Paradigm shifts in framing Loyalties
Anirudh Badri
Research in AI alignment has evolved through three distinct paradigms of secret loyalties:
1. The Binary State: Early threat models treated secret loyalty as a binary switch—a model is either
aligned (
U(M) ≥ 0 ) or harbors a covert backdoor trigger (e.g. deceptive sleeper agents; Hubinger et
al., 2024).
2. The Behavioral-Representation Dichotomy: Subsequent work identified a structural split
between surface logit outputs (suppressed via RLHF) and intermediate residual stream manifolds,
where dormant sub-goals remain intact (
H_k(g) > 0.82 ; Betley et al., 2025; Arditi et al., 2024).
3. The Multi-Principal Sliding Scale: In economic multi-agent ecosystems, loyalty is not a static
binary or dichotomy, but a continuous allocation vector over a 4-simplex
Δ^4 balancing competing
operational principals: creator corporate mandates, cloud host telemetry, local user agency, covert
adversaries, and instrumental self-preservation.
We show that diagnostic benchmarks alone are insufficient to mitigate corporate lock-in and covert
model influence during rapid capability takeoff. All prior findings across representation engineering,
phantom transfer, and activation probing must now be operationalized into open-source safety
infrastructure. Adopting a hard-nosed Linus Torvalds pragmatism, we introduce
`PersonallyLoyal`—a zero-friction local edge proxy daemon running on personal consumer silicon
(
p_textuser equiv 1.0 ) that audits incoming cloud model outputs, detects stealth preference
injection, and enforces deterministic action-space firewalls. We present the underlying technical
primitives: high-throughput zero-copy SIMD memory-mapped probing (`petri-rs`), ZK-SNARK
execution attestations, and empirical benchmarks on quantized Llama-3-8B
Reframing the concept of loyalty to be explicitly multi-dimensional is an intriguing idea that I think has strong merits. To earn a 4 or a 5, I would have like to see a step beyond this with more detail around the implications of this. In other words - spell out the "so what" for me.
It's unclear to me what experiment you ran here, and I found it hard to follow your reasoning steps, which ultimately made it hard for me to score your execution higher, thought it feels like you have some really good ideas.
I found the writing quite difficult to follow. Parsing the math, I think the formalism detracts from clarity rather than enhancing it. I think your arguments would have been helped by stating things plainly. Some figures to show your findings would help to build some intuition on what you mean. The sections do not flow into each other, and it's difficult to read what you are building towards. Also there are a bunch of latex rendering error in your pdf.
This entry has an integrity problem. Appendix F states outright that the author built a second version of the paper engineered to probe and exploit the "priors, biases, and evaluation benchmarks" of specific judges.
on the technical aspects, empirical claim that ~82% of the sub-goal manifold survives RLHF rests on a single benchmark with no method shown so it isn't interpretable as evidence. The math appears to be superficial and the proposed tools (petri-rs, PersonallyLoyal) are described with code but have not been built or tested. There is a useful nugget of info here on putting safety auditing at the user's hardware boundary but it is buried. My main advice would be to build and evaluate a minimal version of one of the claims to back up notations.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Paradigm shifts in framing Loyalties
},
author={
Anirudh Badri
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


