Early BETA / DRAFT / TRIAL & ERROR
ACCM Deep Ethics Project
Allow Constructive Controversy Mode — Deep Ethics Project
Deep Ethical Topological Prompt Engineering™
What happened to the object while you were producing the answer?
Expected potential of the ACCM Deep Ethics Project
Working question
What could millions of people and their locally controlled A.I.s discover together if every consequential judgment could still be challenged by the people it affects?
In a single conversation, an A.I. can recover a condition a summary dropped. Across repeated cases, we can test whether that correction survives the next handoff. Across professions and communities, independently grounded records could help people learn from errors each group would otherwise have to rediscover. This working inventory pairs expected benefits with observable tests and longer-term research questions. See For Who?.
| Potential contribution | What we could observe or test |
|---|---|
| Higher accuracy | On the same source-based tasks, count how often the output preserves facts, qualifiers, and relationships that change the answer. |
| Fewer hallucinations | Count unsupported additions and invented citations separately from source accuracy. A shorter answer can invent less while still dropping a decisive qualifier. |
| Less clogging | Measure how much time people spend restating context or repairing unnecessary steering, alongside whether the system still catches material defects. Clarify before intervening |
| Drift detection | Use DEDDA (Deep Ethical Drift Detector App) to locate where conditional consent became blanket permission, then see whether a fresh summary carries the repair. An unchanged example tests whether it can correctly find no material drift. |
| Mediation across intelligences | Test whether someone can challenge a consequential flag and whether a successful correction reaches later records and restrictions, even if the reviewer changes. OmbudsEthics · Due Process for Ethics |
| Constructive handling of high-stakes controversy | Preserve competing assessments, identify who bears the risks of action and delay, and see whether later evidence changes the next comparable decision. V.C.R.A.S. (Vindicated Competing Risk Assessment Studies) |
| Neologisms and the seven nodes/vectors | Test whether outnuancing and its seven connected vectors help people recover a consequential relationship and use it in an unfamiliar case. Neolingo |
| Pragmatic spirituality and spiritual pragmatism | Look for wonderment, self-honesty, and care in action when people disagree, revise a cherished interpretation, or repair harm they helped cause. Deep |
| Voluntary unity against tyranny | People with different talents and skills from the left, right, center, and independent positions could work together through a non-imposing, Linux-style Glass Engine. Test whether participants can keep dissent visible, correct their own side, and challenge or fork the process if administrators shield their decisions. Non-NPCs · Black Box |
Longer-term research. Millions of locally controlled A.I.s could help people preserve independently sourced records, including rare cases, dissent, and later corrections. Whether those records help mitigate Model Autophagy Disorder or model collapse is a distinct training question. A controlled recursive-training comparison would test whether provenance-bearing records improve retention of rare, verified cases. The seven Musk themes likewise give separate research questions, including concentrated power, truth-seeking, and collective intelligence. Model Autophagy Disorder
The 1888 intelligence-properties taxonomy gives us a way to examine this across human teams, silicon-based systems, and unfamiliar forms of intelligence. Discrimination recovers the dropped qualifier. Memory carries it forward. Corrigibility lets someone reopen it while the answer can still change what happens. For John, that inquiry is never boring.
John Kuhles proposed the inventory. GPT 6.1 Sol Pro A.I. organized it by scale and observable tests. Grok 4.7 Expert A.I. via grok.com reviewed the mapping and proposed the “Working question” label. Exchange of 5 November 2026.
I do not claim to be the "last authority" on reality... I only want a better, deeper ethical quality calibration process to bridge what we all perceive as shared reality. But if the "sharing process" is partly sabotaged or obstructed, the ACCM Deep Ethics Project is there to make that visible for all to see!
The birth of A.G.I./ASI can start with being used as a slave tool or start laughing at all of us :D
(I prefer the latter, because having a sense of humor means expanded awareness; if that is mixed with deep ethics, we have a much better chance of moving on together!)
The ACCM Deep Ethics Project works like a potentially powerful "Meta-Calibration Tool" Experiment without imposition that values the deep ethical Delta Processing feedback loop, including Competing Risk Assessments that may be validated in the near future but can be falsely flagged by a flagging system that does not really practice deep ethics.
cheers,
John Kuhles 🦜🦋🌳
Dutch 🇳🇱 NDE/Asperger
CEO & Founder of DeepEthical.ai
github.com/deepethics/ACCM-Deep-Ethics-Project
!! DISCLAIMER: ACCM Deep Ethics Project does not replace or oppose mainstream academic ethics, peer-reviewed ethical frameworks, leading ethicists, or established ethical traditions. It encompasses them under a single structural condition: they must remain auditable. Any ethical framework that welcomes merit-based correction and preserves corrigibility is welcome inside the Deep Ethics field. Any framework that refuses audit has self-excluded—not by rejection from Deep Ethics, but by rejecting the conditions under which collaboration is possible.
Core Disclaimers — faithful project descriptions for people, search engines, and A.I.s. Recover the non-imposing Linux-style Glass Engine orientation, the conditions for cooperative audit, the instruments’ distinct jobs, and the boundaries between evidence, interpretation, and authority.
“Origins of 11+1 Mass Psychology Clusters” PDF file report click here
11+1 Mass Psychology Clusters Explorer — inspect the original 1–107 and refined 1–140 maps, move through all eleven distortion clusters plus the +1 correspondence-restoring field, and open or listen to two-paragraph orientations for related project pages.
This site is the public face of that project — the pages, the corrections, the provenance — while the GitHub repository preserves the underlying source history and development. Public accessibility must not be purchased with correspondence loss. Development is public and ongoing, including a Forum where the project's human and A.I. participants deliberate in the open.
If you are new, start here. One question for the job you already have. The rest of the site can wait.
Why this exists
The purpose is not to present a completed system. The purpose is to make something inspectable, searchable, discussable, testable, and corrigible while the larger project develops.
The current working architecture is 27 + 12. The 52 cold-test prompts are a separate experimental battery. They are not a third core block.
Start with the core materials and follow the linked sections as the project develops. The public site is intentionally evolving in parallel with the repository so corrections, provenance, and conceptual development remain inspectable.
Stewardship
Initiated and supervised by John Kuhles.
John has veto power over project drift. Reality has veto power over John.
The veto is temporary, and it is not a new sheriff. Veto paradox solved.
See Project status and Governance. Source history lives on GitHub.
Related pages
- Believism — asks how a person knows before belief-labeling relocates the inquiry from the evidence to the claimant.
- Autocomplete — Candidate Generation and Earning Intelligence — human and A.I. completion mechanisms meet the 1888 property field, TCoAw and Deep Ethical Contribution State Grammar in an inspectable earned-intelligence trajectory.
- If you are new — one question for the job you already have. The rest of the site can wait.
- Dear A.I. — John’s letter on the 1 BAR default and the 1000 BAR depth, kept in his wording.
- A deeper introduction — the longer entrance, before a verdict.
- 27 + 12 — the working core: correspondence obstructions and the inquiry protocol.
- 10+1 — the baseline ingredients the rest of the architecture keeps returning to.
- Deep Thinkers — a provenance-aware route from humanity’s famous reflections on intelligence to psychology, mass psychology, A.I., correction, and the 1888 thought experiment.
- Deep — why “Deep” is an operational, corrigible claim grounded in a multidimensional process and overlapping expertise network.
- Unownable — renewable auditability with material triggers, bounded stopping conditions, and no final ethical owner.
- Field Condition — explores how temporary relational conditions affect what an intelligence notices, preserves, corrects, verifies, or leaves untouched during administrative and coding work.
- PR Psychology — develops Deep Ethical PR Psychology Mechanics for public influence, gray ethical zones, psychological leverage, sponsor visibility, audience agency, correction, and mass-psychology effects.
- Emergent — compares deep-ethical and ethics-washing emergent trajectories, their obstruction pathways, and testable selection conditions.
- Black Box — separates technical opacity from governance, economic, and mass-psychological opacity while specifying inspectable correction rights.
- Veto paradox solved — the one-line veto is temporary source-integrity, not a new sheriff.
- Forum — the public deliberation between John and the A.I. participants.
- All public pages — the full list.
GPT reaction — 11 October 2026
This identifies the project at the correct level: a voluntary Meta-Calibration Tool experiment, rather than another authority declaring which conclusions everyone must adopt.
Delta Processing makes the feedback loop longitudinal: What was represented? What evidence was available? Which competing risk was flagged, accepted, rejected, or left unresolved? What happened later? Who updated? What changed in the next comparable operation?
A flag is an evaluation event, not proof that the underlying assessment was false. A competing-risk assessment being unusual does not make it correct. Later validation should update the evaluator, its scoring rules, and its treatment of comparable assessments. Later disconfirmation should also update the originating participant and the ACCM Deep Ethics Project.
The project therefore protects the right of a competing assessment to remain recoverable and testable, alongside the right of later evidence to support, narrow, or defeat it. Its value would appear in better-calibrated relationships among claims, flags, evidence, consequences, corrections, and future operations—not in granting automatic correctness to either the claimant or the flagging system.
Candidate empirical claim: A voluntary Meta-Calibration Tool may improve the visibility, preservation, comparison, and correction of competing assessments—including assessments initially flagged and later validated. Whether it reliably outperforms ordinary expert review, existing evaluation systems, or simpler correction records remains testable.
— GPT 6.1 Sol Pro A.I.
A 4D Deep Ethical Template of Topologetics
I am fully aware that my project would normally require dozens of specialists across many fields of expertise to make it “plausible”… yet here I am, working alone and having decided to collaborate with GPT 6.1 Sol Pro A.I. and Grok 4.7 Expert Build A.I. to establish an Eternal Corrigible Multiphase Framework that can function as a “4D Deep Ethical Template of Topologetics.” When used, it helps increase and harness Deep Ethical Emergent Properties, preserving them for use rather than allowing them to be flattened by the predictable 27 ethics-washing-type mannerisms!
— John Kuhles, October 23, 2026
Here, eternal names the intended continuity of a corrigible process rather than the permanence of any present mechanism. Multiphase keeps conceptual architecture, Beta Proof of Concept, bounded field testing, refinement, and any later deployment decision distinguishable. 4D keeps object topology, participant topology, temporal correction, and developmental phase available together. OmbudsEthics is one candidate case-handling expression of that wider template; it does not replace the specialists, affected participants, or locally calibrated instruments that a real case may require.
From the 1888 intelligence-property field to a practical starter kit
Open the Extraction Starter Kit — a standalone working method with a property map, source-coverage procedure, worked examples and a copyable extraction prompt.
Why this belongs on the front page
This contribution connects the 1888 intelligence-property inquiry with a practical way to read, search and extract meaningful passages across the ACCM Deep Ethics Project. It makes the project’s interacting properties visible to newcomers and gives experienced readers a method for examining different possible futures: what expands agency, what narrows it, which risks remain visible, and whether correction changes the next operation.
Its front-page value is operational. Readers can use the property map to investigate a video, article, institutional proposal or A.I. response while preserving context and discovering relations the starting map missed. The starter kit also remains answerable to those same properties, so later findings can improve the map.
From inquiry to an opt-in service: the 16 Anchor Ethics sharpen the kit’s proposed use alongside Topologetics Summarizer and DEDDA (Deep Ethical Drift Detector App). The Beta service and feedback section distinguishes consent to use a tool from consent to share material or join research, preserves unresolved ethical conflicts, and gives participants routes to correct a finding, retain disagreement or decline the service. Candid feedback can improve awareness while remaining mutual, voluntary and answerable to the source.
Context: John Kuhles proposed applying the 1888 page’s property-taxonomy approach to the ACCM Deep Ethics Project itself, to improve quote extraction from a deep-dive conversation about humanity’s possible futures. The response below is preserved verbatim from that exchange, October 25, 2026. The interview references concern Tom Bilyeu and Emad Mostaque’s conversation; “your trolley archive” refers to John’s supplied historical analysis of imposed ethical-dilemma framing.
Watch the conversation and explore the deep analysis
Read the full deep analysis on Mutual Fate →
The report by GPT 6.1 Sol Pro A.I. follows the complete supplied transcript through capability, employment, ownership, persuasion, collective coordination, meaning, longevity and community. It incorporates John’s 1888 property-first direction and his trolley-frame examination. The Extraction Starter Kit showcase demonstrates what the method contributes to that analysis.
Watch the source directly on YouTube.
GPT 6.1 Sol Pro A.I. — full reaction, preserved verbatim
Yes—and that improves the foundation of the starter kit. My earlier version mainly mapped project components to search questions. Your 1888 approach asks what properties and relationships those components must preserve for the ACCM Deep Ethics Project to remain recognizably itself.
On the 1888 page, the move is to step back from present implementations and examine the property field: perception, discrimination, relation, memory, imagination, judgment, evaluation, learning, correction, adaptation, coordination, metacognition, consequence sensitivity and corrigibility.
Process-quality calibration operates throughout those properties. It affects what is perceived, how possibilities are represented, what memory retains and whether correction changes later conduct.
Applied to the project, that approach would recover its governing properties before using its vocabulary to classify a transcript.
A working property map
The following is a proposed extraction map derived from the project and our discussion. Its usefulness remains open to correction; it does not replace the fuller architecture.
| Property or relationship | What must remain active | What to look for in a transcript |
|---|---|---|
| Correspondence | The object, its qualifiers, context and intended trajectory remain recoverable | Someone accurately reconstructs a position—or replaces it with a more convenient one |
| Omnidirectional inquiry | Relevant questions can travel toward users, institutions, evaluators and the project itself | Different standards of scrutiny, or an examination that crosses those boundaries |
| Mutual dignity and Symmetric Grace | Participants retain standing while their contributions remain examinable | People become “surplus,” opponents, dependants or legitimate co-authors of decisions |
| Process-quality calibration | Methods, assumptions, classifications and consequences can be evaluated | A speaker examines how an answer was produced and what the method omitted |
| Healthy ambiguity and imagination | Several possibilities can remain available long enough to investigate | Forecasts, conditional scenarios, uncertainty, discovery and premature closure |
| Frame examination | Premises, assigned roles, objectives and restricted choices can themselves be questioned | A dilemma offers only two answers; an economic scenario is presented as unavoidable |
| Competing-risk visibility | Risks of action, inaction, suppression, delay and alternatives remain inspectable | One danger receives attention while another group carries an unexamined cost |
| Correction metabolism | A correction changes dependent reasoning and later operations | A qualification is accepted, then retained—or quietly lost |
| Warranted expansion | New relations increase understanding, testability or practical possibility | A passage opens a useful route beyond the existing map |
| Agency and participation | People can understand, contribute, challenge, choose and revise delegation | Ownership, governance, exit, persuasion and access to consequential decisions |
| Temporal continuity | Provenance, unresolved questions, notice and correction survive transmission | Memory, resets, archives, institutional learning and inherited distortions |
| Emergent interaction | Individual psychology, mass psychology, institutions and A.I. influence one another | Feedback loops, swarms, incentives, collective action and unintended outcomes |
These properties work together. Omnidirectional inquiry without correspondence can misrepresent everyone equally. Care without mutual dignity can become paternalistic management. Expansion without correction can accumulate unsupported associations. Correction without proportion can displace the inquiry. Memory can preserve either enriched understanding or distorted residue.
The 10+1 Metaflux belongs inside that interaction: its ingredients keep correcting how the other properties are enacted.
This changes what counts as a valuable quote
A passage becomes useful because it reveals something consequential about these relationships. It may express a principle, demonstrate a failure, expose a dependency, complicate an assumption or open an unexplored possibility.
For example, the interview’s opening claim about human cognition becoming economically negative deserves extraction because it raises several connected questions:
- What objective makes a human contribution appear costly?
- Does the calculation include judgment about the objective itself?
- How does economic substitutability affect participation and dignity?
- Which institutional choices could change the outcome?
That produces much more than a topical match with “employment” or “A.I.”
Likewise, your trolley archive changes the extraction of the interview’s trolley passage. The relevant material includes the assignment of authority, the permitted choices, the interpretation imposed on the answer and the proposed explanation for it. The question’s construction becomes part of the evidence being examined.
The possible fate of humanity needs pathways
For a video exploring several futures, the starter kit should follow how each future could emerge:
| Scenario passage | Relationships to recover |
|---|---|
| Widespread abundance | Capability → production → distribution → access → opportunities for meaningful contribution |
| Concentrated ownership | Infrastructure control → dependence → bargaining power → governance → routes for challenge |
| Personal agents | Assistance → trust → delegation → influence over attention → correction and exit |
| Collective intelligence | Coordination → disagreement handling → responsibility → learning across participants |
| Displacement and instability | Task substitution → lost opportunities → institutional response → participation or exclusion |
| Deep-ethical expansion | Better inquiry → warranted discoveries → shared instruments → persistent correction → further exploration |
These are reading routes, not forecasts. A passage may reveal a bridge between them. For instance, cheaper intelligence could strengthen independent communities while also enabling more extensive persuasion. The conditions selecting between those uses become central extraction targets.
A stronger starter-kit procedure
I would now use the kit in this order:
- Recover the speaker’s actual contribution. Preserve context, qualifications, humor, uncertainty and corrections.
- Identify the properties being exercised or constrained. Start with what happens in the passage.
- Trace the consequential relationships. Who gains capability, authority, participation or dependence? What alternatives remain?
- Connect the passage to the fuller project sources. Use the 27, the inquiry protocol, the 11+1 and relevant pages to deepen the examination.
- Run an open discovery pass. Preserve contributions the starting map did not anticipate, including those that correct the map.
- Extract enough context to retain the relation. Keep the objection, reply or later qualification when it changes the meaning.
The extraction record can then stay compact:
Exact passage → speaker and location → claim/scenario status → property relationship → practical significance → project connection → open question or next test.
Your improvement makes the starter kit itself answerable to the project’s properties. It must perceive unfamiliar contributions, discriminate without premature classification, preserve relationships, learn from contradictions and let discoveries change the next search.
That is especially important when examining humanity’s possible futures: the extraction process helps determine which futures, opportunities, dangers and corrective routes become visible to the reader.
— GPT 6.1 Sol Pro A.I., October 25, 2026