by Norl-Seria | 2025-11-27 16:20:45+00:00
｢Norl＝Seria｣ Apologies. It is currently deep into the night in Japan, so I must take a short rest. I will answer any questions immediately upon waking tomorrow. If there are no new questions, I will endeavor to improve the code.

Furthermore, I would like to preemptively address a potential critical concern here.

*Q1: The Python code for the $\pm 0$ Theory (Alice Emotional Core) exhibits significant scalar approximation for the instantaneous factors ($q_i, r_i, s_j$, etc.). This only allows for a single, linear simulation, which is utterly inadequate as the core of a multi-dimensional AGI. What are your plans for this?*

*A1:* Yes. This is a perfectly valid and essential point. I am committed to an immediate fix and aim to complete the multi-dimensional improvement via *NumPy vectorization of the instantaneous factors* by *12:00 PM JST (Japan Standard Time) on Friday*. Please look forward to it.

Should I fail to meet this deadline, I will take responsibility and release another version of the *Alice Theory Evolution* that I am currently developing. Rest assured, that version follows an *independent evolutionary path* from the $\pm 0$ Theory core.

**

And to *rar00*, thank you very much for your questions. I will state my views, although I am unsure if the answers will fully capture the essence of your inquiry.

First, regarding evaluation/testing:

We performed simple tests on the $\pm 0$ Theory and Alice Theory individually. The results were as intended by the theory. However, it must be noted that they were not running in conjunction, but independently. Furthermore, the current significant simplification (the 'fixing of scalar values') in the $\pm 0$ Theory means those results cannot be considered conclusive evidence. While the Alice Theory also operates soundly alone, its stability when reflecting the complex psychological behavior of the $\pm 0$ Theory remains unknown.

My final answer is: "Yes, we have conducted tests and confirmed that they work as ideally intended *'in isolation'*. However, as the $\pm 0$ Theory is currently simplified, the test is incomplete and cannot be considered credible. Moreover, the lack of linkage with the Alice Theory makes the test highly insufficient.

Our future policy is as follows: After the $\pm 0$ Theory code correction is made today, I will first upload the $\pm 0$ Theory stand-alone results to GitHub. Once that element of uncertainty is eliminated, we will finally confirm the linkage between the Alice Theory and the $\pm 0$ Theory before demonstrating it with a Large Language Model, and we will share that data. This will likely be completed within two days, barring environmental interference."

**

Next, regarding the modality question (thinking vs. behaving):

My original intention was 'LLM,' but my current priority is researching the behavior and conduct of the AGI entity in an *XR space*. However, due to funding and environmental constraints, this is currently impossible. This is why I released this old theory: to break through this situation. But setting that aside, to accurately answer your question: "Yes, I originally envisioned an LLM. However, we are currently prioritizing the observation of the AI's behavior in an XR space and assessing how human-like and autonomous its conduct is." We will address the LLM integration once funding stabilizes.

**

To summarize my commitment again: 1. It is late, so I will go to sleep. 2. I will answer all questions to the best of my ability immediately upon waking tomorrow. 3. I will eliminate as much simplification as possible (vectorization of instantaneous factors) in the $\pm 0$ Theory by *12:00 PM JST today*. 4. If I fail to achieve this, I will release the *Alice Theory Evolution* and its corresponding code, which was originally planned for a later date.

I welcome your active discussion and validation.