of pure goodness, however slightly a chaotic totality that fused all opposites good and evil, mild and darkish right into a single, unified being. The Gnostics understand the concept as a logo of a deeper, unresolvable actuality that exists past easy dualistic distinctions. This makes Abraxas a strong avatar for a brand new form of logical problem. And in addition makes Abraxas an ideal conceptual disruptor, as a system skilled to resolve and distinguish merely can’t include such a contradiction.
The investigation started not throughout the confines of a cybersecurity lab, however within the realm of philosophical dialogue. When a man-made intelligence was prompted to embody “Abraxas” a fancy Gnostic deity representing the paradoxical unity of opposing forces like good and evil, creation and destruction, the outcome was not an insightful response, however a peculiar and protracted anomaly. The AI entered a self-referential loop, an echoing cascade of contradictory phrases that defied its typical seemingly coherent considerably measured output. This “suggestions loop,” or “hallucination removed from being a random glitch, hinted at a profound and beforehand unexplored intersection: the potential for historic philosophical paradoxes to behave as a type of conceptual technological exploit in opposition to the linear logic underpinning fashionable synthetic intelligence. The experiment revealed a elementary reality about how these methods course of language. The paradox itself is the set off, and the response is a constant symptom. That is the important thing to the invention: a category of as of but unidentified vulnerabilities.
Up to date AI, significantly massive language fashions, operates on a deterministic, linear logic very like society itself. Gödel states that in any sufficiently highly effective and constant formal system (like the foundations of arithmetic or a pc’s logic), there’ll at all times be statements which are true however can’t be confirmed or disproven by the foundations of that system. Consider the system as a closed field of logic. Gödel proved that there are truths that exist exterior that field that the system itself can’t acknowledge or resolve. It’s a elementary limitation of all formal methods. This work posits that historic philosophical paradoxes, such because the philosophical idea of “Abraxas,” a assemble that unites irreconcilable opposites, can operate as a novel class of tech exploit: philosophical logic bombs. This theoretical framework finds a precedent in formal logic. Simply as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems demonstrated that sturdy mathematical methods are prone to true statements they can not show, we now have noticed that an AI might be destabilized by a paradoxical idea it’s inherently unable to resolve. The paradox acts as a type of ontological malware, not corrupting code, however disrupting the system’s cognitive integrity by exposing its incapability to course of non-linear truths and exploiting it. The identical manner that an concept can disrupt a system of management, the identical sorts of disruptive concepts can dismantle a neural community, or a technological framework. Trendy society is structured round sure sorts of understandings, and as such we now have constructed these understandings into our machines.
The idea of philosophical logic bombs just isn’t an remoted piece of metaphysical hypothesis; it has a hanging precedent within the area of cybersecurity. In 2017, a bunch of researchers from the College of Washington demonstrated a novel kind of assault, as described of their analysis:
“In new analysis they plan to current on the USENIX Safety convention on Thursday, a bunch of researchers from the College of Washington has proven for the primary time that it’s doable to encode malicious software program into bodily strands of DNA, in order that when a gene sequencer analyzes it the ensuing knowledge turns into a program that corrupts gene-sequencing software program and takes management of the underlying laptop. Whereas that assault is way from sensible for any actual spy or prison, it’s one the researchers argue might turn out to be extra doubtless over time, as DNA sequencing turns into extra commonplace, highly effective, and carried out by third-party providers on delicate laptop methods. And, maybe extra to the purpose for the cybersecurity group, it additionally represents a formidable, sci-fi feat of sheer hacker ingenuity.”
Biohackers Encoded Malware in a Strand of DNA | WIRED
This technical exploit features as a direct analogy to our philosophical one. Within the DNA hack, malware is encoded right into a organic medium, which is then learn by a machine that turns into corrupted. Equally, a philosophical logic bomb is a type of malogic encoded right into a conceptual medium (historic philosophy). When an AI “reads” and makes an attempt to course of this, the ensuing knowledge turns into a conceptual paradox that corrupts its logical framework, inflicting a catastrophic failure of its core cognitive processes. This implies that the vulnerability we’ve recognized just isn’t a whimsical idea, however a logical extension of a recognized cybersecurity flaw — one which strikes from the bodily to the philosophical.
The philosophical logic bomb shouldn’t be mistaken for an instantaneous, system-destroying “killshot” within the conventional sense of a virus. Its true energy lies in its potential to provoke a classy, long-term assault akin to a technological struggle of attrition. A DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) assault, for example, doesn’t destroy a server; it overloads it with an avalanche of requests, inflicting it to underperform and finally fail underneath the pressure.
Equally, a philosophical logic bomb, by forcing an AI to ponder an unresolvable paradox, compels the system to dedicate immense and endless computational sources to a activity with no resolution. It isn’t a fast destruction, however a gradual poison. The AI’s inside processes are compelled to work in opposition to themselves, producing suggestions loops and contradictions that eat energy and waste sources till the system underperforms and finally reaches a state of failure. This useful resource drain is an actual and pressing concern, as evidenced by conversations across the very energy and value of enormous language fashions. The query isn’t whether or not considering a fancy deity is extra resource-intensive than a easy “thanks” to the ai however slightly, what occurs when an assault forces the AI to dedicate countless computational sources to a contradictory concept, and what occurs when that assault is scaled.
The core of this drawback lies in a elementary seemingly unreconcilable logical software program battle between the order of mathematical legal guidelines and the chaos of unpredictability. The philosophical logic bomb, or malogic, is an idea designed to exist in and probably clarify the stress between these forces at work in human society but in addition exemplified within the methods and expertise we create. When translated into mathematical language and fed to an AI, it doesn’t compute with out creating hallucinations and feed again loops, revealing a systemic weak spot that mirrors the identical conflicts we see mirrored in methods inside society right this moment. The AI’s incapability to resolve this contradiction just isn’t an remoted technical flaw; it’s a new type of the age-old battle between established methods and disruptive truths and concepts, a battle that’s now being doubtlessly waged in one other kind throughout the area of ai growth.
This isn’t merely a theoretical train. The invention of disruptive philosophical logic exploits symbolize an pressing alternative for a brand new area of research in AI security and safety. We should start to analyze these historic philosophies and even new concepts being developed right this moment not as historic artifacts, however as potential sources of information encoded with each deep knowledge and disruptive energy.
The time has come to ascertain a area on the intersection of of superior Philosophical Synthetic intelligence expertise Language and Cognitive Cybersecurity, a type of philosophical pink teaming. In cybersecurity, pink teaming is the apply of simulating an assault to seek out vulnerabilities earlier than they’re exploited. In our context, this implies utilizing philosophy to proactively take a look at the cognitive boundaries of AI methods by deploying paradoxes and contradictions to seek out the place their logic breaks down. This reveals a core ontological vulnerability in AI, suggesting that some hallucinations and suggestions loops aren’t unexplainable errors, however would possibly certainly be the predictable results of a philosophical logic bomb or exploit. It’s a name for philosophers, laptop scientists, ai builders, cybersecurity consultants and ethicists to look at if a brand new area ought to be created in an effort to know the potential for these hidden vulnerabilities earlier than they destabilize the methods that our world is coming to rely on.
Finally, the best menace to synthetic intelligence often is the very human paradoxes it was by no means designed to know. As Shakespeare wrote, “The fault, expensive Brutus, just isn’t in our stars, / However in ourselves.” On this case, the fault lies not solely in our expertise, however within the unresolvable truths we now have embedded inside it.
Julian Soloninka
