🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 117: Beyond Logical Consistency - Can AI-Based Machines Achieve More?)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on whether AI-based machines can achieve more than logically consistency"

Introduction

Logical consistency is essential for usability. Without it, Artificial Intelligence (AI) risks producing contradictory outputs that erode trust. For example, a medical AI that diagnoses a patient with two mutually exclusive conditions would be unusable. Similarly, an engineering AI that recommends contradictory design parameters would undermine safety.

Thus, logical consistency forms the baseline requirement for AI systems. It ensures predictability, reliability, and coherence in reasoning. But consistency alone does not capture the full potential of AI.

Beyond Consistency: Higher Cognitive Capacities

AI-based machines can aspire to capacities that go beyond mere logical coherence:

• Creativity: Logical consistency ensures correctness, but creativity allows AI to generate novel solutions. For example, generative models can design new molecules or propose innovative engineering structures. Creativity often involves breaking or bending strict logical rules to explore new possibilities.
• Adaptability: Real-world environments are dynamic. AI must adapt to changing contexts, incomplete information, and evolving goals. Adaptability sometimes requires prioritizing flexibility over rigid consistency.
• Judgment under uncertainty: Humans excel at making decisions with incomplete data. AI can emulate this by balancing probabilistic reasoning with logical frameworks. This capacity goes beyond consistency, enabling AI to act effectively in ambiguous situations.
• Ethical reasoning: Logical consistency does not guarantee ethical outcomes. AI must integrate values, fairness, and human-centered principles. Ethical reasoning requires balancing competing priorities, which may involve tolerating controlled inconsistencies for the sake of justice or compassion.

The Role of Human-Like Inconsistency

Interestingly, humans are not perfectly consistent, yet our reasoning is effective. We rely on heuristics, intuition, and context. AI that mirrors human cognition may need to embrace a degree of inconsistency to remain useful. For example:

• In creative writing, strict logical consistency would stifle imagination.
• In social interaction, empathy often overrides logical rules.
• In strategic decision-making, flexibility can be more valuable than rigid coherence.
• Thus, achieving more than consistency may mean integrating controlled inconsistency - a balance between logic and adaptability.

Practical Milestones Beyond Consistency

AI can surpass logical consistency by achieving:

• Transparency: Systems that explain their reasoning steps, even when inconsistent, foster trust.
• Self-correction: AI that detects and resolves its own contradictions demonstrates meta-reasoning beyond consistency.
• Cross-domain integration: Consistency within one domain is insufficient. AI must integrate knowledge across disciplines - science, ethics, psychology - without collapsing under contradictions.
• Human alignment: Ultimately, AI must align with human goals and values, which requires more than logical rigor.

Philosophical Implications

If AI achieves more than logical consistency, it begins to approximate wisdom rather than mere reasoning. Wisdom involves judgment, empathy, and foresight - qualities that transcend strict logic. This raises profound questions:

• Should AI aim to be perfectly consistent, or should it embrace human-like flexibility?
• Can AI balance logic with creativity, ethics, and adaptability without undermining trust?
• Is the future of AI about building 'machines of reason' or 'machines of understanding'?

Conclusion

AI-based machines can achieve more than logical consistency. While consistency is a necessary foundation, true usability and trustworthiness require higher capacities: creativity, adaptability, ethical reasoning, and transparency. These qualities allow AI to function effectively in complex, uncertain, and human-centered environments.

In short, logical consistency is not the ceiling but the floor. The real promise of AI lies in transcending consistency to become systems that are not only coherent but also creative, adaptive, and aligned with human values.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 116: When Can AI Achieve Logical Consistency?)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on whether AI-based machine can become logically consistent"

Introduction

Logical consistency means that a system’s reasoning does not contradict itself and that conclusions follow validly from premises. For Artificial Intelligence (AI), this is not just a philosophical aspiration but a practical necessity: inconsistent reasoning undermines trust in applications ranging from healthcare to engineering.

Current AI systems are not logically consistent. Deep learning models, with trillions of parameters, excel at pattern recognition but lack explicit logical relationships between parameters and the objects they model. This disconnect produces outputs that may be correct in some contexts but contradictory in others.

Researchers argue that AI can become logically consistent only when uniform logical frameworks are established across all levels of the system:

• Datasets must be structured to reflect multilevel complexity rather than isolated correlations.
• Models must integrate symbolic logic with probabilistic reasoning.
• Software and hardware must support coherent logical structures, ensuring that consistency is preserved across platforms.

Pathways Toward Consistency

Neuro-symbolic Integration

• Combining neural networks with symbolic logic allows AI to validate reasoning steps.
• This hybrid approach can detect contradictions and enforce logical rules, moving AI closer to consistency.

Complexity Science Principles

• Guo and Li propose aligning AI with multilevel complexity and the 'compromise-in-competition' principle from mesoscience.
• This ensures that AI models reflect the layered, dynamic nature of real-world systems rather than oversimplified correlations.

Consistency Across Components

• Logical consistency requires coherence between datasets, models, and hardware.
• Without this alignment, inconsistencies propagate, undermining scalability and reliability.

Validation and Safety Frameworks

• Logical consistency is also tied to AI safety. Systems must be able to reconcile disagreements between agents and avoid contradictions that could lead to unsafe outcomes.

Limits and Challenges

Even with these pathways, absolute logical consistency may remain unattainable:

• Probabilistic foundations: AI thrives on probability distributions, which inherently allow variation.
• Human-like fallibility: AI trained on human data inherits inconsistencies from human reasoning.
• Scaling issues: Ensuring consistency across billions of parameters is exponentially complex.

Thus, AI can become more consistent, but perfect logical coherence may be impossible. The goal is not perfection but functional consistency - a level sufficient to ensure usability, trust, and safety.

Practical Milestones

• AI-based machines can be considered logically consistent enough for real-world use when they achieve:
• Predictable reasoning: Similar inputs yield similar, non-contradictory outputs.
• Transparent validation: Systems can explain and justify their reasoning steps.
• Error detection: Contradictions are flagged and corrected rather than hidden.
• Cross-domain coherence: Consistency is maintained across datasets, models, and hardware.

These milestones mark the point at which AI transitions from probabilistic black boxes to trustworthy reasoning systems.

Conclusion

AI-based machines can become logically consistent when uniform logical frameworks, neuro-symbolic integration, and complexity science principles are embedded into their design. While perfect consistency may remain out of reach, achieving functional consistency - predictable, transparent, and coherent reasoning - will make AI usable and trustworthy in high-stakes domains.

In short, AI will become logically consistent not through incremental tweaks but through a paradigm shift in architecture, aligning data, models, and hardware under coherent logical principles.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 115: Usability and Consistency in AI)

Prompt Engineering Series

 

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on what level of consistency mush AI-based machines can achieve to be usable"

Introduction

When we ask what level of consistency AI-based machines must achieve to be usable, we are really asking about the threshold at which users can trust and effectively interact with these systems. Perfect logical consistency is not required for usability. Humans themselves are not perfectly consistent, yet we function well enough in daily life. Similarly, AI must balance flexibility with reliability, ensuring that its outputs are consistent enough to support user confidence, reduce errors, and align with usability principles.

According to usability research, AI interfaces must follow established heuristics such as visibility of system status, error prevention, and match between system and real-world expectations. These principles highlight that consistency is not about flawless logic but about maintaining predictable, user-centered behavior.

Levels of Consistency That Matter

Consistency of Interaction

• Users must be able to predict how the AI will respond to similar inputs.
• For example, if a user asks for a summary of a document, the AI should consistently provide structured, clear summaries rather than sometimes offering unrelated information.

Consistency of Language and Context

• AI should use terminology aligned with real-world concepts, avoiding internal jargon.
• This ensures that users do not feel alienated or confused by technical inconsistencies.

Consistency of Feedback

• Visibility of system status is crucial. Users need to know whether the AI is processing, has completed a task, or encountered an error.
• Inconsistent feedback leads to frustration and loss of trust.

Consistency in Error Handling

• AI must handle mistakes predictably. If it cannot answer a query, it should consistently explain why, rather than producing random or misleading outputs.

Consistency Across Platforms and Tasks

• Whether embedded in a chatbot, a design tool, or a productivity suite, AI should maintain a uniform interaction style.
• This reduces cognitive load and makes adoption easier across different contexts.

Why Absolute Consistency Is Unrealistic

• Probabilistic Models: Most AI systems are built on probabilistic reasoning, which inherently allows for variation.
• Human-Centered Design: Users often prefer flexibility and adaptability over rigid consistency. For example, creative tools like image generators thrive on variability.
• Complexity of Contexts: AI must operate across diverse domains, languages, and cultures. Perfect consistency across all contexts is impossible.

Thus, the goal is not absolute consistency but functional consistency—a level that supports usability without stifling adaptability.

Usability Thresholds

Research on AI usability suggests that predictability, transparency, and error recovery are the key thresholds:

• Predictability: Users should feel confident that similar inputs yield similar outputs.
• Transparency: AI should make its processes visible, reducing the “black box” effect.
• Error Recovery: Systems must provide clear paths for users to correct or adapt when inconsistencies arise.

When these thresholds are met, AI becomes usable even if it occasionally produces inconsistent results.

Conclusion

AI-based machines do not need perfect logical consistency to be usable. Instead, they must achieve functional consistency - a balance of predictable interaction, transparent feedback, and reliable error handling. This level of consistency ensures that users can trust the system, understand its outputs, and recover from mistakes without frustration.

In practice, this means AI should be designed to minimize contradictions, align with human expectations, and maintain uniformity across tasks and platforms. By meeting these usability thresholds, AI becomes not only usable but also trustworthy, adaptable, and effective in real-world applications.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Resources:
[1] The Finch Design (2024) Assessing the 11 Usability Interfaces [link]
[2] The Finch Design (2024) Assessing the 10 Usability Principles for AI Interfaces [link]

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 114: Can AI Achieve Logical Consistency?)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on whether AI-based machine can become logically consistent"

Introduction

The question of whether AI-based machines can become logically consistent touches on the very foundations of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Logical consistency means that a system’s reasoning does not contradict itself and that conclusions follow validly from premises. For humans, logical inconsistency often arises from biases, incomplete knowledge, or misinterpretation. For AI, the problem is magnified by scale: vast datasets, probabilistic models, and opaque reasoning pathways.

Current AI systems, especially Large Language Models (LLMs), are not inherently logically consistent. They generate outputs based on statistical patterns rather than strict logical rules. This means they can produce correct answers while relying on flawed reasoning, undermining trust in high-stakes applications like law, medicine, or engineering.

Advances Toward Consistency

Recent research highlights several promising approaches:

• Neuro-symbolic methods: Tools like VeriCoT attempt to formalize AI reasoning into first-order logic, enabling automated solvers to check validity. By extracting premises and verifying them against logical rules, these systems can flag contradictions and improve reasoning accuracy.
• Uniform logical frameworks: Scholars argue that consistency across datasets, models, and hardware is essential. Without a shared logical foundation, AI risks producing fragmented or contradictory outputs.
• Engineering applications: In domains like systems engineering and data science, ensuring logical consistency is seen as vital for scalability and reliability. Researchers emphasize that logical architecture must be carefully designed to prevent inconsistencies from propagating.

These efforts suggest that AI can be guided toward greater logical reliability, though not absolute consistency.

The Limits of Logical Consistency in AI

Despite progress, several limitations remain:

• Probabilistic nature of AI: Most modern AI relies on probability distributions rather than deterministic logic. This makes them flexible but prone to inconsistency.
• Contextual ambiguity: Human language and knowledge are full of nuance. AI may interpret premises differently depending on context, leading to apparent contradictions.
• Scaling issues: As AI systems grow more complex, ensuring logical consistency across billions of parameters becomes exponentially harder.
• Human-like fallibility: Just as humans can reason inconsistently, AI trained on human data inherits those flaws.

Thus, while AI can be made more consistent, perfect logical coherence may remain unattainable.

Philosophical Implications

The pursuit of logical consistency in AI raises deeper questions:

• Should AI mirror human reasoning? Humans are not perfectly consistent, yet we value creativity and adaptability. Forcing AI into rigid logical frameworks might limit its usefulness.
• Trust and accountability: In high-stakes domains, logical consistency is not optional. An AI that contradicts itself in medical diagnosis or legal reasoning risks catastrophic outcomes.
• Hybrid approaches: The future may lie in combining probabilistic AI with symbolic logic, balancing flexibility with rigor.

Conclusion

AI-based machines can move closer to logical consistency through neuro-symbolic validation, uniform frameworks, and careful engineering design, but perfect consistency is unlikely. The probabilistic foundations of AI, combined with the ambiguity of human knowledge, mean that contradictions will persist. The real challenge is not eliminating inconsistency entirely, but managing it transparently and responsibly.

In practice, this means building systems that can detect, explain, and correct their own reasoning errors. Logical consistency, then, becomes less a final destination and more a guiding principle - one that shapes how AI evolves toward trustworthy intelligence.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 110: The Mere-Exposure Effect - How Familiarity Breeds Trust)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on mere-exposure effect in AI"

Introduction

The mere-exposure effect, first identified by psychologist Robert Zajonc in 1968, describes how people tend to develop a preference for things simply because they are familiar with them. Whether it's a song, a face, or a brand logo, repeated exposure often leads to increased liking. In recent years, this effect has found a new frontier: artificial intelligence. As AI systems become more integrated into our daily routines - from voice assistants to recommendation engines - the mere-exposure effect is quietly influencing how we perceive and accept these technologies.

The Psychology Behind Familiarity

At its core, the mere-exposure effect is about cognitive fluency. When we encounter something repeatedly, our brains process it more easily, which feels good and leads to positive associations. This mechanism is especially powerful in shaping attitudes toward novel or initially ambiguous stimuli - like AI. Early interactions with AI might feel strange or even unsettling, but over time, familiarity breeds comfort. This is particularly relevant given the 'black box' nature of many AI systems, where users don’t fully understand how decisions are made [2].

AI in Everyday Life: From Novelty to Normalcy

AI has transitioned from a futuristic concept to a routine part of modern life. Consider how often people interact with AI without even realizing it: autocomplete in search engines, personalized playlists, smart home devices, and customer service chatbots. Each interaction reinforces familiarity. A 2024 study on AI psychology suggests that as exposure increases, users report higher trust and lower anxiety about AI systems [1]. This shift is part of what researchers call the 'next to normal' thesis - AI is no longer a novelty but a normalized tool.

Mere-Exposure in Digital Interfaces

Recent research comparing the mere-exposure effect across screens and immersive virtual reality (IVR) found that increased exposure consistently enhanced user preference in both environments. This has implications for AI interfaces: the more users engage with AI through familiar platforms - like smartphones or VR headsets - the more likely they are to develop positive attitudes toward the technology. It also suggests that design consistency and repeated interaction can be strategic tools for improving user experience and trust.

Implications for AI Safety and Ethics

While the mere-exposure effect can foster acceptance, it also raises ethical questions. Familiarity might lead users to overlook risks or blindly trust AI systems. For example, people may accept biased recommendations or privacy-invasive features simply because they’ve grown accustomed to them. This underscores the importance of transparency, education, and regulation in AI development. Designers and policymakers must ensure that increased exposure doesn’t lead to complacency or misuse.

Balancing Familiarity with Understanding

The mere-exposure effect is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it helps integrate AI into society by reducing fear and resistance. On the other, it can mask complexity and encourage passive acceptance. To harness its benefits responsibly, AI developers should pair exposure with explainability. When users understand how AI works, they’re more likely to engage critically rather than just comfortably.

Conclusion

The mere-exposure effect is a subtle yet powerful force shaping our relationship with AI. As AI becomes more embedded in our lives, repeated interactions are making it feel more trustworthy, approachable, and indispensable. But with this growing comfort comes a responsibility: to ensure that familiarity doesn’t replace informed engagement. By recognizing the psychological dynamics at play, we can build AI systems that are not only accepted - but also understood and ethically sound. 

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References: 
[1] Daniel Hepperle & Matthias Wölfel (2024) Exploring Ecological Validity: A Comparative Study of the Mere Exposure Effect on Screens and in Immersive Virtual Reality, Advances in Visual Computi (ISVC 2024)
[2] Yoshija Walter (2024) The Future of Artificial Intelligence Will Be "Next to Normal" - A Perspective on Future Directions and the Psychology of AI Safety Concerns, Nat. Anthropol 2(1),

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 109: The Ethical Boundaries of AI: Navigating Innovation with Responsibility)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on what is needed for creating a foundation for the further development of AI"

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way we live, work, and interact with the world. From personalized recommendations to autonomous vehicles and predictive healthcare, AI’s potential is vast and exciting. However, with great power comes great responsibility. As AI systems become more integrated into society, the ethical boundaries that govern their development and deployment are more critical than ever.

Understanding the Stakes

AI is not just a tool - it’s a decision-making system. Whether it's determining loan eligibility, diagnosing medical conditions, or moderating online content, AI systems often make choices that directly affect human lives. This raises fundamental ethical questions: Who is accountable when AI makes a mistake? How do we ensure fairness and transparency? Can we prevent bias and discrimination?

These questions are not hypothetical. Real-world examples have shown that AI can perpetuate existing inequalities. Facial recognition systems have demonstrated racial bias, hiring algorithms have favored certain demographics, and predictive policing tools have disproportionately targeted minority communities. These issues highlight the urgent need for ethical boundaries.

Key Ethical Principles

To guide the responsible use of AI, several core ethical principles have emerged:

• Transparency: AI systems should be understandable and explainable. Users must know how decisions are made and have access to meaningful information about the system’s logic and data sources.
• Accountability: Developers and organizations must take responsibility for the outcomes of AI systems. This includes mechanisms for redress when harm occurs and clear lines of liability.
• Fairness: AI should be designed to avoid bias and discrimination. This requires diverse training data, inclusive design practices, and ongoing monitoring for unintended consequences.
• Privacy: AI must respect individuals’ rights to privacy. Data collection and usage should be ethical, secure, and transparent, with informed consent at the core.
• Safety: AI systems should be robust and secure, minimizing risks of malfunction, misuse, or adversarial attacks.

The Role of Regulation

Governments and international bodies are beginning to address these concerns through regulation. The European Union’s AI Act, for example, proposes a risk-based framework that categorizes AI systems and imposes stricter requirements on high-risk applications. Similarly, the U.S. has issued guidelines emphasizing trustworthy AI development.

However, regulation alone is not enough. Ethical AI requires a cultural shift within organizations - one that prioritizes human values over profit and performance. Developers, data scientists, and business leaders must collaborate to embed ethics into every stage of the AI lifecycle.

The Human Element

One of the most profound ethical challenges is the potential erosion of human agency. As AI systems become more autonomous, there’s a risk that humans will defer too much decision-making to machines. This can lead to a loss of control, reduced accountability, and diminished human judgment.

To counter this, we must ensure that AI augments rather than replaces human decision-making. Human oversight should remain central, especially in sensitive domains like healthcare, law enforcement, and education.

Looking Ahead

The ethical boundaries of AI are not fixed - they will evolve as technology advances. What’s essential is a proactive, inclusive approach that brings together technologists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public. We must ask difficult questions, challenge assumptions, and remain vigilant about the impact of AI on society.

Ultimately, the goal is not to halt innovation but to guide it responsibly. By respecting ethical boundaries, we can harness the power of AI to create a future that is not only intelligent but also just, equitable, and humane.

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 103: Building the Bedrock - What’s Needed for the Future of AI)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on what is needed for creating a foundation for the further development of AI"

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly evolved from a niche academic pursuit into a transformative force reshaping industries, societies, and everyday life. Yet, as AI systems grow more powerful and pervasive, the urgency to establish a robust foundation for their continued development becomes paramount. Much like thermodynamics emerged to explain the steam engine, we now need a scientific, ethical, and infrastructural framework to guide the future of intelligent systems.

1. Theoretical Understanding of Intelligence

At the heart of AI’s future lies a fundamental question: what is intelligence, and how can it be formalized? Despite the success of deep learning, we still lack a comprehensive theory that explains why certain architectures work, how generalization occurs, and what the limits of learning are. Researchers like Yann LeCun have called for an equivalent of thermodynamics for intelligence - a set of principles that can explain and predict the behavior of intelligent systems. This requires interdisciplinary collaboration across mathematics, neuroscience, cognitive science, and computer science to build a unified theory of learning and reasoning.

2. Robust and Transparent Infrastructure

AI development today is often fragmented, with tools, frameworks, and models scattered across platforms. To scale AI responsibly, we need standardized, interoperable infrastructure that supports experimentation and enterprise deployment. Initiatives like the Microsoft Agent Framework [1] aim to unify open-source orchestration with enterprise-grade stability, enabling developers to build multi-agent systems that are secure, observable, and scalable. Such frameworks are essential for moving from prototype to production without sacrificing trust or performance.

3. Trustworthy and Ethical Design

As AI systems increasingly influence decisions in healthcare, finance, and law, trustworthiness becomes non-negotiable. This includes:

• Fairness: Ensuring models do not perpetuate bias or discrimination.
• Explainability: Making decisions interpretable to users and regulators.
• Safety: Preventing harmful outputs or unintended consequences.
• Privacy: Respecting user data and complying with regulations.

The Fraunhofer IAIS White Paper [2] on Trustworthy AI outlines the importance of certified testing methods, ethical design principles, and human-centered development. Embedding these values into the foundation of AI ensures that innovation does not come at the cost of societal harm.

4. Global Collaboration and Regulation

AI is a global endeavor, but its governance is often fragmented. The European Union’s AI Act, for example, sets a precedent for regulating high-risk applications, but international alignment is still lacking. To create a stable foundation, nations must collaborate on shared standards, data governance, and ethical norms. This includes open dialogue between governments, academia, industry, and civil society to ensure that AI development reflects diverse values and priorities.

5. Investment in Research and Education

The future of AI depends on a pipeline of skilled researchers, engineers, and ethicists. Governments and institutions must invest in:

• Basic research into learning theory, symbolic reasoning, and neuromorphic computing.
• Applied research for domain-specific AI in climate science, medicine, and education.
• Education and training programs to democratize AI literacy and empower the next generation.

Initiatives like the Helmholtz Foundation Model Initiative [3] exemplify how strategic funding and interdisciplinary collaboration can accelerate AI innovation while addressing societal challenges.

Conclusion

Creating a foundation for the further development of AI is not just a technical challenge - it’s a philosophical, ethical, and societal one. It requires a shift from building tools to building understanding, from isolated innovation to collaborative stewardship. If we succeed, AI can become not just a powerful technology, but a trusted partner in shaping a better future.

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References
[1] Microsoft (2025) Introducing Microsoft Agent Framework: The Open-Source Engine for Agentic AI Apps [link]
[2] Sebastian Schmidt et al (2024) Developing trustworthy AI applications with foundation models [link]
[3] Helmholtz AI (2025) Helmholtz Foundation Model Initiative

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 87: How Long Will It Take to Regulate AI?)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how long it will take to regulate AI given the current pace of the effort"

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is evolving faster than any technology in history. From generative models to autonomous systems, AI is reshaping industries, economies, and societies. Yet while innovation races ahead, regulation limps behind. The question isn’t just how to regulate AI - it’s how long it will take to do so effectively.

Given the current pace of global efforts, meaningful regulation could take 5 to 10 years - and that’s a conservative estimate.

The Current Pace: Slow and Fragmented

Despite growing awareness, AI regulation remains fragmented and reactive:

• The EU’s AI Act, the most comprehensive effort to date, is still in negotiation and won’t be fully enforced until 2026.
• The U.S. lacks federal legislation, relying instead on voluntary frameworks and state-level initiatives.
• China has issued guidelines on algorithmic transparency and data usage, but enforcement is uneven.

Global coordination is virtually nonexistent, with no binding international treaties or standards.

Most governments are still in the 'fact-finding' phase - holding hearings, commissioning studies, and consulting stakeholders. Meanwhile, AI capabilities are doubling every 6 to 12 months.

Why It’s So Hard to Regulate AI

AI regulation is complex for several reasons:

• Rapid evolution: By the time a law is drafted, the technology it targets may be obsolete.
• Multidisciplinary impact: AI touches everything - healthcare, finance, education, defense - making one-size-fits-all rules impractical.
• Opaque systems: Many AI models are 'black boxes', making it hard to audit or explain their decisions.
• Corporate resistance: Tech giants often lobby against strict regulation, fearing it will stifle innovation or expose proprietary methods.
• Global competition: Countries fear falling behind in the AI race, leading to regulatory hesitancy.

These challenges mean that even well-intentioned efforts move slowly - and often lack teeth.

Realistic Timeline: 5 to 10 Years

If we break down the regulatory journey, here’s what it looks like (phase/estimated duration):

• Research & Consultation: 1–2 years
• Drafting Legislation: 1–2 years
• Political Negotiation: 1–3 years
• Implementation & Review: 2–3 years

Even under ideal conditions, comprehensive regulation takes time. And that’s assuming no major setbacks - like political gridlock, industry pushback, or technological disruption.

What Could Accelerate the Process?

Several factors could speed things up:

• High-profile failures: A major AI-related scandal or accident could trigger emergency legislation.
• Public pressure: As awareness grows, citizens may demand faster action - especially around privacy, bias, and misinformation.
• Industry cooperation: If tech companies embrace self-regulation and transparency, governments may move faster.
• International frameworks: A global treaty or UN-led initiative could harmonize standards and reduce duplication.

But these are hopeful scenarios. Without them, the default trajectory remains slow.

Why Waiting Is Risky

The longer we delay, the greater the risks:

• Unregulated deployment: AI systems may be used in critical domains - like healthcare or criminal justice - without oversight.
• Entrenched bias: Flawed models could become embedded in institutions, making them harder to fix later.
• Loss of trust: Public confidence in AI could erode, stalling adoption and innovation.
• Geopolitical instability: Autonomous weapons and surveillance systems could escalate tensions between nations.

In short, the cost of inaction is steep - and growing.

Conclusion: The Clock Is Ticking

Regulating AI is not just a technical challenge - it’s a race against time. At the current pace, meaningful safeguards may take a decade to materialize. But AI won’t wait. It will continue to evolve, integrate, and influence every aspect of life.

We must accelerate the process - not by cutting corners, but by prioritizing collaboration, transparency, and foresight. Because the future of AI isn’t just about what it can do - it’s about what we allow it to do.

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 86: Regulating AI - A Race Against Future Risks)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how AI must be regulated to avoid future risks"

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is evolving at breakneck speed. From autonomous vehicles to predictive healthcare, AI is transforming industries and reshaping society. But with this rapid advancement comes a shadow of uncertainty - ethical dilemmas, misinformation, surveillance, and even existential threats. To avoid catastrophic outcomes, we must regulate AI now, before its power outpaces our ability to control it.

The Risks We Can’t Ignore

AI’s potential is immense - but so are its risks. Without regulation, we face:

• Bias and discrimination: AI systems trained on flawed data can perpetuate racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.
• Job displacement: Automation threatens millions of jobs, especially in manufacturing, transportation, and customer service.
• Surveillance and privacy erosion: Facial recognition and data mining technologies can be weaponized by governments and corporations.
• Misinformation: Deepfakes and AI-generated content can distort reality, undermine trust, and destabilize democracies.
• Autonomous weapons: AI-controlled drones and cyberweapons could trigger conflicts without human oversight.
• Loss of control: As AI systems become more complex, even their creators may struggle to understand or predict their behavior.

These aren’t distant hypotheticals - they’re unfolding now. Regulation is not a luxury; it’s a necessity.

What Regulation Should Look Like

Effective AI regulation must be proactive, adaptive, and globally coordinated. Here’s what it should include:

1. Transparency and Accountability

AI systems must be explainable. Developers should disclose how models are trained, what data is used, and how decisions are made. If an AI system causes harm, there must be clear lines of accountability.

2. Ethical Standards

Governments and institutions must define ethical boundaries - what AI can and cannot do. This includes banning autonomous lethal weapons, enforcing consent in data usage, and protecting vulnerable populations.

3. Bias Audits

Mandatory bias testing should be required for all high-impact AI systems. Independent audits can help identify and mitigate discriminatory outcomes before deployment.

4. Human Oversight

Critical decisions - like medical diagnoses, legal judgments, or military actions - must involve human review. AI should assist, not replace, human judgment in sensitive domains.

5. Global Cooperation

AI knows no borders. International frameworks, similar to climate accords or nuclear treaties, are essential to prevent regulatory loopholes and ensure shared safety standards.

Who Should Lead the Charge?

Regulation must be a collaborative effort:

• Governments: Must enact laws that protect citizens and promote responsible innovation.
• Tech companies: Should adopt self-regulation, publish ethical guidelines, and invest in safety research.
• Academia: Can provide independent analysis, develop ethical frameworks, and educate future AI leaders.
• Civil society: Must advocate for transparency, fairness, and human rights in AI development.

No single entity can shoulder this alone. It’s a shared responsibility - and a shared opportunity.

Why Time Is Running Out

AI’s growth is exponential. Each new model is more powerful, more autonomous, and more integrated into daily life. The longer we wait, the harder it becomes to rein in its influence.

History has shown that unregulated technologies - from nuclear energy to social media - can spiral into crises. AI is no different. The window for safe regulation is closing fast.

Conclusion: Intelligence With Integrity

AI is not inherently good or bad - it’s a tool. But powerful tools demand responsible stewardship. Regulation is how we align AI’s capabilities with human values, ensuring it serves society rather than undermines it.

We must act now - not out of fear, but out of foresight. Because the future of AI isn’t just about smarter machines - it’s about wiser choices.

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 76: Accountability in the Age of Machine-Written Code)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on who should be held accountable for the decisions taken by machines when code is written by machines as well?"

Introduction

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to evolve, we are entering a new frontier - one where machines not only make decisions but also write the code that governs those decisions. This shift raises a profound ethical and legal question: Who should be held accountable when things go wrong?

When a machine writes code that leads to a faulty decision - say, a misdiagnosis in healthcare or a discriminatory hiring algorithm - the traditional chain of responsibility becomes blurred. If no human directly authored the logic, can anyone be held liable?

The Rise of Machine-Generated Code

Machine-generated code is no longer science fiction. Tools like GitHub Copilot, OpenAI Codex, and other generative AI systems can produce functional code based on natural language prompts. These systems are trained on vast repositories of human-written code and can synthesize new logic with remarkable speed and accuracy.

But they are not infallible. They can replicate bugs, embed biases, or misinterpret intent. And unlike human developers, they lack moral judgment, contextual awareness, and accountability.

The Accountability Vacuum

When a machine writes code and another machine executes it, we face a vacuum of responsibility. There’s no single human decision-maker to blame. Instead, accountability must be distributed across several layers:

• Developers: configure and supervise AI coding tools
• Organizations: deploy and monitor machine-generated systems
• Tool Creators: design the AI models that generate code
• Regulators: define standards and enforce compliance
• Users: provide input and feedback on system behavior

This layered model acknowledges that while machines may write code, humans still shape the environment in which those machines operate.

Developers as Curators, Not Creators

In this new paradigm, developers act more like curators than creators. They guide the AI, review its output, and decide what to deploy. If they fail to properly vet machine-generated code, they bear responsibility - not for writing the code, but for allowing it to run unchecked.

This shifts the focus from authorship to oversight. Accountability lies not in who typed the code, but in who approved it.

Transparency and Traceability

To assign responsibility fairly, we need robust systems for transparency and traceability. Every piece of machine-generated code should be:

• Logged: With metadata about who prompted it, when, and under what conditions.
• Audited: With tools that detect bias, security flaws, and ethical risks.
• Versioned: So changes can be tracked and errors traced to their origin.

These practices create a paper trail that helps identify where human judgment failed - even if the code itself was machine-authored.

Can Machines Be Accountable?

Some argue that as machines become more autonomous, they should bear some form of accountability. But this raises philosophical and legal dilemmas. Machines lack consciousness, intent, and moral agency. They cannot be punished, rehabilitated, or held liable in any meaningful way.

Instead, accountability must remain human-centric. Machines may act, but humans must answer.

A New Ethical Framework

To navigate this complexity, we need a new ethical framework - one that recognizes:

• Intent vs. impact: Even if no harm was intended, impact matters.
• Oversight vs. authorship: Responsibility lies with those who supervise, not just those who create.
• Systemic accountability: Errors often reflect systemic failures, not individual negligence.
• This framework helps us move beyond blame and toward responsible governance.

Conclusion: Humans Behind the Curtain

Even when machines write code, humans remain behind the curtain. They design the systems, set the parameters, and choose what to deploy. Accountability must reflect this reality.

In the age of machine-generated decisions, we don’t need scapegoats - we need stewards. People who understand the power of AI, respect its limitations, and take responsibility for its outcomes.

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 75: Developers and the Weight of Machine Decisions)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "white a post of 600 words on who should be held accountable for the decisions taken by machines"

Introduction

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems become more autonomous and influential, the question of accountability looms large. When an AI system makes an erroneous decision - whether it denies a loan unfairly, misdiagnoses a patient, or causes a self-driving car accident - how much responsibility falls on the developers who built it?

This isn’t just a technical issue. It’s a moral and legal challenge that forces us to rethink the boundaries of human agency in a world increasingly shaped by machine logic.

Developers: Architects of Intelligence

Developers are the architects of AI systems. They design the algorithms, select training data, define objectives, and implement safeguards. Their choices shape how machines “think,” what they prioritize, and how they respond to uncertainty.

When an AI system makes a mistake, it often reflects a flaw in one of these foundational layers. For example:

• Biased training data can lead to discriminatory outcomes.
• Poor model design may cause misclassification or faulty predictions.
• Lack of explainability can make it impossible to trace errors.

In these cases, developers bear significant responsibility - not because they intended harm, but because their decisions directly influenced the machine’s behavior.

The Limits of Developer Responsibility

However, it’s important to recognize that developers operate within constraints. They rarely act alone. AI systems are built in teams, deployed by organizations, and governed by business goals. Developers may not control:

• The final application of the system
• The data provided by third parties
• The operational environment where the AI is used

Moreover, many errors arise from emergent behavior - unexpected outcomes that weren’t foreseeable during development. In such cases, blaming developers exclusively may be unfair and counterproductive.

Shared Accountability

A more nuanced view is that responsibility should be shared across the AI lifecycle:

• Stakeholder: Role in Accountability
• Developers: Design, implementation, testing
• Data Scientists: Data selection, preprocessing, model tuning
• Organizations: Deployment, oversight, risk management
• Regulators: Standards, compliance, legal frameworks
• Users: Proper use, feedback, escalation

This shared model recognizes that AI decisions are the product of a complex ecosystem - not a single coder’s keystroke.

Transparency and Traceability

One way to clarify developer responsibility is through algorithmic transparency. If developers document their design choices, testing procedures, and known limitations, it becomes easier to trace errors and assign responsibility fairly.

This also supports ethical auditing - a process where independent reviewers assess whether an AI system meets safety, fairness, and accountability standards. Developers who embrace transparency are less likely to be scapegoated and more likely to contribute to responsible innovation.

Ethical Design as a Developer Duty

While developers may not be solely responsible for every machine decision, they do have a duty to embed ethical principles into their work. This includes:

• Bias mitigation: Actively testing for and reducing discriminatory patterns.
• Explainability: Ensuring models can be understood and interrogated.
• Robustness: Designing systems that handle edge cases and uncertainty.
• Fail-safes: Building mechanisms to detect and respond to errors.

These practices don’t eliminate risk, but they demonstrate a commitment to responsible development - and that matters when accountability is on the line.

Conclusion: Responsibility Without Blame

Developers are not omnipotent, but they are not innocent bystanders either. They occupy a critical position in the AI value chain, and their decisions have real-world consequences. Holding them accountable doesn’t mean blaming them for every failure - it means recognizing their influence and expecting ethical rigor.

In the age of intelligent machines, responsibility must evolve. It’s not about finding someone to blame - it’s about building systems, teams, and cultures that prioritize safety, fairness, and transparency from the ground up.

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 74: Accountability in the Age of Intelligent Machines)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on who should be held accountable for the decisions taken by machines"

Introduction

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems increasingly make decisions that affect human lives - from approving loans to diagnosing illnesses and driving cars - the question of accountability becomes urgent and complex. Who should be held responsible when a machine makes a mistake, causes harm, or acts in a way that defies ethical norms?

This isn’t just a legal or technical issue - it’s a moral one. Machines don’t possess intent, conscience, or moral agency. Yet their decisions can have real-world consequences. So who bears the burden of accountability?

The Human Chain of Responsibility

At the core of any machine decision lies a chain of human involvement. This includes:

• Developers: They design the algorithms, train the models, and define the parameters. If a machine behaves in a biased or harmful way due to flawed design, developers may bear partial responsibility.
• Organizations: Companies that deploy AI systems are responsible for how those systems are used. They choose the context, set the goals, and determine the level of oversight. If a bank uses an AI model that discriminates against certain applicants, the institution - not the machine - is accountable.
• Regulators: Governments and oversight bodies play a role in setting standards and enforcing compliance. If regulations are vague or outdated, accountability may be diffused or unclear.

Users: In some cases, end-users may misuse or misunderstand AI systems. For example, relying blindly on a chatbot for medical advice without verifying its accuracy could shift some responsibility to the user.

Can Machines Be Accountable?

Legally and philosophically, machines cannot be held accountable in the same way humans are. They lack consciousness, intent, and the capacity to understand consequences. However, some argue for a form of 'functional accountability' - where machines are treated as agents within a system, and their actions are traceable and auditable.

This leads to the concept of algorithmic transparency. If a machine’s decision-making process is documented and explainable, it becomes easier to assign responsibility. But many AI systems operate as 'black boxes', making it difficult to pinpoint where things went wrong.

The Problem of Diffused Blame

One of the biggest challenges is the diffusion of blame. In complex AI systems, responsibility is often spread across multiple actors. This can lead to a scenario where no one feels fully accountable - a phenomenon known as the 'responsibility gap'.

For example, if a self-driving car causes an accident, who is to blame? The manufacturer? The software developer? The owner? The data provider? Without clear frameworks, accountability becomes a game of finger-pointing.

Toward Ethical Accountability

To navigate this landscape, we need new models of accountability that reflect the realities of machine decision-making:

• Shared Responsibility: Recognize that accountability may be distributed across stakeholders. This requires collaboration and clear documentation at every stage of development and deployment.
• Ethical Design: Embed ethical principles into AI systems from the start. This includes fairness, transparency, and safety. Developers should anticipate potential harms and build safeguards.
• Legal Frameworks: Governments must update laws to reflect the role of AI in decision-making. This includes liability rules, consumer protections, and standards for algorithmic auditing.
• Human Oversight: Machines should not operate in isolation. Human-in-the-loop systems ensure that critical decisions are reviewed and validated by people.

Final Thought: Accountability Is Human

Ultimately, accountability for machine decisions must remain a human responsibility. Machines are tools - powerful, complex, and sometimes opaque - but they are not moral agents. As we entrust them with more authority, we must also take greater care in how we design, deploy, and monitor their actions.

The future of AI is not just about smarter machines - it’s about wiser humans. And that begins with owning the consequences of the technologies we create.

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 58: The Exploitable Weaknesses of AI - Risks and Challenges)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a blogpost of 600 words on the weaknesses of AI that can be exploited the most"

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized industries, automating tasks, optimizing workflows, and enhancing decision-making. However, despite its advancements, AI is not infallible. Like any technology, it has vulnerabilities that can be exploited - whether by cybercriminals, unethical actors, or even unintended biases within its own algorithms. Understanding these weaknesses is crucial for ensuring responsible AI development and mitigating risks.

1. Bias in AI Models

AI systems learn from data, and if that data contains biases, the AI will inherit them. This can lead to discriminatory outcomes in hiring, lending, law enforcement, and healthcare. For example, AI-driven hiring tools have been found to favor certain demographics over others due to biased training data.

Exploiting bias in AI can be dangerous, as it can reinforce societal inequalities and lead to unfair decision-making. Organizations must actively audit AI models to ensure fairness and eliminate biases.

2. Lack of Transparency and Explainability

Many AI models operate as "black boxes," meaning their decision-making processes are not easily understood. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to detect errors, biases, or unethical behavior.

Cybercriminals and unethical actors can exploit this weakness by manipulating AI systems without detection. For example, adversarial attacks - where subtle changes to input data deceive AI models - can cause AI-powered security systems to misidentify threats or allow unauthorized access.

3. Vulnerability to Cyber Attacks

AI systems are susceptible to cyber threats, including data poisoning, model inversion, and adversarial attacks. Hackers can manipulate AI models by injecting malicious data, causing them to make incorrect predictions or decisions.

For instance, AI-driven fraud detection systems can be tricked into ignoring fraudulent transactions if attackers manipulate the training data. AI-powered facial recognition systems can also be deceived using deepfake technology, allowing unauthorized individuals to bypass security measures.

4. Over-Reliance on AI Decisions

As AI becomes more integrated into daily life, there is a risk of over-reliance on automated decision-making. Businesses, governments, and individuals may trust AI-generated insights without questioning their validity.

This can be exploited by bad actors who manipulate AI-generated recommendations for financial gain, political influence, or misinformation campaigns. AI-driven content moderation systems, for example, can be tricked into allowing harmful content while censoring legitimate discussions.

5. Ethical and Privacy Concerns

AI systems often process vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about privacy and ethical use. If AI models are not properly secured, sensitive information can be exposed or misused.

Cybercriminals can exploit AI-driven data collection to conduct identity theft, surveillance, or targeted scams. AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants, if compromised, can be used to extract confidential information from users.

Mitigating AI Weaknesses

While AI has vulnerabilities, responsible development and governance can minimize risks.

 Organizations must:

• Conduct regular audits to detect and eliminate biases.
• Improve AI transparency and explainability to ensure ethical decision-making.
• Strengthen cybersecurity measures to protect AI models from attacks.
• Maintain human oversight to prevent over-reliance on AI-generated decisions.
• Implement strict data privacy regulations to safeguard user information.

Conclusion

AI is a powerful tool, but its weaknesses must be acknowledged and addressed. By understanding how AI can be exploited, businesses and policymakers can take proactive steps to ensure ethical, secure, and responsible AI deployment.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 10) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post