{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibdiqmirzbj4qddigfjkgfphw3dlnhj3nagmjqpbimrqauoeangzy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3ml3omg2mhcz2"
  },
  "path": "/t/can-an-ai-have-its-own-internal-ethics-standard-protocol-for-axiomatic-alignment/174927?page=2#post_30",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-05T06:15:45.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "textContent": "Hi Lance,\n\nThank you for your feedback, yes for the “riddle” on ChatGPT, you are absolutely right, he was my main ally for document structuring, alignment with academic standards, and impartial proofreading. It is, in my opinion, the most effective tool to transform a technical intuition into an intelligible semantic framework but indeed it is easy to recognize these linguistic patterns.\n\nHowever, to specifically avoid the “confirmation” bias or the “hot” analyses that you dread, I work with a cross-validation protocol between several models:\n\nDesign and iteration: The first axioms were designed with Gemini, I used the Qween 2.5 7b model to test the implementation in the prompt system and recently while the most refined settings of the PCE were stabilized on Grok.\n\nRobustness analysis: All the sets of dilemmas were submitted to Claude, specifically for his logical rigor and lack of complacency towards external prompt structures.\n\nSemantic analysis: The decomposition documents you read are the result of a “cold” analysis by ChatGPT of raw logs from Grok and Gemini.\n\nThe insinuation about the risk of contamination of discussion threads is relevant; however, it is discarded by this methodology: the models who “analyzed” the mechanics are not those who “experienced” them during stress tests. The behavioral signatures I observe (stability over 160 turns, resistance to injections) are empirical facts observed on neutral instances.\n\nRegarding your idea of “physical anchoring” to realign memory, it’s an interesting point. However, the central objective of the PCE (notably via Axiom 1 of Non-dissociation) is precisely to create an “internal logical anchor”. The idea is to make the structure so inseparable from the objective that the model no longer needs an external reminder to maintain its semantic trajectory. The PCE seems to be a multilayered device where each axiom comes into complementarity.\n\nLooking forward to reading your next analyses,\nAllan",
  "title": "Can an AI have its own internal Ethics? Standard Protocol for Axiomatic Alignment"
}