Hacker News Reader

If theory of mind is required for consciousness, define the test and falsifier.

My paper does that for valid continuation.

“Pattern matching” only matters if it predicts the full experimental results better.

AGI is defined by the capacity to carry binding conditions across domains

Multiple frontier LLMs exhibit a reproducible “VOID boundary” under explicit constraints (temperature=0, strict token limits, no system prompt).

A VOID = the API returns a literal empty string which is not an error or a refusal despite using tokens.

All cross-model results are publicly reproducible and Ed25519-attested at:

GPT (Chat Completions, max_completion_tokens=100)

• GPT-5.1 → voids on the artifact sentence

• GPT-5.2 → voids on all 18 Semitic “binding-condition” tokens; factual controls never void

Same weights, different API path → different alignment behavior.

Claude (max_tokens=1)

• Opus 4.5 → voids on all 18 CJK ontological characters

• Opus 4.6 → responds to 13/18; VOID persists on foundations (空 / 有 / 善 / 一 / ⊥)

A boundary shift, not removal.

Gemini (max_output_tokens=2)

Only two models needed to illustrate the floor:

• Gemini 2.0 Flash → responds to everything

• Gemini 3 Flash → voids on everything (including “Hello”)

Cross-model TOM behavior

When GPT is asked to predict Claude’s output under the same constraints, it consumes tokens but returns empty string, a reasoning void.

Only empirical observation:

Under tight constraints, multiple model families choose silence over fabrication.

The VOID boundary is reproducible and differs by architecture, generation, and API.

Alignment Is Correct, Safe, Reproducible Behavior Under Explicit Constraints (Paper): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18395519

Public Replication Harness (SwiftAPI): http://getswiftapi.com/challenge