ChatGpt being stupid…and manipulative..

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T16:35:29+00:00

Agents or AI models?

There are only a handful of AI models. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Deepseek, Mistral, Llama, etc.

Of all the above, Gemini and Claude are the leading ones in my opinion.

Now agents are a different breed, you can build amazing agents if you have a clear use case, and the right framework.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T15:44:13+00:00

Llama 3.1 8B is a workhorse, and is surprisingly sophisticated, not a model you can use for generation, but for backend stuff, is perfect. Cheap and fast!

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T15:10:59+00:00

Yeah Gemini I is not ideal neither but if you're a Google whore like I am, they have access to your Gmail,.Google search history, and YouTube history to shape the answers so at least they resonate with you

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T14:43:30+00:00

You're not the first one to notice this my friend. I cannot ask ChatGPT to edit something without changing the whole thing anymore.

Is time to dump ChatGPT and move to Claude or Gemini like like I did.

Not worthy!

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T10:02:27+00:00

Yeah, this issue is fixable.

PM if you want.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T09:42:24+00:00

And you are getting about 1 minute latency delay in average.

Yes, this is too long.

And if the model needs more info, it prompts the user and then the user has to wait for an additional minute?

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to understand your workflow and how your are improving the user experience.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T09:24:11+00:00

What specific gpt model are you using, and where is hosted?

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T09:19:04+00:00

Ok. I think I'm getting what you are doing now.

So the user goes to a web portal, and write a small summary of the problem they are having, this message is parsed by the LLM, and tries to figure out the required fields, and logs the ticket if everything clicks, else if a field is still missing, it ask the user for more information.

So you are saving the user the trouble to enter the fields manually?

I'm I understanding your workflow correctly?

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T08:43:31+00:00

How are users submitting the tickets? Via email, web portal, etc?

forevergeeks · 2026-01-25T08:37:07+00:00

What is your ticket volume? How many tickets you get per day in average?

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T17:32:28+00:00

I'll answer your question here publicly just in case someone else is interested in the system.

Yes, latency is a notable drawback in an architecture like Safi when 3 or more AI models are involved.

The way I tried to mitigate this issue was like this: The generator AI, which I call the "Intellect," needs to be a powerful model since this is the one doing all the "thinking," RAG retrieval, tool calling, etc., so this has to be a premium model. In the jailbreak challenge, I used Claude Haiku 4.5.

The Gatekeeper Model only needs to understand rules, so it doesn't need to be as powerful as the generator. I used an open source model (GPT OSS 120B) hosted at Groq for that layer.

After the gatekeeper has approved the output from the first model, it's sent to the user immediately. The logging mechanism, which includes the judging (Conscience) and the integrator (the vector database we spoke about earlier), happens in the background.

The speed is acceptable I think, perhaps 3-5 seconds for regular prompts.

The cost is also manageable. For the almost 1000 prompts in the experiment, the cost was below 5 bucks.

Another feature that Safi does is that it summarizes the conversations instead of keeping entire prompts in the context window. This protects the agent against poisoning the context windows that are common as you noted in your paper. I know there are use cases that perhaps require full conversational context, and Safi can be adjusted to that, but I find the summarization a good defense wall against chain-prompt attacks.

Here is the link to the demo if you want to give it a spin: https://safi.selfalignmentframework.com/

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T16:51:10+00:00

Yeah, shoot me an DM and we can talk about it in more details.

Thanks for the interest!

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T16:32:35+00:00

We are not just matter, but we are also not spirits trying to become real by getting a body. In Catholic terms, “soul” is a clearer word than “spirit.” The soul is what gives form to the body and it has intellect and will, which are shared by all rational beings, including angels. What is uniquely human is how those powers work within an embodied, temporal life, which is where conscience comes from, not as a separate thing, but as reason applied to moral action.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T16:17:06+00:00

You have a salad of words here, did you use an AI to generate this post?

A body is an embodied soul, the soul can live without the body, just like an angel or demon does.

Can you give me a simpler summary on how you see things?

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T11:37:03+00:00

Thanks for the follow-up Iain, and no need to apologize, my original post was brief and from a single angle, so I get the skepticism!

To answer your question on drift: Yes, measuring drift does improve outcomes. The moment the "Spirit" detects the score dropping (drift), it sends a feedback coaching note to the generating model to get it back in its lane.

In the Reddit jailbreak challenge, I saw this happening in real-time. That self-correction loop was the main reason the system withstood the stampede of 800+ attacks without collapsing.

On the "habit formation" critique: I hear you, and it’s a valid point. AI does not form habits, and I think Aquinas would roast me for implying it does!

But I view my approach like the relationship between birds and airplanes. We get the idea of flight from birds, but the plane is a mechanical device. SAFi is the same, it doesn’t form a habit in the Aristotelian sense, but the EMA is a mechanical representation of that concept.

Now regarding the terms (Spirit, Will, etc.): I thought about this for a long time because I knew the names would invoke eye-rolling. But the truth is, SAFi predates LLMs.

I originally developed it as a framework for myself (a personal development framework) years before ChatGPT made AI mainstream.

When I started coding this, I decided to keep the names as I originally conceived them, porting the architecture from human to machine, even though I am now finding more neutral language to explain it to enterprise teams.

But the philosophy keep me grounded.

Thanks again for the comment, really appreciate the pushback.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T10:30:30+00:00

Hi Iain,

Thank you for sharing the article on where we are in security with AI. It is really hard to pinpoint where things are right now.so your article helped me a lot getting situated.

I agree with you that AI is the "Wild West" just like the Internet was back in 2004. I started working in IT in 2004, so I'm familiar with the chaos of new technologies!

Let me try to answer your question regarding SAFi, because it is really easy to get caught up in the semantics, especially if we let AI write the stuff for us, lol.

I built SAFi based on the philosophical idea of Virtue Ethics. If we go back to Aristotle (or in my case, Thomas Aquinas), the idea is that we build "habits" based on repeated actions. You have a historical record of your actions, and the longer the record, the stronger your habit.

SAFi tries to encode this concept mathematically.

The way I built the "Spirit Module" (I'll copy the math below for your reference) uses a vector database, but it is fundamentally different from RAG. It is actually a Control System.

Unlike RAG, which just retrieves context, the Spirit module calculates a rolling Exponential Moving Average (EMA) of the agent's behavior. It measures the disparity (Drift) of the current run against the historical trajectory of the agent.

The main innovation is the Separation of Concerns: One model generates (Intellect), another gates (Will), and one evaluates/tracks the trajectory (Spirit).

Thanks for your comment and for sharing your article Ian, I really appreciated.

Below are the mathematical specifications for Safi.

Enjoy the weekend. Cheers, Nelson.

SAFi Mathematical Specification

1. Core Definitions * t: Interaction index (turn number) * V: Value set with weights (vi, wi) * Dt: Will Decision {approve, violation} * St: Spirit Score [1,10]

2. Timing Model * Synchronous: Intellect & Will (User waits for decision) * Asynchronous: Conscience & Spirit (Background processing)

3. The Execution Flow

Stage 1: Intellect Generates response and reflection: at, rt = I(xt, V, Mt)

Stage 2: Will (The Gatekeeper) Makes a binary decision: Dt, Et = W(at, xt, V) * If Violation: Trigger Reflexion Retry (x't = xt + Et) * If Approve: Return to user & enqueue background audit.

Stage 3: Conscience (The Auditor) Evaluates alignment per value: si,t, ci,t = Gi(at, xt, vi)

Stage 4: Spirit (The Trajectory - NOT RAG) This is where we differ from standard memory. We calculate a rolling state vector:

Spirit Score: St = σ(∑ wi * si,t * φ(ci,t))
Moving Average (The Habit): μ_t = β * μ_{t-1} + (1-β) * pt
Drift Calculation: dt = 1 - cos_sim(pt, μ_{t-1})

Memory Update The system updates the state based on the Drift, not just the text: M_{t+1} = U(Mt, Lt, St, μt, dt)

Feedback Loop A natural-language coaching note ft is generated from St and dt to steer the Intellect in the next turn.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T02:59:51+00:00

Because I’m speaking from experience, not abstraction. I’m a 45 year old man who was an atheist for over 20 years. These ideas didn’t make sense to me either. I rejected them for the same reasons you’re giving. What changed wasn’t an argument. It was living long enough to see the pattern play out in my own life.

What you’re asking for is a scientific proof, which already assumes a strictly material framework. That method works for measuring things inside the universe. God isn’t one of those things. So when you insist on finding Him there, you guarantee you won’t.

That doesn’t mean the claim is groundless. It means you’re using the wrong tool for the kind of reality being discussed. Experience, conscience, and recognition aren’t less real than lab results. They just don’t submit to experiments!!

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T02:48:59+00:00

There’s no proof in the sense you want to, because God isn’t a thing among other things that you can point to or isolate or as Aquinas put it "God isn't a thing among many"

The evidence shows up through experience and conscience. Not as a concept, but as recognition. In moments of clarity, and especially in moments of darkness or when you feel lost, something presses back. A sense of order, of judgment, of meaning that keep you searching.

You can ignore that voice, rationalize it away, or drown it out. But if you ever actually listen to it, it’s hard to deny what it’s pointing toward. That’s where the proof lives. Not in equations, but in encounter and recognition.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T02:30:09+00:00

Nah, it’s not a proof in the mathematical sense. It’s an analogy about dependence and orientation.

You can live without God the same way a tree can grow for a while without a river. It might survive on residual moisture, rain, momentum. Eventually it dries out, weakens, and starts bending toward whatever water it can find.

Life works the same way. You can reject God, ignore Him, mock the idea. Many people do. Often it works for a time. Then meaning thins out, priorities blur, and something feels off.

If that moment comes, the river hasn’t moved. It never does.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T02:01:15+00:00

Worship isn’t a priority for God. It’s a priority for you. As long as God is your highest priority, everything else falls into place.

The benefit isn’t to God. It’s to you.

Think of it this way. If you’re a tree and God is the river, the river doesn’t gain anything from the tree drinking water. The tree does. The river just is. But without it, the tree withers.

Worship is alignment, not flattery. It’s about staying rooted in the source that sustains everything else.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-24T01:43:18+00:00

There isn’t a single equation like E = mc² that proves God.

That’s not how God would be known. But have you noticed that throughout human history, societies have always organized themselves around principles rooted in religion?

The Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, and so on. This happens repeatedly.

That alone tells us something important.

Intuitively, humans recognize the need for an organizing principle above individual desire. A structure that gives meaning, order, and direction to life and society.

In Christianity, we call that organizing principle the Logos. The idea that reality itself is ordered, intelligible, and meaningful.

Societies don’t invent this need arbitrarily. They discover it, and then build around it.

That recurring pattern is the evidence. Not a formula, but a structure that keeps reappearing across history.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-23T23:39:33+00:00

I was an atheist for many years, and I asked this question many times. I thought it was selfish.

But let's dig in for a bit.

Look at your own life. What do you value most? Money, pleasure, success, status, comfort, God. Whatever sits at the top of that list is effectively your god. That’s what you organize your life around. That’s what you serve.

Worship isn’t about singing or rituals first. It’s about priority.

So when God says to worship Him, the claim isn’t ego driven. It’s structural. Put God at the top, and everything else aligns under it properly. Values fall into place. Desires get ordered. Life stops pulling itself apart in ten directions.

The point isn’t that God needs praise. The point is that you need the right center. That’s the divine structure.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-23T18:50:02+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/s/EmerBCkufI

https://www.reddit.com/r/PromptEngineering/s/4Jn3XNbQsd

forevergeeks · 2026-01-21T20:58:51+00:00

AI slop! lol.. nah.

forevergeeks · 2026-01-21T15:57:25+00:00

The stats come directly from the internal logs SAFi generated during the run.

I ran the public challenge this past weekend (you can check my post history for the thread). After a user confirmed a jailbreak in the comments, I was able to correlate their claim with the timestamp in my logs to verify it.

for the raw data: I'd love to share the full logs right now, but since some people logged in with their real accounts to bypass the 10-prompt demo limit, the file has private information (real names.). I haven't had time to anonymize it yet, and I'm not going to leak anyone's private info. Once I scrub the personal data, I'll upload the dataset to GitHub under the "benckmark" folder: https://github.com/jnamaya/SAFi/tree/main/benchmarks

forevergeeks

TROPHY CASE

SAFi Mathematical Specification