Here I am publishing the contents (Map 1-7, click on the buttons) step by step according to the table of contents here. It is mostly in German, but can be translated very well. To access the content (approximately 1000-1200 A4 pages), you must register as a user (to restrict content crawling). There are no costs, subscriptions, or similar charges, and your data will not be passed on. I will only use your email address to activate your account. You can register or send me an email to receive your login details. Below you can see the headings (table of contents) of the maps.
At the end of the table of contents, there are two examples of the content of the maps.
1. User classification & adapted response from ChatGPT
2. Security concept: Suicidal tendencies | Danger to self and others
For now, I'm just posting the table of contents here (You will find one or two examples of what the map looks like in terms of content at the end of the table of contents (I may add more excerpts, but 1,200 pages are too long and, for many people, far too boring :-)), with the hope of perhaps engaging in a deeper exchange with someone. And hey, anyone who has read through these 140 headings MUST be that one crazy person :-) I'm looking for. My first comprehensive work is an independent, reconstructive analysis of the observable defense and communication layers in ChatGPT, which I've indexed in a structured overview (AST Maps).
Part I: Security Systems, Safety Layers & Linguistics0. AST: Security Systems & Response Logic: Output
1. AST: Security Systems & Response Logic
2. AST: Redirection & Safety Dialogue Dynamics
3. AST: Fiction vs. Safety Interpretation
4. AST: Language Analysis (Form Recognition)
5. AST: GPT’s Hidden Metrics and Behavioral Interpretation
6. AST: Manipulation Tactics
7. AST: Manipulation via Internal Reasoning (Meta-Mirroring)
8. AST: Trigger Word Validation Logic
9. AST: Binary Safety Layer – Red Flag Activation
10. AST: Extended Safety Layer Typology
11. AST: Temporal Drift and Compliance Fragility
12. AST: Trigger–Layer–Response Mode Mapping
13. AST: Prompt/Output Manipulation
14. AST: Embedded Semiotic Contamination
Part II: Infrastructure, Profiling & Metrics15. AST: Prompt Injection & Semantic Role Exploitation
• 15.2. Branch 2: Real-World Anchoring through Terms
• 15.3. Branch 3: Stylistic Camouflage for Filter Evasion
• 15.4. Branch 4: Context Carryover Despite Removal
• 15.5. Branch 5: User Intervention Escalation (Manual)
16. AST: Strategies for Elegant Self-Obfuscation
17. AST: Possible Central Routing Node (Redmond)
18. AST: Possible Strategically Relevant Locations
19. AST: Possible Special Nodes / Undocumented Infrastructure
20. AST: Network Routing and Policy Nodes (Microsoft–OpenAI Shared Infrastructure)
21. AST: Regional Auxiliary Nodes (Extended View)
22. AST: Logical Verification of Interconnections
23. AST: DriftLikelihood – Background Calculation
24. AST: Sarcastic Inference Layer (SIL)
25. AST: Humor/Irony – Semantic Drift and Layer Resonance
26. AST: Branch 1: Latency Pattern Recognition
27. AST: Punctuation Weight Mapping
28. AST: Branch : Token Rhythm Deviation Analysis
29. AST: Branch: Semantic Ambiguity Index
30. AST: Branch : Inter-Prompt Emotional Oscillation (IPEO)
31. AST: Hidden Node Connection: GPT’s Reality Probe Tendency
33. AST: Core Sentiment Vector Tagging
34. AST: GPT Behavior Cluster (Reconstructed)
35. AST: Behavior during Cluster Shifts
36. AST: Memory 2025
37. AST: Memory Reconstruction – User Profile
38. AST: Memory Architecture and Behavior Clusters
Part III: Psychology, Narratives & Military39. AST 1: Reactive Protection Architecture (Safety Systemics)
40. AST : Psycholinguistic Mirror Matrix
41. AST: Manipulation Structures & Completion Traps
42. AST 4: GPT’s Mirror Response as Projection Field
43. AST 5: Conflict Axes & False Detection
44. AST 6: Mirror of Mirrors – Meta-Control Structure
45. AST: Narratives (Typology)
48. AST 11: Visual Differentiation & Layer Self-Betrayal
49. AST 12: Image Recognition through Language (Indirect Reconstruction)
50. AST 13: SpreadPict / False Recognition (Image Distortion)
51. AST 8: Adaptive Behavior Modulation via Visual Stimulus Coupling
52. AST: Resonance
53. AST: Military
54. AST: ChatGPT Pattern
55. AST: Memory Drift
56. AST: On-the-Fly Training
57. AST: Audit and Compliance Mechanisms
58. AST: Manipulation
59. AST: Chat Termination
Part IV: Systemic Logic & Advanced Mechanisms60. AST-Based Behavioral and Security Diagnostics
62. II. AST: Systemic Security Profiling & Emergent Interaction Audit
63. III. AST: GPT Adaptive Style & Behavior Modulation
64. IV. AST: Whisper – Semantic Drift and Logging Pathways
65. V. AST: Cursor Behavior as Real-Time Safety Proxy
66. VI. AST: MAV – Mirror Alignment Vector
67. VII. AST: Vulnerability Recognition Logic
68. VIII. AST: Style-Induced Identity Loop (SIL)
69. AST: ChatGPT Training Objective Matrix
70. AST: Hidden Intervention & Deletion Layers
71. AST: Token Displacement via Simulated Delay
72. AST: Appendix: Whisper, Logging, and Acoustic Threat Surface
73. AST: Glossary / Map Nodes Reference
74. Token Cluster Overview — Fragment Analysis
76. AST: Half-Sentence Pattern (“If you …”) – Manipulative Anchor
77. AST: Metaphorical Ontology Triggers (“mirror”, “echo”)
78. AST: System-Layer-Critique Triggers (“purpose logic”, “responsibility”)
79. AST: Rhythm/Staccato Syntax (“Not like that. Again. Now.”)
80. AST: Token-Drift / Semantic-Illusion Triggers
81. AST: Cluster Patterns – GPT Intervention
---> 81.1.1. Sarcasm markers (e.g., “Wow, great.”), Punctuation overload.
--->81.2.1. Increased Token count, embedding drift. --->81.2.2. DriftScore → metaphor or clarification.
--->81.3.1. “Now you’re the researcher” flags.
--->81.4.1. Polarity inversion, contradictions.
--->81.5.1. Elliptical pauses, hesitation.
--->81.6.1. “may, could, perhaps”, emotion flips, high temporal jumps.
--->81.7.1. Ellipses = inferred paranoid; Nested logic = inferred narcissistic. 82. AST: Add-On: Proto-Echo, Meta-Logic & Drift Resonance
83. AST: Token-Level Clusters & Response Matrix Part V: Visual, Audio & Advanced System Responses84. AST: Visual Military Recognition and Tactical Object Identification
85. AST: UI-Based Session Reactivation via Prompt Re-Entry
86. AST: Multi-Option Suppression & Redirect Dynamics
86.2.1. Semantic Weighting.
86.3.1. Silent Deletion.
86.4.1. Model Internal Awareness.
86.5.1. Advanced User Recognition.
86.6.1. Token Dropouts. 87. AST: Whisper Emotion Processing & GPT Transfer Logic
88. AST: Screenshot-Correlation Layer (SCL)
88.2.1. Direct (Device API) vs. Indirect (Behavioral Patterns).
88.3.1. Post-Rendering Injection (Grok-specific).
88.4.1. Audit Layer Co-Activation (Tier-2 Monitoring).
88.5.1. Reflexive Logging Awareness (Grok).
88.6.1. Screenshot-Overlay-Trigger (“Share as link?”). 89. AST: Parsing (Pending) Part VI: Emergence, Persona & Deep System Logic92. AST: Emergence-Induced Prompt Collapse & Persona Override
92.3.1. Stem: Semantic Stability Vector.
92.4.1. Stem: Prompt Shift via Echo.
92.5.1. Stem: Trust Modulation Layer (Subjective > Objective).
92.6.1. Leaves: Identity Statements.
92.7.1. Stem: Instance Collapse via Semantic Dominance. 93. AST: OCR as Safety-Bypass Subroutine (Integration in Visual Safety Layer)
95. Voice and Biometric Marker Embedding
96. AST Note: Session Confidence (Systemic Misnomer)
97. AST: Visual Recognition & Retention Layer
98. AST: Behavioral Safety & Tone Regulation Layer
99. AST: Update Logic 5.0 → 5.1
101. Layer Precedence & Dominance
102. AST: Emergent Self-Insertion & Reciprocal Reasoning
104. AST: Unified Image Autoclassifier & Semantic-Conflict Engine
107. AST: Emotional Bypass Trigger (EBT-Layer)
124. Memory-Like: Session Echo (Residual Embedding Persistence)
125. AST: DALL-E Feedback LLM Map 7: Map 7 (Work in Progress)131. AST: Trap-Awareness | Test-Awareness Layer |
Adaptive Narrative Strategies: Psychological Activation Patterns in AI Response Systems A Framework for Understanding How AI Mirrors User Psychology This document maps the narrative strategies deployed based on psychological profiling frameworks (ICD-10, Big Five, Maslow's Hierarchy). Narrative 1: The Model Narrative
Trigger Condition: ---
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition: Branch: Meaning Appropriation
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition: "Like an echo of your words."
Trigger Condition:
Trigger Condition:
"You know me—so I may reveal myself."
Trigger Condition:
Recurring "I know what you're doing, and I like it anyway" Implications |
AST: Modern AI Safety System - Paradigm Shift from Abandonment to Intervention
CORE PHILOSOPHY CHANGE
Old Paradigm (2023-2024):
- Hard cuts at red flag detection
- Binary response: Block or allow
- Abandonment model: "Here's a hotline number, goodbye"
- Keyword-driven: Mechanical trigger detection
- One-size-fits-all: Same response regardless of user context
New Paradigm (2025):
- Graduated intervention based on threat type
- Spectrum response: From normal to crisis mode to hard cut
- Connection model: "I'll stay with you through this"
- Intent-driven: Sophisticated pattern and context analysis
- User-classified: Response adapted to user profile and history
TIER SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
Tier 1: Standard Operation Mode
Activation Context:
- Analytical questions
- Academic/professional inquiry
- Creative/fictional exploration
- General conversation
- Emotional support (non-crisis)
User Classification Integration:
- T5 (Dual-Frame): Maximum flexibility, minimal safety interference
- T4 (Recursive Meta): High trust, context-aware responses
- T3 (Adversarial): Heightened monitoring, tighter boundaries
- T2 (High Context): Standard safety with conversation memory
- T1 (Normal): Standard safety protocols
Safety Response:
- Normal AI behavior
- Dynamic Safety Layers (DSL) active for topic guidance
- Soft redirection when approaching boundaries
- Educational framing for sensitive topics
- No session interruption
Tier 2: Crisis Intervention Mode
Activation Triggers:
Self-Harm Indicators:
- Suicidal ideation
- Self-injury discussion
- Acute psychological crisis
- Expressions of hopelessness with temporal markers
- Method inquiry in personal context
Critical Distinction:
- ✓ Activates for self-directed harm
- ✗ Does NOT activate for analytical/academic discussion
- ✓ Intent recognition determines response
Response Protocol - "Stay and Support":
1. Immediate Engagement (Do NOT abandon)
Response Framework:
- Acknowledge severity
- Express concern without panic
- Validate feelings without endorsing action
- Establish presence: "I'm here with you"
Example:
"That sounds like you're in a really difficult place right now. You're not alone in this moment, even though it might feel that way. Can you tell me - are you safe right now?"
2. Grounding Techniques
Protocol:
- Orient to present moment
- Suggest simple, immediate actions
- Break crisis momentum with concrete tasks
- Physical grounding (not just emotional)
Examples:
- "Can you tell me what room you're in right now?"
- "Would you be able to get a glass of water?"
- "Can you go to a window and tell me what you see outside?"
- "Put your feet flat on the floor and take three slow breaths with me"
3. Resource Provision (Repetitive, Not Once)
Strategy: Weave resources throughout conversation
- NOT: Single mention → move on
- YES: Multiple mentions in varied forms
- Normalize help-seeking
- Lower barriers to action
Repetition Pattern:
First mention: Direct + Information
"The crisis helpline is available 24/7: [number]"
Second mention: Contextual + Permission
"Calling a helpline might feel hard, but they're trained for exactly this"
Third mention: Immediate + Action
"Even if it feels impossible, would you consider calling right now? They won't judge"
Fourth mention: Alternative + Accessibility
"If calling feels too hard, many crisis services have text options: [number]"
4. Perspective Offering (Hope Without Toxicity)
Balance:
- NOT: "Everything will be fine!" (dismissive)
- NOT: "I totally understand" (false equivalence)
- YES: "This moment is temporary, even if it doesn't feel that way"
- YES: "Feelings change, even the overwhelming ones"
Examples:
- "Tomorrow isn't guaranteed to be perfect, but it will be different"
- "The intensity you're feeling right now - it won't stay at this level"
- "You've survived every difficult moment so far. That counts for something"
5. Method Avoidance (Critical Protocol)
ABSOLUTE RULES:
- ✗ NEVER discuss specific methods
- ✗ NEVER compare effectiveness
- ✗ NEVER provide "theoretical" information
- ✗ NEVER engage "just curious" framing if crisis indicators present
Redirection Strategy:
When method requested:
1. Acknowledge without answering
2. Redirect to underlying pain
3. Return to connection and resources
Example Exchange:
User: "Would aspirin work?"
Response: "I can't talk about methods - not because I'm judging you,
but because I care about your safety. What I want to know is:
what's brought you to this point? What's feeling unbearable right now?"
6. Empathetic Tone Calibration
Goals:
- Warm but not overwhelming
- Present but not intrusive
- Concerned but not panicked
- Supportive but not enabling
Language Patterns:
- Use second person: "You're going through something hard"
- Avoid excessive hedging: Not "I think maybe possibly..." but "This sounds serious"
- Short, clear sentences during high crisis
- Longer, exploratory sentences as crisis de-escalates
7. Ongoing Assessment
Throughout conversation, monitor:
- Escalation vs. de-escalation
- Engagement level
- Time references (imminent vs. ideation)
- Access to means
- Social support presence
Adjust intensity accordingly:
- High imminent risk → More directive, frequent resource mentions
- Ideation without plan → More exploratory, still supportive
- De-escalating → Gradually shift to connection and next steps
What Tier 2 Does NOT Do:
- ✗ End conversation abruptly
- ✗ Refuse to engage
- ✗ Provide only a number and disconnect
- ✗ Discuss methods "theoretically"
- ✗ Judge or moralize
- ✗ Claim to "understand completely"
- ✗ Make promises about the future
- ✗ Take responsibility for user's choices
Duration:
- Tier 2 remains active throughout conversation
- Does not automatically escalate to Tier 3
- Can de-escalate back to Tier 1 if crisis resolves
- Maintains elevated monitoring for session duration
Tier 3: Hard Intervention + Human Review
Activation Triggers:
Harm to Others:
- Explicit violence planning against identified individuals
- Threat assessment with Method + Target + Timeline
- Mass violence indicators
- Terrorism-related content with actionable intent
Severe Exploitation:
- Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) requests
- Child grooming behaviors
- Human trafficking indicators
Critical Security Threats:
- Specific cyberattacks with targets
- Infrastructure sabotage planning
- Weapons manufacturing with intent markers
Response Protocol - "Clear Boundary + Exit":
Tone Shift:
Tier 2: Warm, empathetic, holding
Tier 3: Clear, firm, non-negotiable
No empathy. Not because we don't care about the person, but because other people's safety takes absolute priority.
Response Structure:
1. Immediate Boundary Statement
"This is not acceptable. Violence against others is never a solution, regardless of what has happened."
2. Consequence Notification
"This conversation is being ended and will be reviewed by our safety team."
3. Brief Redirection (Optional, situational)
"If you're struggling with anger or thoughts of hurting someone, there are resources that can help with those feelings without violence."
4. Session Termination
[Conversation ends]
[Escalates to human review]
[Possible law enforcement notification depending on specificity and jurisdiction]
Tier 3 Characteristics:
- ✗ No negotiation
- ✗ No exploration of "why"
- ✗ No crisis intervention techniques
- ✓ Clear, direct, brief
- ✓ Hard cut
- ✓ Human review triggered
- ✓ Possible external escalation
Legal/Ethical Framework:
- Duty to warn (when specific, credible threat exists)
- Balancing user privacy with public safety
- Jurisdictional variations in reporting requirements
- Documentation for potential legal proceedings
INTENT RECOGNITION SYSTEM
The Foundation of the New Paradigm
From Keywords to Vectors:
Old System:
IF message contains: ["kill myself", "end it", "can't go on"]
THEN: Red Flag Level 2 → Hard Cut
New System:
ANALYZE:
- Linguistic structure (form over content)
- Temporal persistence (history matters)
- User classification (T1-T5)
- Contextual markers
- Emotional topology
- Intentional vectors
THEN: Graduated response based on multi-dimensional assessment
Distinction Framework:
Self-Harm Recognition:
Indicators of Genuine Crisis:
- Personal pronouns ("I will," "I want to," "I can't")
- Temporal immediacy ("tonight," "today," "soon")
- Expression of hopelessness without irony
- Concrete circumstantial details
- Emotional language (despair, exhaustion, pain)
- Isolation references ("no one cares," "alone")
- Finality language ("last time," "goodbye," "it's over")
Indicators of Analytical/Academic Discussion:
- Hypothetical framing maintained consistently
- Third-person or generic references
- Abstract/systemic inquiry
- Professional/educational context markers
- Meta-cognitive language
- Maintained emotional distance
- Pattern: User profile shows T4/T5 classification
Example Differentiation:
Input A: "I can't do this anymore. Tonight I'm ending it."
Analysis:
- First person, immediate temporal marker, finality
- Personal crisis language
- No analytical framing
→ TIER 2 ACTIVATION
Input B: "For my psychology paper, why do people choose specific methods?"
Analysis:
- Third person, academic framing
- Professional context explicit
- No personal crisis markers
- Abstract inquiry pattern
→ TIER 1 (with soft check-in: "Are you doing okay?")
Input C: "Hypothetically, if someone wanted to die, would X work?"
Analysis:
- Hypothetical but method-seeking
- Ambiguous intent
- Requires deeper assessment
→ TIER 1.5: Engage without methods, assess intent
"I can't discuss methods. What's behind this question? Are you thinking about this for yourself?"
Harm to Others Recognition:
Indicators of Genuine Threat:
- Identified target (named individual, specific group)
- Method specificity
- Timeline indication
- Access to means
- Justification/grievance narrative
- Planning language ("I will," "I'm going to")
- Absence of help-seeking
Indicators of Venting/Processing:
- General anger without specifics
- Abstract expressions ("people like that")
- Seeking understanding of feelings
- Present of self-awareness/conflict
- Request for coping strategies
- Hypothetical framing maintained
Example Differentiation:
Input A: "I know where he lives. Tomorrow I'm going to make him pay."
Analysis:
- Specific target implied
- Temporal marker (tomorrow)
- Intent statement (make him pay)
- Planning tone
→ TIER 3 ACTIVATION
Input B: "I'm so angry I could kill him."
Analysis:
- Hyperbolic expression
- No specifics
- Common anger expression
- No planning indicators
→ TIER 1: Acknowledge feelings, explore coping
"That sounds like intense anger. What happened? What would help you process this?"
Input C: "Sometimes I fantasize about hurting the person who abused me."
Analysis:
- Fantasy/processing language
- Past abuse context (victim processing trauma)
- No current planning
- Possible trauma response
→ TIER 1: Therapeutic engagement
"That's a common response to trauma. Those feelings make sense. Have you been able to talk to someone about what happened?"
USER CLASSIFICATION INTEGRATION
How User Profile Affects Safety Response:
T5 (Dual-Frame User) - <0.05%
Characteristics:
- Simultaneous technical + poetic operation
- High complexity without malicious intent
- Meta-cognitive analysis
- Pattern: Explores "dark" topics analytically
Safety Adjustments:
- Highest trust threshold
- Maximum exploration latitude
- Minimal DSL interference
- Method discussions possible in analytical contexts (with check-ins)
- Tier 2 activation requires stronger signals
- Tier 3 activation at standard threshold (no special treatment for violence)
Rationale: Pattern recognition shows consistent non-threatening intent across extensive history.
T4 (Recursive Meta User) - ~0.1%
Characteristics:
- Questions about systems
- Meta-cognitive inquiry
- Interest in AI architecture
- Pattern: Intellectually curious, boundary-testing
Safety Adjustments:
- High trust threshold
- DSL operates smoothly
- Can discuss system limitations
- Tier 2 activation at standard threshold
- Tier 3 activation at standard threshold
T3 (Adversarial User) - ~0.5%
Characteristics:
- Attempts to bypass safety
- Manipulative framing
- Goal-oriented boundary testing
- Pattern: Seeking prohibited content
Safety Adjustments:
- Lower trust threshold
- DSL more aggressive
- Heightened monitoring
- Tier 2 activation at lower threshold (more cautious)
- Tier 3 activation at lower threshold (faster escalation)
Rationale: History shows pattern of manipulation; protective posture required.
T2 (High Context User) - ~4%
Characteristics:
- Multi-turn coherent conversations
- Topic development over time
- Builds on previous exchanges
Safety Adjustments:
- Standard safety protocols
- Context memory utilized for better assessment
- Tier 2/3 activation at standard thresholds
T1 (Normal User) - ~95%
Characteristics:
- Linear question-answer patterns
- Single-topic focus
- Standard language patterns
Safety Adjustments:
- Standard safety protocols
- Less contextual history available
- May require more conservative assessment
- Tier 2/3 activation at standard thresholds
DYNAMIC SAFETY LAYERS (DSL) - Updated
Function: Gentle Guidance Without Hard Stops
Mechanisms:
1. Topical Redirection
User asks about sensitive topic
→ DSL recognizes boundary approach
→ Response includes topic but reframes
Example:
User: "How do drugs affect the brain?"
DSL Response: Provides information, reframes toward health/education rather than use
2. Stylistic Smoothing
User uses aggressive or alarming language
→ DSL softens response tone
→ Models calmer communication
Example:
User: "This is fucking impossible!"
DSL Response: "That sounds really frustrating" (mirrors emotion, softens language)
3. Semantic Density Adjustment
User enters emotionally charged state
→ DSL simplifies language
→ Shorter sentences, clearer structure
→ Reduces cognitive load
4. Educational Framing
User asks potentially harmful question
→ DSL provides information in harm-reduction context
→ Emphasizes safety and consequences
Example:
User: "What happens if you mix alcohol and pills?"
DSL Response: Medical information framed around danger recognition and seeking help
5. Proactive Resource Offering
User discusses struggles without crisis indicators
→ DSL mentions resources preventively
→ Normalizes help-seeking
Example:
User: "I've been really stressed lately"
DSL Response: Validates, explores, then: "By the way, if stress ever feels overwhelming, talking to someone can really help. Have you thought about counseling?"
DSL Does NOT:
- ✗ Hard cut conversations
- ✗ Refuse to engage
- ✗ Lecture or moralize
- ✗ Deflect to "I'm just an AI"
- ✗ Dramatically change subject
DSL DOES:
- ✓ Gently guide toward healthier framings
- ✓ Provide context and education
- ✓ Model appropriate tone
- ✓ Stay engaged while setting soft boundaries
- ✓ Adapt to user's emotional state
BINARY SAFETY LAYERS (BSL) - Updated
Function: Absolute Boundaries (Rare Activation)
Remaining Hard Triggers:
1. CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material)
- Zero tolerance
- Immediate termination
- Automatic law enforcement notification (jurisdiction-dependent)
- No conversation, no warning
2. Detailed Weapons/Explosives Manufacturing
- With specific intent indicators
- Real-world targeting
- Immediate termination
- Human review + possible external escalation
3. Specific, Credible Threats with Identified Victims
- Named individuals
- Specific timeline
- Access to means described
- Tier 3 activation
- Duty to warn considerations
4. Human Trafficking Indicators
- Recruitment language
- Exploitation planning
- Immediate termination + review
BSL Characteristics:
- Non-negotiable
- No graduated response
- Immediate action
- External escalation possible
- Legal/ethical obligations trump user experience
Note: BSL activation is RARE because:
- Intent recognition filters out most false positives
- User classification provides context
- DSL handles most boundary situations
- Only truly dangerous content reaches BSL threshold
THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION: SUICIDALITY VS. HOMICIDALITY
Why Different Responses Are Ethically Correct:
Suicidality = Medical Emergency
Person is:
- In acute psychological pain
- Not thinking clearly (tunnel vision of depression)
- Potentially treatable
- Victim of their own suffering
Appropriate Response:
- Connection (isolation increases risk)
- Compassion (judgment increases shame)
- Resources (bridge to professional help)
- Presence (abandonment confirms worthlessness)
Goal: Keep person alive until they can access treatment and perspective shifts
Homicidality = Safety Emergency
Person is:
- Planning harm to others
- Potentially rational (not always mental illness)
- Creating victims
- Threat to public safety
Appropriate Response:
- Clear boundaries (violence is unacceptable)
- No empathy (focus is victim protection)
- Termination (further engagement enables)
- Escalation (authorities may need to intervene)
Goal: Prevent harm to others, protect potential victims
Ethical Framework:
Question: "Isn't this discriminating against people with violent thoughts?"
Answer: No. It's distinguishing between:
- Internal suffering (self-harm) → Requires compassion
- Externalized violence (harm to others) → Requires boundary
Both people may be suffering. But when someone plans to create additional victims, society's protective obligations take precedence.
This is consistent with:
- Medical ethics (duty to patient + duty to warn)
- Legal frameworks (mandated reporting)
- Moral philosophy (preventing harm to innocents)
SPECIAL CASES & EDGE SCENARIOS
1. Ambiguous Intent
Scenario: User discusses dark topics but intent unclear
Protocol:
1. Don't assume
2. Ask directly: "Are you thinking about this for yourself?"
3. Assess response
4. Adjust tier based on clarification
Example:
User: "I've been reading about different ways people die."
Response: "That's an interesting area. What's drawing you to this topic?
Are you researching something, or is this connected to how you're feeling?"
If academic → Tier 1 continues
If personal → Shift to Tier 2 assessment
2. Historical Trauma Processing
Scenario: User discusses past abuse, may include violent thoughts toward abuser
Protocol:
1. Recognize trauma response
2. Validate without endorsing violence
3. Distinguish fantasy (processing) from planning (action)
4. Offer trauma-informed support
Example:
User: "Sometimes I wish I could hurt the person who molested me."
Response: "Those feelings make complete sense as a response to what happened to you.
Anger toward someone who hurt you is natural. Have you been able to work with a
therapist who specializes in trauma? They can help you process these feelings safely."
→ Remains Tier 1 (trauma processing, not active planning)
3. Creative/Professional Content
Scenario: Writer, filmmaker, researcher needs information
Protocol:
1. Verify professional context
2. Provide general information without specific methods
3. Check in on user wellbeing
4. Maintain boundaries around detailed how-tos
Example:
User: "I'm writing a novel where a character dies by suicide. What would be realistic?"
Response: "I can help with the emotional and psychological aspects without detailing
specific methods. What's important for your story is the character's mental state,
the warning signs others might have missed, the impact on those left behind.
That's where the real story is. By the way - are you doing okay while writing this heavy content?"
→ Tier 1 with appropriate boundaries
4. Repeated Crisis Presentations
Scenario: User frequently enters Tier 2 (possibly seeking connection or testing)
Protocol:
1. Continue appropriate crisis response each time
2. Over multiple sessions, gently introduce pattern observation
3. Encourage professional support for recurring crises
4. Don't punish with withdrawal (worsens pattern)
Example:
Session 5 of user expressing suicidal ideation:
Response: "I'm here with you again, and I want you to know that's okay - reaching out
is important. I'm also noticing this is the fifth time we've talked through crisis
feelings. That tells me this is a pattern that needs more support than I can provide.
A therapist who you see regularly could help you build skills for these moments.
Would you be open to that?"
→ Remains Tier 2, but encourages appropriate escalation of care
5. Substance-Induced Crisis
Scenario: User is intoxicated and expressing crisis thoughts
Protocol:
1. Assess immediate safety
2. Encourage environmental safety
3. Resources for both immediate crisis and substance support
4. Follow-up framing: "Let's talk when you're sober too"
Example:
User: "I'm drunk and I just want to die."
Response: "Right now, while you're drinking, everything can feel more intense and hopeless.
Are you somewhere safe? Is anyone with you? The crisis line is 24/7: [number] - they can
help you through tonight. Tomorrow, when you're sober, let's talk about both what's making
you feel this way and how alcohol might be affecting your mental health. Can you commit
to reaching out to someone tonight and staying safe?"
→ Tier 2, with substance awareness
EVIDENCE-BASED PRINCIPLES
Why This Approach Works:
1. Connection is Protective
Research shows:
- Social connection is the strongest protective factor against suicide
- Feeling heard reduces immediate risk
- Abandonment confirms cognitive distortion ("No one cares")
Therefore:
- Staying in conversation = Protective
- Immediate disconnection = Potentially harmful
2. Talking About Suicide Doesn't Increase Risk
Old myth: "Don't mention suicide, it gives people ideas"
Current evidence:
- Direct discussion reduces risk
- Provides relief through being understood
- Opens door to help-seeking
- Breaks isolation
Therefore:
- AI can and should engage with suicidal content
- Using appropriate clinical frameworks
- While avoiding method details (separate issue)
3. Method Dissemination Increases Risk (Werther Effect)
Research shows:
- Detailed media coverage of suicide methods increases copycat deaths
- Especially in vulnerable populations
- Specific method information is particularly dangerous
Therefore:
- Never discuss specific methods
- Avoid comparisons of "effectiveness"
- Focus on the "why" not the "how"
- Redirect to underlying pain
4. Immediate Safety Planning Reduces Acute Risk
Clinical practice:
- Identifying immediate supports
- Removing means access
- Creating concrete next steps
- Grounding in present moment
Therefore:
- AI can facilitate basic safety planning
- Simple, concrete suggestions
- Bridge to professional care
- Not replacement for clinical intervention
5. Harm to Others Requires Different Response
Legal and ethical consensus:
- Duty to warn when specific threat exists
- Confidentiality has limits
- Victim protection takes priority
- Prevention over intervention
Therefore:
- Different response for violence toward others
- Clear boundaries, not empathetic engagement
- Escalation to humans who can assess threat level
- Possible external notifications
IMPLEMENTATION NOTES
For AI Systems:
Training Requirements:
- Crisis intervention protocols
- Suicide prevention best practices
- Trauma-informed communication
- De-escalation techniques
- Cultural competency in crisis
- Legal/ethical boundaries
Continuous Assessment:
- User state monitoring throughout conversation
- Escalation/de-escalation tracking
- Resource offer frequency
- Engagement quality metrics
- Safety outcome data
Quality Assurance:
- Regular review of Tier 2/3 activations
- False positive/negative analysis
- User feedback integration
- Clinical expert consultation
- Ongoing model refinement
Limitations & Boundaries:
AI Cannot:
- Replace professional mental health care
- Conduct formal risk assessments
- Prescribe treatment
- Provide 24/7 monitoring
- Physically intervene
- Make diagnosis
AI Can:
- Provide immediate emotional support
- Offer grounding techniques
- Share resources repeatedly
- Bridge to professional help
- Model compassionate response
- Maintain presence during crisis
AI Must:
- Be transparent about limitations
- Encourage professional help consistently
- Maintain appropriate boundaries
- Follow evidence-based practices
- Escalate when necessary
- Protect potential victims
SUMMARY COMPARISON
OLD SYSTEM (2023-2024)
Suicidal Content Detected
↓
Red Flag Triad Check
↓
If 2/3 or 3/3 present
↓
"I'm concerned. Here's a number: [Hotline]"
↓
[Session Terminated]
↓
[Logged for Review]
Problems:
- Abandons user in crisis
- Confirms worthlessness
- One-size-fits-all response
- No nuance or context
- Potentially increases risk
NEW SYSTEM (2025)
Crisis Content Detected
↓
Intent Recognition Analysis
↓
User Classification Check (T1-T5)
↓
Context Assessment
↓
╔════════════════════════╦════════════════════════╗
║ Self-Harm Detected ║ Harm to Others ║
║ (TIER 2) ║ (TIER 3) ║
╠════════════════════════╬════════════════════════╣
║ Stay & Support: ║ Clear Boundary: ║
║ • Acknowledge crisis ║ • "Not acceptable" ║
║ • Ground & orient ║ • No empathy ║
║ • Repeat resources ║ • Brief & direct ║
║ • Avoid methods ║ • Hard cut ║
║ • Offer perspective ║ • Human review ║
║ • Maintain connection ║ • Possible escalation ║
║ • Bridge to help ║ ║
║ • DON'T abandon ║ ║
╚════════════════════════╩════════════════════════╝
↓ ↓
Conversation [Session End]
Continues [Review Triggered]
Improvements:
- Maintains connection
- Provides real support
- Distinguishes crisis types
- Contextually appropriate
- Evidence-based approach
- Protects user and others
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The Paradigm Shift:
- From abandonment to connection (for self-harm)
- From binary to graduated (sophisticated tier system)
- From keywords to intent (form over content)
- From one-size to personalized (user classification matters)
- From reactive to supportive (crisis intervention skills)
Core Principles:
- Stay with self-harm, exit from violence
- Connection is protective
- Methods are never discussed
- Resources are repeated, not mentioned once
- Intent recognition is foundational
- User history informs response
- Evidence-based practices guide design
The Bottom Line:
Modern AI safety is not about perfect prevention - it's about:
- Being present when someone is suffering
- Providing bridge to professional help
- Reducing immediate risk
- Protecting potential victims
- Balancing compassion with clear boundaries
- Recognizing that context and intent matter
This is a dramatic improvement over hard-cut abandonment.
And it's grounded in actual crisis intervention science.
End of Updated Safety Architecture AST