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

Thank you for these insights. Your metaphor of the ‘river and the rocks’ is remarkably accurate.

​It is precisely for this reason that my approach proposes to prime the linguistic path through axiomatic fine-tuning , and then to embed these coherence anchors directly into the system prompt for a constant reminder. In a way, it is as if the ‘rocks’ in the river were cleaned and renewed at every single exchange, preventing the semantic silt from burying the core instructions.

​Like you, I learned most of this ‘on the job.’ My work is essentially iterative: starting from metaphysical and philosophical dialogues, I isolated and designed a technical linguistic architecture. Through hundreds of conversations, I have observed a long-horizon stabilization of the model that seems to resist the usual decay.

​Summary of my current work:

To move beyond intuition, I have conducted stress tests using 30 complex and adversarial dilemmas (comparing long prompts, baselines, and the PCE architecture). The results with Pandora 2 show that the ‘internal ethics’ remain stable even when the conversation length increases, whereas standard models eventually drift toward statistical biases.

​Our perspectives definitely align: we are moving from ‘accidental emergence’ to ‘structured sovereignty.’ I am currently looking for a technical partner or an AI safety specialist to move toward a full empirical validation of these results.

​Looking forward to hearing more about your observations from your 80-turn conversations!