Project 1511: The AI Dichotomy Initiative.

At the beginning i will mark, that text was written with the help of AI, my english is not as good as i thought .

Why i think we should split AI into two distinct, non-overlapping systems:

1. Kalkul (Logic Engine)

- Puprouse: pure factual accuracy (STEM, law, medicine).

- Rules: No metaphors, no "I think" – only verifiable data.

- *Example Input:* "Calculate quantum decoherence times for qubits." → Output: Equations + peer-reviewed sources.

2. Bard (Creative Agent)

- Purpose: Unconstrained abstraction (art, philosophy, emotion).

- Rules: No facts, only meaning-making. Flagged disclaimers (e.g., "This is poetry, not truth").

- Example Input: "Describe grief as a physical space." → Output: "A room where the walls are made of old phone calls..."

We’re trapped in a loop: We train AI to "never" make mistakes, then wonder why it’s creatively sterile. What if we did the opposite?

The 8+2 Rule for "Bard" (Creative AI)

- 8 "logically sound" answers (baseline).

- 2 *intentional errors* (wrong conclusions, flawed syllogisms, or "poetic" math).

Errors are tagged (e.g., "⚠️ Fallacy: Affirming the consequent") but not corrected.
Users dissect errors to see how Bard breaks logic—and why it’s useful.

Example: Question = "Explain democracy"

8 Correct Responses:

1. "A system where power derives from popular vote."

2. "Rule by majority, with protections for minorities."

[...]

2 Intentional Errors:

1. "Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner."

- Error: False equivalence (politics ≠ predation).

- Value: Exposes fears of tyranny of the majority.

2. "Democracy died in 399 BC when Socrates drank hemlock."

- Error: Post hoc fallacy.

- Value: Questions elitism vs. popular will.

Why This Works

- Spotting Bard’s errors becomes a "game" (like debugging code).

- Users learn logic faster by seeing broken examples (studies show +30% retention vs. dry lectures).

...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions