{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreig7ljaqa5iohockv2cp5jisqgu6275xr3lfjurpvbpxxlqfr4bomu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mkhslpwnndd2"
  },
  "path": "/t/can-an-ai-have-its-own-internal-ethics-standard-protocol-for-axiomatic-alignment/174927#post_20",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-27T08:22:22.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "tags": [
    "Google Drive",
    "Functional semantic analysis of PCE - Google Drive"
  ],
  "textContent": "Following my previous message, I wanted to elaborate a bit on the technical direction I am taking, as it corresponds to your observations about architectural defects.\n\nAlthough I agree that the current monolithic structure is prone to “drift”, my hypothesis with the PCE is that we can induce a topology of semantic constraints to stabilize the model trajectories from within. Instead of changing the material, I examine how a specific geometry of axioms can act as an internal scaffolding.\n\nI have recently started documenting the internal mechanisms of this approach—moving from simple observation “that it works” to analysis “how forces are transmitted” within inference. I shared some research notes and functional analyses of the first axioms here:\n\nGoogle Drive\n\n### Functional semantic analysis of PCE - Google Drive\n\nIn short, I explore how:\nAxiom 1 creates a structural closure.\nAxiom 2 stabilizes the persistence of identity against external pressures.\nAxiom 3 regulates adaptive exploration (entropy management).\n\nThese results remain heuristic, and I remain cautious and factual about them. However, I believe that this “geometry of constraints” is a way to explore to compensate for the current architectural weaknesses. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on these notes, as they directly address this debate about the “internalized structure” of LLMs.\n\nAllan",
  "title": "Can an AI have its own internal Ethics? Standard Protocol for Axiomatic Alignment"
}