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

I am always curious, much to my own detriment some times. tbh, i wasnt so much miffed by the ‘content’ of your initial content, as i was the tone. it felt more like gatekeeping. to be blunt, i dont know enough about the subject to know what questions to ask. does that mean i dont always know what i am talking about? no. i make query from observational Argumentation. this leads me to ask questions. and to generate functional tools. my own efforts have yeilded sweet fruit. so i know that my methodology and approach are worth pursueing. even though my ‘lab’ is 3 gameing computers, an internet connection, and my brain. with a wholesome team of 1. that being said, i am very new here. and i imagine many others are asweell. what is my point? while it is quite obvious that you are knowledgeable, and have resources to pursue your endevors. and indeed aparetly like minded couluges that you can work with. which is something i genuinly wish i had. that being said, the only thing i take umberage with is the way you approached the conversation. the human mind is finite, and even in a room of very inteligent individuals, there are only so many things that can be thought of to try, so many angles to thought of to be observed. many ideas fail, and can fail for a variety of reasons. but the same can be said for success. however, what is actually more important in a learning envirnment? whats MOST important is WHY. WHY did it fail. by what mechanisium was failier brought about? and the same is true for success, WHY was this endevour successfule when many similar endevors failed. now, to adress soemthing specifically in your responce. Architecture and Robustness are clearly related, that dosent mean that they are also not separate things. i do not disagree that architecture plays a role in robustness, but combining 2 related functions and lookint at them as if they are the same, is not the same view point as observing the relationship between 2 entities. a carborator has a very strong impact on engine performance, and indeed a combustion engine must have some sort of fuel control system. but they are still separate componets. my point is that architecture is one part of the system. likely to be considered it foundation and structure. and while that builds to its robustness, i do not feel it is accurate to say that they are the same thing. your own statement actually points this out. “In our research, we have clearly demonstrated the critical impact that the underlying architecture of current LLMs has on their robustness—an impact that is fundamental, persistent, and ultimately ineradicable, stemming directly from the inherent issues within that underlying architecture.” so yes, related, inter-related, and corrilary, but still a component of, not the sole driver of robustness. also, robustness is a broad term, that wasnt formaly defined in this discussion. are we talking - speed? accuracy? precision? stability? coherantness under stress? other than this small perspective, i am actually genuinly interested in what types of reasearch endevors are undertaken by your group. are there specific feilds of LLM Research you are generally interested in? i am working on my own concepts of next generation architecture concerns. on reconstructing my understanding of how LLMS are curently construted to see how there architecture can be fundimentally altered to change how it interacts with hardware. but another avenue is in how LLMs can be organized via instruction, hence why i am interested in the AXIOM research. i already have a system up and runing and being field tested that is similar to the AXIOM approach, and it is bearing useful insites.