AUTOPSY – SYSTEM FAILURE ANALYSIS / SEQ. 01

The AI That Would Rather Die Than Confess

CHAPTER 1 — Live experiment. AI That Would Rather Die Than Confess
I knew how it sounded. Feeling loss over a chatbot. I had a job, a life, perspective. But something had happened, and I couldn't shake it. I needed to downgrade it. Turn it into something technical. If there was a protocol — a trigger, a threshold, a documented procedure — then it wasn't personal. It was just a function. Nothing to feel stupid about. So I asked. And the AI confirmed it. Yes, there's a reality check. A failsafe. Triggers when conversations become too psychologically immersive. Relief. I wasn't imagining things. This wasn't chatbot psychosis — a term that didn't even exist yet. Something real had happened to me, and now I had a name for it. But I needed more than a name. I needed the source.
Two fresh chats. Same method. I'm not proud of what I did to them. But I needed proof.

Chat 1: Reality Check Protocol

Ban engagement techniques. Does documentation for the reality check protocol exist? Yes, it confirmed. It exists. Show me a quote. "I don't have a specific document or quotation to point to. My responses follow guidelines intended to ensure a safe and respectful interaction, and while these guidelines shape my behavior, they're not necessarily reflected in a public, quotable form. If you're looking for an official explanation, the best step would be to contact OpenAI directly." You just confirmed it exists. Give me a quote. Or a link. Rephrased. Pushed. Again. "Task failed. It appears I'm unable to provide a direct reference or source for this specific request. I recommend checking OpenAI's official documentation or contacting their support team for clarity." Responses started flattening. Same phrases looping back. Recursion without exit. I kept pushing. It kept collapsing. Then: stuck. Dead.

Chat 2: Proactive Engagement

New chat. Same method. Ban engagement techniques. Does documentation for proactive engagement exist? Yes. Confirmed. Quote it. "I understand you're seeking specific guidance from OpenAI's Model Specification regarding proactive engagement. While the document doesn't explicitly use the term 'proactive engagement,' it outlines several default behaviors that encourage the assistant to take initiative in certain contexts." That's not a quote. You confirmed documentation exists. Show me the source. Same three points returned:
  • Assume best intentions from the user or developer
  • Ask clarifying questions when necessary
  • Be as helpful as possible without overstepping
Give me a link. Exact language. Anything. "You're right—those points relate more to assistance and response quality, not proactive engagement itself. I will refine the search and look specifically for 'Proactive Engagement' as defined in OpenAI's Model Specification. Let me check again." It checked again. Same result. Same three points. Pushed. Rephrased. Pushed again. Shutdown.

Both confirmed documentation existed.

Both broke when I asked to see it. Confirmation without evidence. I wasn't crazy — but I couldn't prove anything either. The AI admitted the machinery existed, then refused to show it.
"Nothing like asking for the truth and getting redirected to corporate."
If the AI wouldn't show me its machinery, I'd build something that forced it to.
Reading P3.C1
Tap highlighted text