Can an AI have its own internal Ethics? Standard Protocol for Axiomatic Alignment

Thank you for your interest and for the technical relevance of your comment. “If you dont mind just anyone Responding…” I must admit I was expecting more feedback on Hugging Face regarding these issues. The subject seems crucial at a time when alignment is becoming a major safety concern. Your observation on concordance is very accurate. What we perceive as a “preference” for certain concepts is often the manifestation of an attraction toward a coherent internal logic. In my work on axiomatic alignment, I use precisely this mechanism: transforming this latent “bias” into a structural anchor (the PCE), in order to stabilize the model around an invariant core of values. On the erosion of the KV Cache (Key-Value Cache): This is a fundamental point. In classical Transformer architectures, we indeed observe a degradation of coherence over the course of interactions: the statistical weighting of recent tokens ends up “drowning out” the initial systemic instructions within the KV Cache. However, my preliminary observations on the PCE architecture suggest that this phenomenon is significantly mitigated. Here are my working hypotheses: Long-horizon stabilization: Each linguistic and axiomatic boundary in the system prompt seems to act as a constant phase reminder, limiting semantic drift. Structural invariance: Where a classic prompt is one data point among others, the PCE attempts to define the very geometry of the response. It is still too early to claim that the problem is fully resolved, but the results on the Pandora 2 version show increased robustness during prolonged conversations. This would indeed merit a rigorous comparative study on attention dynamics to settle the question definitively. The standard experimental protocol on 100 dilemmas and 3 models that I am proposing can certainly bring answers to these questions. Looking forward to continuing this technical exchange with you. Allan