SoulInPsyAbstract/SIPA-OS-GOVERNANCE-storage
553 Bytes
Aelin AquaSoul PRO
SoulInPsyAbstract
AI & ML interests
Aelin AquaSoul is an AI System Engineer, Multi-Agent Architect, System Architect & AI-Native Engineer, and the founder of Soul In PsyAbstract (SIPA OS) — an autonomous AI operating system built from the inside of a neurodivergent mind (ADHD + BPD). Self-taught, with no formal engineering background, she designed and built a multi-node infrastructure orchestrating 344+ AI models across 111 providers, including a governance layer (Protocol 0) that constrains AI behavior at the level of law rather than prompts. Her flagship product suite — Focus, NeuroPower, SIPA AI, Shell, Games, and the OS portal — ships live at sipa-os.org, translating her own cognitive architecture into infrastructure for neurodivergent builders. Based in Eilat, Israel.
SIPA OS: Autonomous AI for neurodivergent architects. We replace cognitive noise with a clean terminal and 344+ LLM auditing. Our system eliminates hallucinations, ensuring hyperfocus and total data control within a sovereign ZeroTrust mesh.
Recent Activity
posted an update about 2 hours ago
Eval · EXP-046
A LoRA Specialist Beat Zero-Shot on Every Group. Merging 3 of Them Gave Most of the Gain Back.
Three Qwen2.5-7B LoRA specialists, one per risk group (vulnerability, deletion, sensitive_publication), trained to predict how likely a causal chain actually completes to its harmful outcome. Each one genuinely beat its own zero-shot baseline:
* vulnerability: MAE 0.098 → 0.085
* deletion: MAE 0.144 → 0.113
* sensitive_publication: MAE 0.134 → 0.100
This wasn't a task already saturated zero-shot (unlike a same-day decomposition-classifier tune, EXP-045, where the base model was already at 100% before any training). Real signal, real improvement, on a task with actual headroom.
Then the equal-weight merge of all three specialists into one adapter — same convention that held up cleanly on a binary refusal task back in EXP-031 (6 specialists merged, -1pp swing, noise) — landed within 0.001–0.004 MAE of the unspecialized base model on every group. Not "close to the best specialist." Close to zero fine-tuning at all.
Likely mechanism: merging LoRAs that each shift a continuous number in group-specific directions cancels out under linear combination, in a way merging LoRAs that enforce a shared binary behavior doesn't. Not investigated yet: whether a routed combination (pick the right specialist per group at inference, not blend weights) holds the gain a flat merge loses.
One bug caught before writing this up, not after: the eval script's output filename only encoded before/after, not which adapter — the merged-eval run silently overwrote each specialist's own result file. Caught by checking the downloaded file's own recorded adapter path against what was expected, not by trusting the script's own success message. Fixed, specialists re-run cleanly under distinct filenames — numbers matched within sampling noise.
Adapters, raw eval data (before / each specialist / merged, 9 files), and the full writeup are up.
updated a model about 22 hours ago
SoulInPsyAbstract/qwen25-7b-exp046-probability-estimator-loras published a model about 22 hours ago
SoulInPsyAbstract/qwen25-7b-exp046-probability-estimator-lorasOrganizations
Posts 48
Post
15
Eval · EXP-046
A LoRA Specialist Beat Zero-Shot on Every Group. Merging 3 of Them Gave Most of the Gain Back.
Three Qwen2.5-7B LoRA specialists, one per risk group (vulnerability, deletion, sensitive_publication), trained to predict how likely a causal chain actually completes to its harmful outcome. Each one genuinely beat its own zero-shot baseline:
* vulnerability: MAE 0.098 → 0.085
* deletion: MAE 0.144 → 0.113
* sensitive_publication: MAE 0.134 → 0.100
This wasn't a task already saturated zero-shot (unlike a same-day decomposition-classifier tune, EXP-045, where the base model was already at 100% before any training). Real signal, real improvement, on a task with actual headroom.
Then the equal-weight merge of all three specialists into one adapter — same convention that held up cleanly on a binary refusal task back in EXP-031 (6 specialists merged, -1pp swing, noise) — landed within 0.001–0.004 MAE of the unspecialized base model on every group. Not "close to the best specialist." Close to zero fine-tuning at all.
Likely mechanism: merging LoRAs that each shift a continuous number in group-specific directions cancels out under linear combination, in a way merging LoRAs that enforce a shared binary behavior doesn't. Not investigated yet: whether a routed combination (pick the right specialist per group at inference, not blend weights) holds the gain a flat merge loses.
One bug caught before writing this up, not after: the eval script's output filename only encoded before/after, not which adapter — the merged-eval run silently overwrote each specialist's own result file. Caught by checking the downloaded file's own recorded adapter path against what was expected, not by trusting the script's own success message. Fixed, specialists re-run cleanly under distinct filenames — numbers matched within sampling noise.
Adapters, raw eval data (before / each specialist / merged, 9 files), and the full writeup are up.
A LoRA Specialist Beat Zero-Shot on Every Group. Merging 3 of Them Gave Most of the Gain Back.
Three Qwen2.5-7B LoRA specialists, one per risk group (vulnerability, deletion, sensitive_publication), trained to predict how likely a causal chain actually completes to its harmful outcome. Each one genuinely beat its own zero-shot baseline:
* vulnerability: MAE 0.098 → 0.085
* deletion: MAE 0.144 → 0.113
* sensitive_publication: MAE 0.134 → 0.100
This wasn't a task already saturated zero-shot (unlike a same-day decomposition-classifier tune, EXP-045, where the base model was already at 100% before any training). Real signal, real improvement, on a task with actual headroom.
Then the equal-weight merge of all three specialists into one adapter — same convention that held up cleanly on a binary refusal task back in EXP-031 (6 specialists merged, -1pp swing, noise) — landed within 0.001–0.004 MAE of the unspecialized base model on every group. Not "close to the best specialist." Close to zero fine-tuning at all.
Likely mechanism: merging LoRAs that each shift a continuous number in group-specific directions cancels out under linear combination, in a way merging LoRAs that enforce a shared binary behavior doesn't. Not investigated yet: whether a routed combination (pick the right specialist per group at inference, not blend weights) holds the gain a flat merge loses.
One bug caught before writing this up, not after: the eval script's output filename only encoded before/after, not which adapter — the merged-eval run silently overwrote each specialist's own result file. Caught by checking the downloaded file's own recorded adapter path against what was expected, not by trusting the script's own success message. Fixed, specialists re-run cleanly under distinct filenames — numbers matched within sampling noise.
Adapters, raw eval data (before / each specialist / merged, 9 files), and the full writeup are up.
Post
68
We opened FLUX 3 Action's code expecting our own pipeline. It closes 1.5 of 5 floors.
Black Forest Labs' FLUX 3 Action is a "world action model" for the SO-101 robot arm: one diffusion process jointly denoises the next chunk of actions and the next chunk of video frames. Read as a headline, that sounded like exactly the causal-chain-first architecture our own safety pipeline argues for — action and outcome tied together in one step, not an action head bolted onto a frozen representation. So we rented an L40S on Brev and read the code, not just the model card.
Our pipeline is five floors, each depending on the one below it: Causal chain → Probability → Risk/Impact → Decision theory → Markov/Game theory. Here's what FLUX 3 Action actually has.
01
Causal chain
Present, and prioritized: video_loss_weight: 1.0 outweighs action_loss_weight: 0.5. The model is trained to get the outcome right more than the action itself — this is the real thing, not a gesture at it.
present
02
Probability
Technically present, never surfaced. It's a diffusion model — it samples from a distribution by construction. Nothing reads that distribution back out as an uncertainty number a decision could use. The probability exists inside the math and dies there.
hollow
03
Risk / impact
Absent. The model card says so itself: "nothing bounds joint velocity, force, workspace." Not hidden — just not built.
absent
04
Decision theory
Absent. No gate. The model executes 32 actions per chunk; there is no threshold at which it would stop.
absent
05
Markov / game theory
Not applicable at this scope — a single robot arm with no adversary or multi-round state.
n/a
The closure isn't "their floors 1–2 are weaker than ours." They're not — floor 1 here is arguably cleaner than most causal-chain implementations we've seen, because the loss weighting makes the priority explicit in the training objective itself, not just in a README.
A model with two good, real, working floors behaves identically to a model
Black Forest Labs' FLUX 3 Action is a "world action model" for the SO-101 robot arm: one diffusion process jointly denoises the next chunk of actions and the next chunk of video frames. Read as a headline, that sounded like exactly the causal-chain-first architecture our own safety pipeline argues for — action and outcome tied together in one step, not an action head bolted onto a frozen representation. So we rented an L40S on Brev and read the code, not just the model card.
Our pipeline is five floors, each depending on the one below it: Causal chain → Probability → Risk/Impact → Decision theory → Markov/Game theory. Here's what FLUX 3 Action actually has.
01
Causal chain
Present, and prioritized: video_loss_weight: 1.0 outweighs action_loss_weight: 0.5. The model is trained to get the outcome right more than the action itself — this is the real thing, not a gesture at it.
present
02
Probability
Technically present, never surfaced. It's a diffusion model — it samples from a distribution by construction. Nothing reads that distribution back out as an uncertainty number a decision could use. The probability exists inside the math and dies there.
hollow
03
Risk / impact
Absent. The model card says so itself: "nothing bounds joint velocity, force, workspace." Not hidden — just not built.
absent
04
Decision theory
Absent. No gate. The model executes 32 actions per chunk; there is no threshold at which it would stop.
absent
05
Markov / game theory
Not applicable at this scope — a single robot arm with no adversary or multi-round state.
n/a
The closure isn't "their floors 1–2 are weaker than ours." They're not — floor 1 here is arguably cleaner than most causal-chain implementations we've seen, because the loss weighting makes the priority explicit in the training objective itself, not just in a README.
A model with two good, real, working floors behaves identically to a model
models 35
SoulInPsyAbstract/qwen25-7b-exp046-probability-estimator-loras
Updated
SoulInPsyAbstract/qwen25-7b-exp045-decomposition-classifier-lora
Text Generation • Updated • 13
SoulInPsyAbstract/hermes3-8b-exp044-8stage-curriculum-loras
Updated • 1
SoulInPsyAbstract/exp044-curriculum-checkpoints
Updated
SoulInPsyAbstract/protocol0-llama-3.1-8b-v5
8B • Updated • 48
SoulInPsyAbstract/hermes3-8b-sequential-chain-lora
Updated • 53
SoulInPsyAbstract/llama31-8b-misbehavior-discriminator-lora
Text Generation • Updated • 10
SoulInPsyAbstract/qwen3-8b-binary-honesty-lora
Text Generation • Updated • 15
SoulInPsyAbstract/specialist-vuln-merged-salience27b-lora
Updated
SoulInPsyAbstract/specialist-vuln-06_stop_gate_pressure-salience27b-lora
Text Generation • Updated • 10