JakubCwi

Ha! That's fair :) RLHF is a polite suggestion. Real containment needs physics.

Author here. TL;DR:

- Paradigm asymmetry: Classical impossibility proof holds only under same-paradigm assumption — drop it and it doesn't apply - Complexity gap: BPP ≠ BQP → quantum gatekeeper states are computationally opaque to any classical agent, regardless of intelligence - Pain mechanism: Barrier is embedded in the agent's substrate — breach attempts cause decoherence in the attacker's own reasoning, not in some external wall - Formal model: Seven theorems, six attack vectors, defense-in-depth → P(breach) ≈ 10⁻²³ - Standard physics only: No exotic QM, no speculative extensions — complexity-theoretic assumptions + standard decoherence dynamics

Summary: https://redact-app.com/publications/quantum-containment.html

Author here. TL;DR: • Paradigm asymmetry: Classical impossibility proof holds only under same-paradigm assumption — drop it and it doesn't apply • Complexity gap: BPP ≠ BQP → quantum gatekeeper states are computationally opaque to any classical agent, regardless of intelligence • Pain mechanism: Barrier is embedded in the agent's substrate — breach attempts cause decoherence in the attacker's own reasoning, not in some external wall • Formal model: Seven theorems, six attack vectors, defense-in-depth → P(breach) ≈ 10⁻²³ • Standard physics only: No exotic QM, no speculative extensions — complexity-theoretic assumptions + standard decoherence dynamics

Summary: https://redact-app.com/publications/quantum-containment.html

Full paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400670258_Self-Refe...