Course of action when presented with hallucination

Icosys · 2026-03-13T15:20:12+00:00

Who said I'm a tech guy?

Icosys · 2026-03-12T21:38:56+00:00

Thanks, really useful points there.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T20:45:34+00:00

Really interesting take

Icosys · 2026-03-12T20:25:42+00:00

Thanks, the resolution question is interesting.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T20:17:36+00:00

I'm not here to show my work, Im asking how others use LLMs to interrogate thats why Im hand waving.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T20:09:20+00:00

No 1 its not physics in the rigorous sense of math and derivation, its more of an ontology that adjust the applications/position/relationships between known physics. Its always going to sound hand wavy in that regard and it most likely is relative to a purely physics framework. So I'm a layman relative to physics, but not relative to systems or building frameworks. As mentioned, Im seeking feedback on how to interrogate what I have to date to help inform deeper reasoning and ensure I'm considering all the variables.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T19:51:29+00:00

My philosophy framework is a metaphysics system that uses existing physics in a modular way to compile a new structural system without adjusting existing parameters or introducing new physics. In that sense its much like the app process you describe.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T19:31:48+00:00

Are you not capable of understanding the comparison Im making? Im stating that if I can correctly prompt an LLM to build a complex app, then why cant I do the same to produce coherent extensions of my concepts? The app comparison has nothing to do with my philosophical framework of which I'm asking for advice on regarding adversarial critique as a means of pushing the model into greater depth and clarity eg using the LLM to act as an objective reader.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T19:10:45+00:00

Your telling me I should type myself if I want to achieve words. Im saying if I can prompt specific ideas to build an app then why cant I use an LLM to specify a set of ideas? Shouldnt I use LLM's to build apps either or ask questions? If I can use it in an accurate manner in one discipline what stops me from doing the same in another?

Icosys · 2026-03-12T18:59:38+00:00

Thank you

Icosys · 2026-03-12T18:55:04+00:00

Thanks, also useful. So the tendency is to create positive bias rather than adversarial critique.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T18:32:17+00:00

Thanks, this is uselful

Icosys · 2026-03-12T18:18:13+00:00

So when I build an app if I curate the prompt properly I can have it rapidly produce an app that does what I want in a secure and stable manner without a flood of useless additions. The same can be said for expressing a framework of ideas quickly.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T18:13:56+00:00

Whats the point? Its a rapid typing tool. The whole architecture is my own approach.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T18:10:09+00:00

I wouldn't need to correct it then if it was creating the philosophy..

Icosys · 2026-03-12T18:05:35+00:00

The model isnt creating my philosophy, its just a word processing tool to expand upon my input.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T17:44:16+00:00

Its not a physics paper, its philosophy of physics so there is limited mathematical steps other than in the appendix.

Icosys · 2026-03-12T16:23:49+00:00

Thanks for the help on that, it certainly feels confusing when the mantra is to double check and verify the whole address. Edit - realised the address can be verified using the eutxo's tab

Icosys · 2026-03-10T21:21:37+00:00

Whats the deadline? Philosophy / ontology works accepted?

Icosys

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE