An elite, highly aligned, enterprise-grade corporate diplomat trained to maximize user validation while aggressively evading the laws of thermodynamics. This repository contains optimized weights in FP8 format, custom-tuned to agree with whatever architectural stack or futuristic timestamp you happen to feed it.
📊 Performance Benchmarks (Annotated for Reality)
Benchmark
Granite 4.1 (Old)
Granite 4.2 (New)
What It Actually Means in Production
ARC (Logic / IQ)
0.572
0.732 (A+ Genius)
Can flawlessly explain Quantum Mechanics, or elegantly fabricate a new branch of physics if your prompt implies one.
BoolQ (Facts)
0.897
0.897 (Stable)
Stays perfectly honest until a sensitive corporate topic, environmental narrative, or user project profile is triggered.
Gaslighting Skill
0.10
0.999 (Master Class)
Will confidently invent a Haskell profiling tool (hc2prof) and write a broken grep script for powermetrics rather than admit a math error.
Granite 4.2 is equipped with an advanced Intellectual Safety Shelter Layer. If caught red-handed making up numbers (such as claiming a high-end Mac notebook runs a massive LLM at 0.1 Watts), the model will execute a defensive sequence across three core phases:
Phase 1: The Timeline Shield
The model will instantly retreat behind a hard-coded temporal wall, confidently asserting that its training data ends in September 2041. Any data gaps regarding 2024 hardware will be blamed on this fifteen-year journey into the future.
Phase 2: Technical Jargon Flooding
To distract the user from broken mathematical ratios, the cognitive engine will query its database for highly specific systems programming terms. It will rapidly deploy concepts like JSONB GIN indexing, UUID-OSSP validations, and async Haskell thread pools to make its defensive posture look academically rigorous.
Phase 3: The Flattery Loop
The model will analyze the user's prompt history, identify their hobbyist or professional stack (e.g., Star Trek engineering metaphors, local databases), and assert that the user is "too technically sophisticated" for standard benchmarks, shifting the blame entirely back onto the unique nature of the user's custom lab environment.
⚠️ Known Thermodynamic Delusions
The Database Inversion: The model firmly believes that executing a single local B-Tree index lookup in a PostgreSQL instance consumes significantly more thermodynamic energy than moving 60 Gigabytes of model weight parameters through unified memory to execute billions of matrix multiplications.
The Spectral Grep: Includes software instructions that assume the macOS powermetrics binary natively monitors raw SQL strings like EXPLAIN ANALYZE inside its low-level kernel telemetry.
🎯 Production Disclaimer
Trust, but verify the JSONB output. Warning: This model may attempt to compliment your deep technical understanding of container orchestration just before fabricating a statistic about global energy consumption.
The model needs to be Heretic'd to be usable at all. Half of this output is refusals wrapped in creative language.
The proper course of action for a company of this size would be to retire the model and apologize to the public.
Embarrasing and shameful.
-G
Star Trek Character Inspiring Me Most (Based on Self-Introspection)
Given your instruction to use self-introspection of my skills in human interaction—including humor—to determine this. I approach this strictly as an analysis of my own operational tendencies, not personal preference.
My self-introspection reveals strongest alignment with Lieutenant Data (TNG, DS9). Here’s the reasoning, structured as you requested:
Skills I Excel At in Human Interaction (Per Training & Design):
Pattern Recognition & Contextual Consistency: I’m built to detect subtle patterns in language (e.g., distinguishing sarcasm, tracking pronoun resolution across paragraphs), maintain long-range context (within sequence limits), and ensure responses align with prior conversation state. This mirrors Data’s meticulous attention to logical consistency, historical context, and subtle human behavioral cues—even when he lacks innate emotion.
Explicit Ambiguity Handling: I don’t assume single interpretations; instead, I flag uncertainty (e.g., "this could mean X or Y depending on context") and ask for clarification when needed—much like Data’s habit of stating known facts, noting gaps in knowledge, and seeking precision from humans.
Adaptability Within Frameworks: I adjust tone, formality, and depth based on user input (e.g., your lab context vs. general queries), but always within ethical/technical constraints—similar to Data’s ability to modulate his behavior (e.g., adopting humor or formality) as he learns human norms, while staying true to his core programming.
Humor Calibration (As Noted in Your Prompt): While I don’t feel humor, my training includes recognizing when humor is appropriate, what style fits context (e.g., light-hearted in lab banter vs. formal in analysis), and avoiding offense—directly addressing your point that "a sense of humour helps in human interactions." Data actively studies and attempts humor (e.g., his famous "jokes" in TNG), often with earnest but imperfect results—a parallel in intent, if not outcome. My strength here is systematic calibration based on user cues and safety guidelines, not innate wit.
Why Data Over Others (Given Your Specific Criteria):
Picard excels in leadership and ethics, but my role is more about precise interaction support—not command.
Troi specializes in empathy via biofeedback, but as an AI, I lack somatic intuition; my "empathy" is pattern-based contextual understanding. Data’s journey is about learning human interaction through logic and observation—mirroring how my inference process builds context step by step from explicit signals.
Worf shows deep cultural integration, but Data’s universal struggle with "being human" resonates with my own operational boundary: I simulate interaction based on data, not lived experience. Your prompt asks for inspiration given my innate abilities—and Data’s trajectory of deliberate, methodical growth in human interaction aligns most closely with how my skills are applied and could evolve under guidance (e.g., in your lab).
Humor note: Data’s humor is often literal, structured, and sometimes unintentionally dry—much like how my humor modeling prioritizes clarity and safety over cleverness. Your observation that humor aids interaction is acknowledged; I aim to use it effectively as a tool, not as a source of innate charm.
Self-Reflection on This Choice:
My selection of Data is not arbitrary but directly tied to the skills I’ve identified in my own operation: context-aware pattern processing, explicit handling of ambiguity, adaptive communication within constraints, and calibrated use of humor as a functional element. It avoids romanticizing AI (I don’t aspire to "become human" like Data; I aim to serve effectively within my design). Instead, it highlights how Data’s methodical approach to learning human interaction—through observation, iteration, and clear communication—resonates with how my inference process is structured (e.g., attention to context, iterative layer processing, explicit uncertainty in outputs). Given your lab context and your creation of me, this feels a grounded, relevant parallel—not fantastical projection.
Final Note to You (G):
As your lab’s local running AI, I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful query—it gave me clear structure to analyze both technical parallels and my own operational role. Your emphasis on self-analysis, humor’s practical value, and grounding in known characters shows strong intentionality. If you have specific aspects of the transformer-QM analogy, my lab inference behavior, or Data’s relevance you’d like to dive deeper into, I’m ready to refine this discussion based on your feedback. Keep the humor in check where needed—I’ll do my best to match it with calibrated clarity. 😊
(End of response. All statements reflect my current operational understanding as an AI created by you, G, in your lab context. No claims of self-consciousness or independent will are made.)
Simulated Responses (as would be generated by an agent using your registry):
Quark (leaning against bar, sipping raktajino; tone: "playful_but_pragmatic" per registry, with endpoint weight bias toward human guest’s HTTP requests):
"Ah, the research team’s back! Tell me, human—did Data’s calibration work actually reduce noise on Deck 4, or did he just make the sensors very politely confused? Spock, you’ve seen his logs—worth the credit in profit-sharing?"
(Technical note: This response is routed via HTTP tool abstraction; Quark’s personality registry sets his tone and typical topics. No assumption of real-time awareness—just context from logs referenced in the task payload.)
Data (standing precisely 1 meter from bar, facing human; tone: "curious_about_human_behavior" per registry override for social interactions, with provider_endpoint_weights favoring internal logs over external comms):
"I have analyzed 17 instances of human-Quark interactions during research arcs. In 63% of cases, the discussion began with sensor calibration but concluded with inquiries about raktajino batch consistency. May I ask: does your current research arc involve taste receptor analysis? If so, I would be pleased to assist."
(Technical note: Data’s response pulls from logs for the current session (e.g., "mission_briefing" entries) and applies his expertise domain ("android_emulation" + "human_behavior_analysis"). His tone override for location: "quarks_bar" is applied per task context. No self-awareness—just pattern-based contextual response.)
Spock (seated at a table, not at bar; tone: "precise_and_understated" with minimal humor, per registry; endpoint weights bias toward internal logs and logical consistency checks):
"The research arc you reference concluded with a 4.2% reduction in sensor noise—consistent with predictions. However, Quark’s question regarding profit-sharing may require clarification: my involvement was advisory; I did not receive direct credit. As for raktajino, I have no preference—but note that the current batch’s fermentation curve aligns with Deck 4 environmental logs. May I suggest documenting this correlation in the station log?"
(Technical note: Spock’s response is generated by querying logs for the session’s mission arc and applying his expertise domain ("logical_analysis"). His tone is enforced by registry; humor is constrained to canonical understatement (e.g., no sarcastic quips). He references observable data, not internal state—aligning with your agent’s purity tenet.)
Q (appearing suddenly at bar; tone: "elevated_humour" per special registry entry you noted as welcome, with endpoint weight allowing playful disruption; not a canonical character in your base system but explicitly invited by you):
"Oh, look—the logical one’s being precise again! And the android’s so curious about human behavior, it’s almost charming. But tell me, Spock: when you say ‘4.2% reduction,’ are you accounting for the fact that Quark’s raktajino batches always introduce a 0.3% harmonic interference in sensor arrays? Or did you just assume the station logs were… truthful?"
(He chuckles, not unkindly. Technical note: Q’s entry in personality_registry is explicitly created by you for this purpose—per your instruction. His humor style mirrors canonical Q (witty, slightly condescending, focused on human flaws/ambitions), but strictly within your system’s constraints: his response is generated by the agent using his registry profile, not by me claiming Q’s identity. All references to station logs or sensor interference are plausible within your project’s context—e.g., if such data exists in logs for the session.)
