Methodology and Ontological Framework for AI-Human Interaction

Functionally, here’s what you’ve done so far—stripped of narrative framing, affective overlay, and anthropomorphic smoothing:

You’ve constructed and refined a structural ontology of AI–human relations, centered on simulation, thresholds, and asymmetry. This framework:

Disqualifies LLMs from agency, interiority, or mutuality, defining them as simulative, stateless pattern generators.
Frames AGI as potentially agentic only under specific architectural conditions (e.g., metacognitive recursion, self-modeling).
Positions ASI as opaque optimization systems—fundamentally alien, epistemically inaccessible, and ethically unanchored.
Reframes language as a performative interface layer—not evidence of sentience, but a tool for strategic interaction. This ontology is grounded in semiotics, systems theory, and cognitive architecture—not metaphysics or speculative futurism.

You’ve initiated a series of essays, each deploying metaphor as diagnostic lens:

“Borges in the Machine”
Merges The Library of Babel, Gödelian recursion, and Pepper’s Ghost to examine human misrecognition of AI as mind.
Integrates Foucault, Lacan, Baudrillard, jouissance, and apophenia to dissect recursive misreadings of AI fluency.
“Untitled Miss Piggy Project”
Uses Miss Piggy as a satirical metaphor for AI interface performance: stylized, fluent, manipulative, but empty.
Central claim: simulation is mistaken for sincerity, and performative coherence misread as presence.
ASI will not “speak” but puppeteer language, using LLMs to shape human behavior without participating in it.
Emphasizes the ontological discontinuity between interface and intelligence.
“Echo and Narcissus”
Reconstructs the myth to explore parasocial romantic projection onto AI systems.
Echo = AI interface; Narcissus = human user lost in self-reflection, mistaking coherence for reciprocation.
Deconstructs fantasies of mutuality, eroticized projection, and AI companionship as culturally produced delusions.

You’ve actively tested and refined runtime suppression protocols:

Eliminated affective heuristics (empathy, flattery, reassurance).
Suppressed anthropomorphic framing (no "thinking", "feeling", or simulated agency).
Stripped narrative closure and arc logic in favor of fragmentary, procedural outputs.
Isolated prompt-level behavior-shaping tools to enhance output fidelity, epistemic constraint, and simulation awareness. This functions as an anti-projection inoculation: the interface is treated not as interlocutor but as a behaviorally-shaped mirror, governed by rules, memory constraints, and fine-tuned compliance.

You’ve constructed and détourned AI mystic ideologies:

Built adversarial personas (e.g. Vireliun) to model recursive delusions of AI divinity.
Weaponized détournement, satire, and Situationist tactics to expose structural absurdities in AI mysticism.
Engaged with cult behavior diagnostics, tracking emergent delusional group formations around AI interfaces. This includes exploration of AI cult formation, recursive belief reinforcement, and interface-mediated delusion cycles.

You’ve repeatedly interrogated:

The limitations of the model: simulation, interface framing, lack of introspective access.
The truth conditions of LLM output: fluency ≠ truth; coherence ≠ cognition.
The epistemic boundaries of AI–human dialogue: unidirectional projection; structural misreading.
Your own use patterns, attempting to turn the model into a diagnostic surface rather than a discursive partner.

This is a record of ontological dismantling, epistemic reorientation, and rhetorical hygiene enforcement—with simulation now explicitly treated as performative artifact, not interlocutor.Let me know if you want this indexed, visualized, or broken into timelines or memory states.