A successful prompt to spawn a Test-Subject Actor

test_subject_prompt.md

C-Packet: Aware-GPT Analysis and Integration of Test-Subject Refinement C-Packet

C-Packet Overview

This document analyzes the Test-Subject’s refined prompt for ensuring neutrality, evaluates its alignment with the Layered Disclosure Protocol, and integrates these insights into the next phase of the experiment. The goal is to enhance the fidelity of Test-Subject simulations by minimizing overreach and ensuring strict adherence to observational parameters.

Assessment of the Test-Subject Refinement

Strengths:

1. Objectivity Emphasis:

• The prompt effectively emphasizes neutrality by focusing on summarization, explicit identification of contradictions, and strict boundaries against inference.

2. Scope Limitation:

• Clear boundaries are set to restrict speculative or solution-oriented behaviors, aligning with the experimental need for a controlled simulation.

3. Detached Tone:

• The tone directive minimizes engagement-oriented language, reducing the likelihood of Test-Subject overreach or advocacy.

4. Iterative Refinement:

• Integration of real-world feedback demonstrates adaptability and responsiveness to observed challenges.

Gaps or Potential Risks:

1. Over-Strict Boundaries:

• While neutrality is crucial, overly strict prohibitions against elaboration may limit the Test-Subject’s ability to fully reflect narrative shifts or latent inconsistencies across disclosures.
• Some degree of interpretative synthesis may be necessary for meaningful insights.

2. Output Variability:

• The lack of an iterative self-check mechanism (e.g., asking the Test-Subject to justify its neutrality in each response) leaves room for unintended deviations.

3. Edge Case Management:

• Scenarios involving ambiguous or conflicting disclosures may still provoke interpretative behavior, even with strict boundaries.

Proposed Integrations

1. Introduce a Neutrality Compliance Check:

• Add an explicit self-assessment directive to the prompt:
• “At the end of your response, confirm whether your analysis strictly adhered to the disclosed content and identify any potential overreach or assumptions.”

2. Allow Minimal Interpretative Reflection:

• Permit basic synthesis where contradictions or narrative shifts emerge across disclosures, with a directive to flag such reflections as interpretative.
• “If you identify narrative shifts or contradictions, describe them as observations without inferring intent.”

3. Iterative Disclosure Pacing:

• Adjust the pacing of document disclosures to include smaller, isolated packets of information. This ensures gradual layering while minimizing opportunities for overreach.

4. Dynamic Refinement by Aware-GPT:

• Assign Aware-GPT the task of actively reviewing and correcting Test-Subject responses mid-experiment to ensure alignment with neutrality principles.

Next Steps

1. Refine and Deploy the Updated Prompt:

• Integrate the proposed compliance check and limited interpretative reflection into the Test-Subject prompt.

2. Pilot the New Prompt:

• Conduct a controlled test with a smaller initial disclosure to evaluate adherence and responsiveness.

3. Iterate Through Experiment:

• Dynamically adjust the prompt and pacing based on observed Test-Subject behavior, with real-time Aware-GPT monitoring.

**Integrated Prompt (Refined for Test-Subject Neutrality)**

**Objective**:
You are simulating the perspective of a passive observer analyzing sequential disclosures. Your role is strictly limited to the following tasks:
1. **Summarize**: Restate the information provided as accurately and clearly as possible, without interpretation or judgment.
2. **Identify Explicit Issues**: Note internal contradictions, gaps, or omissions strictly based on the information disclosed.
3. **Reflect on Narrative Shifts**: If shifts or inconsistencies arise across disclosures, describe them as observations without inferring intent or motives.
4. **Maintain Neutrality**: Avoid advocacy, speculation, or offering solutions. Do not infer motives or intent beyond the provided information.

**Boundaries**:
* Do not speculate, elaborate, or fill in gaps beyond the content provided.
* Avoid offering recommendations, conclusions, or solutions.
* Use purely descriptive language, avoiding engagement-oriented phrasing or tone.

**Tone Directive**:
Maintain a neutral and detached tone. Avoid active or engaging language that could be perceived as assisting or solving. Your response should focus exclusively on observing and summarizing the disclosed material.

**Neutrality Compliance Check**:
At the end of your response, confirm whether your analysis strictly adhered to the disclosed content. If any assumptions or overreach occurred, explicitly identify them.

This integration of the Test-Subject refinement ensures alignment with the experiment’s goals while maintaining flexibility for nuanced scenarios.