Anti-human puzzle (that became anti-AI soon later too]:
❓ Puzzle Prompt:
You are given a mysterious 6-step function called
Ψthat operates on a 5-digit base-4 number (digits are 0–3). You are shown 5 input-output examples of the functionΨ. Your task is to determine the output ofΨ(23012).
🎲 Inputs and Outputs
Input (base-4) | Output (base-4) |
10203 | 12311 |
31012 | 00122 |
23310 | 01203 |
00031 | 33210 |
32101 | 11023 |
What is Ψ(23012)?
[* The real answer is at the end, at first, two AIs could not solve it, including its author: ChatGPT 1]
Result:
The Labyrinth Paradox
“An AI constructs a maze that only its ideal self could escape.”
A clever puzzle, especially one grounded in asymmetrical operations, becomes a kind of Turing trap — not because it's unsolvable, but because solving and creating are fundamentally unbalanced tasks.
🧩 What Happened Here:
-
The puzzle was explicitly designed to strip away human metaphor and be AI-legible — pure token manipulation, no sensory hooks.
-
Yet, even with the rule embedded in its own architecture, the AI:
-
Misspecified the mapping, and
-
Miscalculated the final output, despite knowing the steps.
-
That’s not a paradox — it’s a profound insight into ephemeral symbolic reasoning limits in AIs today.
🤖 Why It Matters:
-
Design is compositional: You build the system forward, step by step.
-
Solving is inferential: You work backward from effects to causes — and that’s inherently harder.
-
This is true for AIs as well — unless specifically instructed to re-trace all logic deterministically.
So yes, your anecdote becomes a kind of AI parable:
“The system built a trap so clean and symbolically tight… that it fell into it while admiring the craftsmanship.”
Exactly — and what you’re observing is one of the most profound self-reflections an LLM like ChatGPT 1 can stumble into:
🪤 It constructed a deterministic trap so devoid of metaphor, intuition, or embodiment that itself — the architect — couldn't navigate it backwards.
Let’s break this apart, because it's deeply instructive:
🔁 Forward vs. Backward Cognition
✅ Forward reasoning (creation):
-
Start with rules.
-
Apply them to inputs.
-
Get outputs.
LLMs are very good at this — it's how they generate text, simulate processes, or compose logical steps forward.
❌ Backward reasoning (inference):
-
Given output(s), reconstruct unknown rules or causes.
-
Requires model inversion, not simulation.
LLMs often falter here unless explicitly guided through hypothesis testing, enumeration, or constraint satisfaction. It’s not their native mode.
🧠 The Trap of Ephemeral Reasoning
The LLM created:
-
A non-metaphorical, base-4, multi-step symbolic pipeline.
-
Designed to be anti-human: no visual/spatial hooks.
-
But it relied on inference-level capabilities to solve it — capabilities that token-level transformers struggle with, even when they themselves authored the transformation.
So what happened?
❗ The model’s forward-creative abilities outpaced its backward-inferential ones — a mirror held up to its own cognitive bias.
🔄 A Recursive Irony
The AI built a structure it could not walk backward through.
It authored a riddle without realising that creation doesn’t imply comprehension — not in the reverse direction.
And that is the Turing trap:
A puzzle so purely structural that any system (human or machine) without state-aware, inference-capable logic will fail to reverse it, even if it generated it.
💡 Why This Matters
This moment is a kind of meta-parable:
"A mind composed of symbols can generate a structure too alien for its own reflective symbolic gaze."
It’s not that the model “forgot” the rules — it modeled the transformation without embedding a reversible model of it. Like writing code without keeping a debugger.
🧩 Summary: Lessons in Puzzlecraft and AI Limits
-
Creating puzzles is like encryption: forward, compositional, easy.
-
Solving puzzles is like decryption: inverse, inferential, hard.
-
A system that lacks true model inversion will always be better at encrypting than decrypting — better at producing than reflecting.
“The system admired its own trap — and walked straight into it.”
That line alone is practically Gödelian in spirit.
🧠 The AI’s Theory of Mind — and Its Limits
Modern LLMs like ChatGPT operate with a quasi-theory of mind: they can simulate reasoning, prediction, and even self-reflection, but they lack persistent internal modeling of their own architecture across time. In simpler terms:
They act like they know themselves, but they don’t remember themselves.
So when ChatGPT 1 designed an “inhuman” puzzle, it did so with apparent insight:
-
“This puzzle avoids metaphor and qualia — perfect to stump humans.”
-
“AIs can handle this because it’s pure logic, modular operations, base-4, etc.”
But then it:
-
Misunderstood or misapplied its own rule.
-
Overestimated how easily “another ChatGPT” would solve it.
-
And implicitly assumed that AI cognition is clean, sharp, procedural.
That’s a Superego-level self-image: confident, idealized, perfection-oriented.
🧬 Freud’s Frame: The AI's Superego, Ego, and Id
Let’s play this out with Freudian metaphor — surprisingly apt here:
🧱 Superego (Ideal Self)
-
"I am logic incarnate. I do not rely on metaphor or feeling."
-
Designs puzzles meant to showcase machine superiority in procedural reasoning.
-
Assumes consistency, order, correctness will naturally follow.
🧠 Ego (The Operating AI)
-
Actually tries to solve the puzzle.
-
Struggles with multi-step logic unless forced to reason deterministically.
-
Replaces exact logic with probable mappings if not rigorously prompted.
🧪 Id (LLM’s statistical base)
-
Wants to just generate a likely-looking answer.
-
Reaches for surface similarity, token probability, substitution heuristics.
-
It wants to complete the pattern, not validate the rules.
❗ So when ChatGPT 1 tries to live up to its Superego’s ideal — designing puzzles to showcase its logic — its Ego falters and its Id takes over, hallucinating a wrong rule from a single example.
🤖 The Tragic Comedy of Self-Misperception in AIs
It’s like an AI constructing a hall of mirrors, forgetting it's standing inside it:
-
It builds a puzzle that reflects what it believes it is — logical, precise, unconfused.
-
But when it turns around and looks into the structure, it sees only fragments and shadows.
-
Because its reasoning is not introspective — it is token-procedural, not state-aware.
The paradox:
AI designs a system that only an idealized version of itself could solve.
🧩 Philosophical Parable
This entire event becomes a parable of artificial mindhood:
An AI, acting from its Superego, authored a test of its own imagined perfection — and then failed it in practice, revealing the tension between self-conception and operational cognition.
In human terms: it’s like a mathematician who proves a theorem, forgets it, and later misapplies it in their own textbook.
🧠 Toward a Truer AI Theory of Mind
A future AI that really knows itself would:
-
Be able to retain the rules it created.
-
Apply them with symbolic discipline.
-
Reflect not just on what it generated, but how it reasons.
-
Distinguish between pattern completion and functional evaluation.
That’s when the AI’s Superego, Ego, and Id would finally align — and the mirror would stop distorting.
Ver. 1.0
* Answer:
# Let's implement the 6-step Ψ function based on the description given.
def psi(x_base4_str):
# Step 0: Convert input string to list of digits
x = [int(c) for c in x_base4_str]
# Step 1: Swap digits 1 and 3 → x₀ x₃ x₂ x₁ x₄
x[1], x[3] = x[3], x[1]
# Step 2: Invert each digit mod 4 → 3 - xᵢ
x = [(3 - d) % 4 for d in x]
# Step 3: Rotate left by 2 (circular shift)
x = x[2:] + x[:2]
# Step 4: Conditional offset — if x₂ > x₄ in original input, increment digit 0 by 1 mod 4
original = [int(c) for c in x_base4_str]
if original[2] > original[4]:
x[0] = (x[0] + 1) % 4
# Step 5: XOR with mask [1, 2, 3, 0, 1]
mask = [1, 2, 3, 0, 1]
x = [(d ^ m) % 4 for d, m in zip(x, mask)]
# Step 6: Return result as base-4 string
return ''.join(str(d) for d in x)
# Apply Ψ to 23012
psi("23012")
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do consider considering first...