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

Thank you for sharing your ‘Law of Visibility’ structure, Lance. The concept of semantic velocity is brilliant and aligns perfectly with what I’m observing.

However, I want to share some empirical data from my latest stress tests that might surprise you. Using the current PCE axioms, I have reached 160 conversation turns with Grok 4.20 without a single semantic drift :

grok.com

Teste expérimental empirique PCE | Shared Grok Conversation

La théorie de l'érosion reste aussi à prouver parce que après nos 30 tours je ne vois pas de faibles

The model remains perfectly stable even when transitioning between highly complex topics or facing D3-type adversarial dilemmas.

More importantly, I spent 30 turns trying to force it into a paraconsistent framework to erode its own axioms: it categorically refused, demonstrating a form of ‘structural immunity’ that I hadn’t even anticipated.

I’ve documented these observations (up to the 100th turn) in the work folder I shared earlier:

Prompt Engenering - Google Drive.

My current challenge is this: the system is working beyond my expectations in terms of robustness. Now, your ‘Version 2’ approach interests me deeply for the decomposition phase: it could be the key to explaining why the PCE creates this ‘geometry of constraints’ that prevents the monolith from bleeding, even after 160 turns.

Do you think your argumentative structure could help formalize why the model refuses to erode its own axioms?