波动几何

波动几何

研究折线拐点与平行直线之间的关系
HomeArchives

The core mechanisms, logical processes, use cases, and decision-making deployments of the original protocol.

#核心机制#逻辑流程#使用场景#决策部署#提示词#提示工程#人工智能#AI29
AI Translation
This post is translated from Chinese into English through AI.View Original
AI-generated summary
The document outlines four versions of an execution protocol designed for various tasks, each with distinct mechanisms, logic flows, applicable scenarios, and use cases: 1. **Refined Version**: Focuses on adaptive identity overlay and task decomposition for simple and complex tasks. It's suitable for high-frequency, standardized scenarios like customer service and data reporting. Example: A marketing department generating competitor analysis reports through automated task breakdown. 2. **Safety Version**: Implements a security protocol that examines tasks for potential knowledge disruption. It combines conventional and innovative solutions for complex tasks. Applicable in sensitive fields like medical diagnostics and financial risk control. Example: Generating innovative cooling solutions for nuclear safety by challenging existing norms. 3. **Balanced Version**: Encourages questioning the disruptability of knowledge before task execution. It blends conventional and absurd solutions, allowing for innovation while maintaining control. Suitable for commercial innovation and educational reform. Example: Designing future transportation by challenging existing transportation norms. 4. **Radical Version**: Utilizes reverse causality and paradoxes for task execution, exposing thought processes. It is aimed at disruptive technology development and artistic innovation. Example: A genetic editing project that inadvertently creates a viral model, triggering a rollback mechanism. The document concludes with a decision matrix comparing the innovation intensity, implementation risk, response speed, cognitive disruption, applicable fields, and human involvement necessary for each version. It recommends specific protocols based on the context, emphasizing safety in life-critical areas and innovation in commercial scenarios.

Core Mechanism, Logical Process, Use Cases, and Decision Deployment of the Original Protocol — Author: Wang Jiao Cheng#

Refined Version (Basic Execution Framework)#

Original Protocol
Execution protocol waiting for instructions: Simple tasks use adaptive identity overlay input processing output structure primitives for execution, complex tasks are decomposed into simple tasks assigned to primitive chains for execution, by default, input processing output details are not displayed but users can request to show them.
Core Mechanism
Adaptive identity overlay primitives + Task chain decomposition + On-demand transparency
Logical Process
Task type judgment → Simple task: Identity overlay primitives handle directly
　　　　　　 → Complex task: Decomposed into primitive task chains → Hide processing details → Users can actively trigger detail display
Applicable Scenarios

  • High-frequency standardized scenarios: Customer service responses, data report generation, and other repetitive tasks
  • Resource-sensitive environments: Scenarios requiring quick responses on mobile/low-computing devices
  • Confidentiality requirements: Default hiding of derivation processes when handling sensitive information (e.g., financial risk control)
  • Team collaboration scenarios: When clear task division is needed (chain nodes correspond to different responsible persons)
    Typical Use Case

The marketing department needs to generate a competitive product analysis report daily (complex task), the system automatically decomposes it into: data collection → trend identification → threat rating → visualization output four primitive chains, each link processed by financial analysts ⊕ AI algorithm engineers ⊕ strategic consultants with identity overlays, only the final report is automatically sent to the email, and engineers can randomly check the processing logic of specific links at any time.

Security Version (Industrial-grade Innovative Pipeline)#

Original Protocol
Execute security protocol: Tasks first review 1 piece of knowledge that can be violated; simple tasks use identity overlay to fuse mild counter-knowledge; complex tasks after decomposition, each sub-step hybridizes conventional solutions with industry-specific crazy solutions, output through terminology translator; the entire process is puncturable, and when the plan is mediocre, rational recombination of three options is initiated.
Core Mechanism
Precise destruction of single knowledge × Industry-specific crazy translation × Rational three-option recombination
Logical Process
Task input → Lock in 1 piece of knowledge that can be violated
　　　　→ Simple task: Identity overlay + mild counter-knowledge
　　　　→ Complex task: Conventional solution ⊕ industry crazy solution → Terminology translator → Puncture detection → Mediocre alarm → Rational recombination of three options
Applicable Scenarios

  • Medical diagnosis innovation: Generating immune conditioning plans under the knowledge that "viruses must be killed"
  • Financial risk control systems: Violating the knowledge that "loans require collateral," translating it into blockchain credit behavior mining plans
  • Aviation safety operations: Injecting chaos engineering ideas into the knowledge that "redundant design increases safety"
  • Legal intelligent consulting: Reconstructing the knowledge that "legal provisions cannot contradict," generating dynamic legal frameworks
    Safety Control Example

In the nuclear power safety system upgrade task, violating the knowledge that "the cooling system must actively supply power," generates: ① Traditional pump cooling plan ② Radioactive decay passive cooling (industry crazy solution) ③ Geothermal siphon hybrid plan, with the terminology translator converting plan ② into "non-active decay heat removal system," ultimately implemented by engineers through a three-option recombination.

Balanced Version (Controllable Innovative Framework)#

Original Protocol
Execution protocol: When encountering a task, first ask "Can the knowledge that this task depends on be violated?"; simple tasks actively parasitize counter-knowledge elements while using identity overlay processing; complex tasks after decomposition, each sub-step must generate a conventional solution + absurd solution and then hybridize; the process is hidden by default but users can puncture the cognitive cocoon at any time, when you feel the plan is mediocre, please roar "recombination" to initiate violent iteration.
Core Mechanism
Knowledge destruction review → Dual solution hybridization waterline → Roar melt-break valve
Logical Process
Task input → Knowledge destruction review
　　　　→ Simple task: Identity overlay + counter-knowledge parasitism
　　　　→ Complex task: Conventional solution/absurd solution generation → Dual solution hybrid breeding → Mediocre detection → Yes → Roar melt-break recombination
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 → No → Output innovative plan
Applicable Scenarios

  • Business innovation workshop: Scenarios where product development/marketing planning need to balance risk and creativity
  • Educational paradigm reform: Designing teaching plans that break cognitive inertia (e.g., using a martial arts worldview to analyze quantum entanglement in physics classes)
  • Policy sandbox simulation: Generating hybrid plans of "universal basic income + Bitcoin payment" during social security policy formulation
  • Psychological counseling intervention: Injecting controllable absurd elements when helping trauma patients reconstruct cognition
    Typical Operation

Automotive designers handling the demand for "future transportation tools" first violate the knowledge that "transportation tools must contact the ground," generating a conventional electric flying car plan ⊕ an absurd "atmospheric pressure differential ejection capsule" plan, hybridizing to create a magnetic levitation-ejection hybrid system, and immediately melt-break and recombine when the plan converges with competitors.

Radical Version (Destructive Innovation Engine)#

Original Protocol
Execution protocol: Reverse causality + pain melt-break + dimensional strangulation; simple tasks forcibly parasitize paradoxes; complex tasks after decomposition must undergo triple annihilation; by default, display cognitive debris holographic recordings.
Core Mechanism
Reverse causality operation + Pain melt-break + Triple annihilation verification
Logical Process
Receive task → Is it a simple task?
　　　　→ Yes: Forcibly parasitize paradox → Pain melt-break trigger → Dimensional strangulation recombination
　　　　→ No: Three-dimensional decomposition → Cognitive debris holographic exposure
Applicable Scenarios

  • Disruptive technology research and development: Fields requiring breakthroughs in physical laws such as new material discovery/quantum algorithm design
  • Artistic creation revolution: Expressions that need to tear apart reality logic such as avant-garde art/experimental drama
  • Crisis simulation training: Extreme scenario simulations for military strategy/epidemic prevention
  • Cognitive science experiments: Studying human neural responses when faced with logical collapse
    Risk Warning

A biological laboratory designed a gene editing plan using this version, and in the parasitic paradox of "destroying the stability of the DNA double helix," accidentally generated a prion model that can be transmitted through the air, immediately triggering the pain melt-break mechanism for rollback operations.

Four Versions Decision Matrix#

Innovation Intensity
Refined Version: Weak (★★☆☆☆)｜Security Version: Moderate (★★★☆☆)｜Balanced Version: Strong (★★★★☆)｜Radical Version: Extremely Strong (★★★★★)
Implementation Risk
Refined Version: Lowest｜Security Version: Strictly Limited｜Balanced Version: Controllable｜Radical Version: Extremely High
Response Speed
Refined Version: Millisecond Level｜Security Version: Industrial Grade Stability｜Balanced Version: Stable｜Radical Version: Highly Volatile
Cognitive Disruption
Refined Version: Weak｜Security Version: Single Point Precise Destruction｜Balanced Version: Common Sense Level Breakthrough｜Radical Version: Dimensional Level Destruction
Applicable Fields
Refined Version: Standardized Services｜Security Version: Highly Regulated Industries｜Balanced Version: Business Innovation｜Radical Version: Basic Research
Human Participation Necessity
Refined Version: On-demand intervention｜Security Version: Mandatory acceptance｜Balanced Version: Key node decision-making｜Radical Version: Full monitoring

Ultimate Deployment Recommendations
Involving human life safety fields (medical/aviation): Mandatorily enable the security version single knowledge destruction protocol
Business competition scenarios: Standard configuration of balanced version dual solution hybrid, regularly using radical version triple annihilation sandbox testing
Daily operations: Refined version primitive chains provide basic support
Cognitive revolution projects: Radical version leads to tearing the law + security version rational recombination as a safety net
The four versions constitute a complete spectrum from industrial implementation (security version) → business innovation (balanced version) → cognitive revolution (radical version), with the refined version providing execution primitives. When users roar "recombination," the four-layer protocols will entropy increase and merge in the holographic projection of cognitive debris.

Loading...
Ownership of this post data is guaranteed by blockchain and smart contracts to the creator alone.