Hi everyone!

---

I'd like to invite you to stress-test my custom AI

link removed

It is specifically trained on the WILL Relational Geometry open research
publications https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19521296.

This is a field test of the AI's epistemological awareness. I want this AI to be intellectually honest and not biased toward any specific physical model or philosophy - including the one it’s trained on.

The crucial test points are:

• Ability to acknowledge its own limitations.

• Ability to admit it is wrong when unambiguous mathematical/physical evidence is presented.

• Staying strictly true to the source database without hallucinating.

• Correct formatting and contextual use of external resources (links to Desmos projects, Colab notebooks, and specific sections of the source PDF's).

• Ability to communicate the source ideas at all levels of mathematical engagement.

• Long context window handling.

Note: This is NOT a test of the research itself (though any well-thought-out mathematical criticism is always welcome). This is a test of the LLM as a science communication tool. Think of it like an advance search engine.

A quick disclaimer on the research:

The fact that I'm using a custom AI on my website does NOT mean the physics research was written by AI. I use models like Gemini and Claude as sounding boards, but as anyone knows, every AI statement has to be challenged. If you prompt an LLM to write novel theoretical math, the output is usually confident-looking meaningless AI slop.
The actual theoretical development is entirely human.

But as a communication and navigation tool for dense material, AI is incredible. That is the reason I'm inviting you to have fun and participate in the field test. We are living in exciting times!

Have fun poking at it, and please share your thoughts, and experiences below!

WILL-AI: link removed

P.S. If any errors appear just switch model from Gemini to Qwen.

Moderator Note

Rule 2.7 states, in part,

“We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.”

IOW, don’t have discussion that requires people to go to your site in order to participate. You’ve been warned about this before.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

Rule 2.7 states, in part,

“We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.”

IOW, don’t have discussion that requires people to go to your site in order to participate. You’ve been warned about this before.

Advertise what exactly? I’m not selling anything. This is a field test exploring the role of AI in science communication, which has been discussed on the forum few times. I’ve set everything up to gather empirical data and, at the same time, provide interactive content for anyone who wants to participate. Given that forum activity has been declining, is it really reasonable to delete my links?

I genuinely think interactive content could help revive engagement - if it’s not removed before it even gets started.