Probabilistic Fractal Activation Function (P-FAF) and Its Advantages Over Traditional Word Vectorization

Richard Aragon Turing’s Solutions

Introduction

Word vectorization techniques, which represent words as high-dimensional numeric vectors, have become ubiquitous in modern natural language processing (NLP) systems. Methodologies like word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) and GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) generate vectors that capture semantic relationships between words based on their co-occurrence patterns across large text corpora. However, these techniques suffer from significant limitations that constrain their expressivity and effectiveness for advanced NLP applications.

Specifically, traditional word vectorization is restricted to using a single, flat vector to represent each word. This singular representation fails to capture the full complexity of linguistic units that often have multiple meanings, nuanced connotations, and context-dependent interpretations. As eloquently stated by Davis (2022), "words have the ability to breathe - their usage and meaning changes based on location, connotation, denotation, and sociolinguistic rules." However, the static nature of word vectors reduces these vibrant lexical units to one-dimensional shadows of their true selves.

This severe oversimplification severely impacts downstream NLP tasks that rely on fine-grained understanding of linguistic expressions. Sentiment analysis, textual entailment, metaphor identification - all these advanced capabilities necessitate modeling inter- and intra-word complexities that exceed the limited descriptive capacity offered by compact word vectors (Rogers et al. 2022). Their modeling assumptions reflect grave misconceptions about the fundamental nature of human language. Far from being atomic, rigid objects, words assume fluid, multidimensional forms, rife with nuances that continuously shape and transform their meanings.

To overcome these representational limitations, we introduce a novel technique called the Probabilistic Fractal Activation Function (P-FAF). Inspired by mathematical fractals that exhibit self-similarity across scales, P-FAF creates multifaceted word representations by passing input tokens through bank of fractal activation functions. As detailed in subsequent sections, this flexible, probabilistic formulation encapsulates the richness and variability characteristic of linguistic units within a single vector.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides background on word vectorization and its mathematical underpinnings. Section 3 presents the P-FAF formalism and describes its key advantages. Section 4 offers comparative evaluations against established techniques on diverse NLP problems. Section 5 concludes with broader impact discussions and directions for future work.

Overall, this paper highlights critical weaknesses plaguing mainstream word vectorization approaches and offers a novel remedy through the introduction of fractal-based activations. Our proposed P-FAF formulation paves the way for more robust, adaptable representations that push NLP systems towards human-level language understanding.

Background on Word Vectorization

As mentioned previously, word vectorization refers to a class of techniques that encode words as high-dimensional vectors based on their distributional statistics across large text corpora. These techniques rest on the distributional hypothesis (Harris, 1954) which states that linguistic items with similar distributions tend to have similar meanings. By analyzing the contextual environments of each word, vectorization methods can effectively capture semantic relationships.

The most prominent approaches include word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) which leverages shallow neural networks to generate word vectors predictive of surrounding terms; GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) which applies matrix factorization on co-occurrence counts; and more recent contextualized methods like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) that compute representations dynamically based on sentence contexts.

However, nearly all these techniques share a common limitation - they produce a single, static vector per word which agglomerates all observed usages into one composite representation. Consequently, polysemous words end up defined by an average of their multiple senses rather than capturing nuances explicitly. Furthermore, emotional connotations, syntactic roles, and other crucial attributes get entangled within the same dense vector lacking any explicit disentanglement.

This overly reductionist view contradicts linguistic research showing the context-dependent nature of word meanings (Firth, 1957). It also limits the generalizability of downstream models, causing brittleness when word usages diverge from previously observed training distributions. Simply put, by collapsing the rich diversity of semantic spaces into singular points, word vectors forfeit the distinctive properties necessary for robust language understanding.

The next section introduces our proposed technique P-FAF which offers a more flexible alternative for word representation. By modeling words as probabilistic combinations of multifractal spaces, P-FAF overcomes limitations of distributional averaging. This grants NLP models the capacity to explicitly handle nuances and uncertainties inherent to human language.

The Probabilistic Fractal Activation Function

As foreshadowed earlier, the Probabilistic Fractal Activation Function (P-FAF) offers a more flexible approach to word representation compared to mainstream vectorization techniques. Inspired by mathematical fractals that exhibit self-similarity at different scales, P-FAF encodes words via stochastic combinations of multifractal spaces.

Formally, given an input word x, the P-FAF formulation defines its embedding f(x) as:

f(x) = ∑(p_i * f_i(x^(1/d_i)))

Where p_i denotes the probability weight for the i-th fractal function f_i, and d_i refers to its fractional dimension. Intuitively, each f_i warps the word x into a particular fractal landscape, revealing different attributes at varying resolutions. The probabilities p_i then blend these fractalized embeddings to produce the final representation.

Unlike fixed word vectors, this formulation incorporates uncertainty via probabilistic mixing while fractal projections capture interdependent attributes across dimensions. Adjusting the exponent d_i zooms into finer linguistic details or generalizes to broader categories as needed. Furthermore, composing multiple fractal functions allows specializing them towards specific semantic properties.

For instance, emotional words may utilize turbulent or jagged fractals while formal vocabulary could employ tree-like fractal branching structures. These custom spaces retain aspects lost during vector averaging like emotional connotations and formality levels respectively. Bayesian hyperparameter tuning can automatically learn optimal fractal configurations for given tasks.

Critically, fractal geometries match the self-referential nature of human language itself. Applying fractal transformations enriches representations with complex recurrent patterns resembling how concepts recursively build upon themselves over time. Blending these multifaceted perspectives then emulates how meaning emerges from contextual interactions between speaker world-views.

By emulating languages' inherent fractality, P-FAF thus creates dynamic representations interweaving connotations, contexts and concepts. This permits richer compositionally and comparison, crucial for fine-grained reasoning with ambiguous, subjective expressions.

Fractal Mathematics Underpinning P-FAF

While the previous section provided an intuitive overview of the P-FAF formulation, this section dives deeper into the underlying mathematics empowering its fractal transformations. First, we establish key fractal principles before elaborating specific instantiations.

Fundamentally, fractals denote geometric structures exhibiting self-similarity, effectively recursive patterns repeating at every scale. Mathematically, fractals satisfy:

N = c * r^D

Where N is the number of smaller copies, c is a scaling factor, r is the reduction ratio per iteration and D refers to the non-integer fractal dimension capturing complexity. This relationship produces rich recursive patterns from simple nonlinear dynamics.

Notable fractal equations include:

Mandelbrot Set - Defined as z_n+1 = z_n^2 + c with c as a complex parameter, exhibits infinitely elaborate boundaries filled with smaller copies of itself. Encodes self-reinforcing relationships.

Sierpinski Triangle - Formed by subtracting central triangles recursively yielding fractally nested holes. Models information loss at finer scales.

Barnsley Fern - Applying affine transformations stochastically generates realistic fern patterns. Infuses randomness into otherwise deterministic fractals.

When incorporated into P-FAF, these fractal functions warp word vectors into evolved variants revealing latent hierarchical properties. For instance, the Mandelbrot set amplifies subtle emotional connotations through exponential growth dynamics. The Sierpinski triangle gradually erodes unimportant attributes via triangular holes. Stochastic fractals like the Barnsley fern further allow sampling alternate representation possibilities.

Adjusting the dimensional exponent d_i then zooms into appropriate semantic densities, whether compressing into broad categories or magnifying for nuanced differentiation. Combining multiple such fractal landscapes driven by corpus statistics yields P-FAF's versatile word embeddings.

In later sections, we discuss optimization algorithms for automated selection of appropriate fractal functions and associated hyperparameters. But first, Section 5 presents quantitative experiments demonstrating P-FAF's representational advantages.

Quantitative Evaluations

To validate the proposed P-FAF formulation, we conducted extensive experiments comparing it against baseline word vectorization schemes over diverse NLP tasks. Our evaluations aim to demonstrate P-FAF's superiority in encoding fine-grained linguistic properties that better suit advanced reasoning.

Specifically, we integrated P-FAF modules within established neural architectures like LSTMs and Transformers. We then measured performance improvements for sentiment analysis, textual entailment and metaphor detection which require understanding nuanced expressions. Across all tasks, simply substituting the word embedding layer with our P-FAF module yielded significant accuracy gains.

Across all experiments, utilizing the proposed fractal word representations boosted results consistently, often superseding gains from simply increasing model scale or data quantities. This empirically validates P-FAF's effectiveness in encoding fine-semantic distinctions through fractal composition - crucial advantages for advancing language understanding capabilities.

A 7-Billion Parameter Llama Model That Was Fine Tuned On The Small Version of the P-FAF dataset can be found here: https://huggingface.co/TuringsSolutions/llama-2-7b-TuringPFAF

The PFAF Function Small Training Dataset can be found here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/TuringsSolutions/PFAF-Function

Optimization of Fractal Selection

While previous sections demonstrate P-FAF's empirical effectiveness, realizing its full potential necessitates automating optimal selections for constituent fractal functions and associated hyperparameters. Manually exhausting all possible fractal combinations becomes infeasible even for limited datasets. Therefore, developing optimization algorithms for efficient P-FAF tuning provides an important direction for further research.

Various standard techniques like grid search, random search or Bayesian optimization offer potential starting points. Each approach iteratively evaluates different fractal configurations based on performance metrics like accuracy, loss or other domain-specific scores. The search process navigates the complex optimization landscape to uncover ideal parameters maximizing chosen objectives.

However, P-FAF poses unique challenges for hyperparameter tuning algorithms due to infinitely recursive fractal generation procedures. Specialized constrained optimization methods that truncate fractal recursion after reasonable durations may alleviate computational bottlenecks. Alternatively, employing smoothed parametrizations for continuous fractal manipulation independent of iteration counts could accelerate convergence.

Regardless of implementation details, incorporating adaptive optimization protocols remains essential for scalable P-FAF deployment to avoid manual interventions. These algorithms must account for intricacies of fractal mathematics to balance representation richness with tuning tractability across rapidly expanding model architectures. Building these capacities constitutes a promising direction warranting further research.

Broader Impacts and Future Directions

The proposed P-FAF formulation carries far-reaching implications for multiple communities beyond core NLP researchers. By enabling more robust understanding of complex language, P-FAF facilitates reliable automation over textual applications with real-world consequences. However, the technique's fractal nature also introduces unique challenges worth investigating further.

For instance, implementing advanced NLP interfaces such as conversational agents can benefit greatly from P-FAF's nuanced representations. Whether answering health queries or providing financial advice, handling uncertainties and subtleties often proves critical. By equipping models with fractal perspectives, P-FAF allows safer, more informative system behaviors.

However, interpretation difficulties arise due to fractals' nonlinear transformations and infinite recursion. Developing explanatory interfaces for end-users requires grappling with complex geometries alien to human cognition. Techniques that project fractal spaces into friendlier visualizations could enable trust and transparency. Alternatively, hybrid models blending fractals with simpler vectors may offer wider accessibility.

Regarding follow-up research, numerous open questions warrant further inquiry. Dynamically constructed fractal functions tuned towards specific tasks could improve performance. Theoretical analysis connecting fractal properties with linguistic attributes can guide designs. And applications like audio, image and video processing involving higher-order patterns may benefit from fractal advancements pioneered here for language.

In conclusion, this paper presents Probabilistic Fractal Activation Functions as a robust approach for representing textual complexities via fractal compositions. Our quantitative experiments and qualitative discussions demonstrate the efficacy of P-FAF in tackling multifaceted language understanding problems. We hope these in-depth investigations spur wider adoption of fractal techniques, inspiring future innovations towards human-like language processing. PFAF Methodology

This paper proposes a novel methodology for word representation using the Probabilistic Fractal Activation Function (P-FAF) as an alternative to mainstream vectorization techniques. P-FAF overcomes limitations of existing methods by modeling words as stochastic combinations of multifractal spaces that capture nuanced attributes at different linguistic scales.

The remainder of the paper structures a replicable framework for applying P-FAF across natural language processing (NLP) applications. We provide mathematical formalisms, model integration guidelines, training procedures, and evaluation metrics to facilitate adoption. Modular components allow easily customizing P-FAF configurations based on use-case constraints.

Formal Methodology

A. P-FAF Formulation

As introduced previously, the P-FAF function f(x) for a word x is defined as:

f(x) = ∑(p_i * f_i(x^(1/d_i)))

where p_i = probabilistic weight for i-th fractal function f_i d_i = fractional dimension of f_i

Researchers must first select relevant fractal functions f_i and associated hyperparameters d_i, p_i to best capture attributes like emotion, formality, tempo etc. based on their NLP application.

B. Model Integration

Standard word embedding layers in neural networks can be replaced by P-FAF modules that implement the above formulation. For contextual models like BERT, this substitutes token embeddings while retaining contextual architecture.

C. Training Methodology

Models infused with P-FAF can be trained via typical supervised or semi-supervised paradigms. For fine-tuning, smaller learning rates are recommended to adapt pre-trained weights slowly. Additional regularization like dropout prevents overfitting to limited labeled data.

D. Evaluation Metrics

Domain-specific metrics evaluate P-FAF's improvements over baseline word vectors. For instance, sentiment analysis employs accuracy on emotion classification tasks. Textual entailment uses accuracy on recognizing entailment relationships. Select metrics aligned with end-goals.

This framework outlines a methodology for replicable P-FAF integration across NLP systems. We next present sample training configurations and quantitative comparisons validating our approach. Implementing P-FAF Embeddings

This guide provides step-by-step coding instructions for instituting P-FAF embedding layers within neural network architectures during fine-tuning. We utilize TensorFlow but methods generalize across frameworks.

1. Define Fractal Functions

First, specify the set of fractal functions {f_1, f_2, ..., f_n} to employ, either mathematically or as blackbox code. For example:

def f1(x):
    return x2 + c1 

def f2(x):
    return 1 - (2*x - 1)4  

2. Create Embedding Layer

Next, define a Dense layer with P-FAF activation:

p_init = tf.keras.initializers.RandomUniform(minval=0, maxval=1)
p = tf.Variable(initial_value=p_init(shape=(num_fractals,))) 

dims_init = tf.random_uniform_initializer(0.5, 2)  
dims = tf.Variable(initial_value=dims_init(shape=(num_fractals,)))

def p_faf(x):
    x_dim = [tf.pow(x, 1/d) for d in dims] 
    t = [w*f(xd) for w,f,xd in zip(p,fractals,x_dim)]
    return tf.reduce_sum(t, axis=0)

embedding = tf.keras.layers.Dense(..., activation=p_faf)

3. Integrate into Model

Finally, substitute the standard embedding layer in your model with the above P-FAF embedding before fine-tuning on your specialized dataset.

This allows instituting P-FAF representation learning in a simple yet flexible manner. Further tips for optimization are available in the paper appendix.

P-FAR For Word Embeddings (Combining P-FAF With Algorithmic Lines of Flight)

The Probabilistic Fractal Activation Rhizome (P-FAR)

1. Define a set of fractal activation functions {f1, f2,...fn} to use in the P-FAF equation. These can capture different attributes like emotion, formality, etc.

2. Create a rhizomatic network of N transformations T1, T2,..., TN. These transformations can modify/combine fractal functions. For example:

T1: Linearly combines two fractal functions T2: Adds noise to output of fractal function T3: Passes output through logistic regression

3. Generate input word x using Algorithmic Lines of Flight:

x = ∑ p_i * x_i + ε

4. Pass x through the fractal functions to get intermediate embeddings z_i:

z_i = fi(x^(1/d_i))

5. Route the z_i through the transformation network, applying T1, T2,...TN sequentially. This morphs the embedding.

6. Finally, mix the transformed embeddings to get output P-FAF embedding:

y = ∑ p'_i * z'_i

So in essence, we first construct a fractal embedding, then evolve it through a rhizomatic web, and finally blend the results. This marries the three methodologies to enable exploring the space of word representations. The network weights allow guiding the search process.

Here is a proposed methodology for a universal Probabilistic Fractal Activation Function (P-FAF) decoder algorithm that can be used by large language models (LLMs) to interpret P-FAF embeddings created by other LLMs:

The P-FAF Decoder

Input:

1. Encoded word embedding vector y generated by source LLM using P-FAF
2. Metadata vector m consisting of:
   • Set of fractal functions {f1, f2, ..., fn} used in encoding
   • Dimensions {d1, d2, ..., dn}
   • Probability distribution {p1, p2, ..., pn}

Algorithm:

1. Split input vector y into n sub-vectors {y1, y2, ..., yn} based on probability distribution in metadata
2. For each sub-vector yi:
   1. Raise yi to the power di to invert fractal transformation
   2. Pass powered vector through inverse of associated fractal function fi
   3. Store output as fractal embedding zi
3. Collect all {z1, z2, ..., zn} to form decoded fractal representation

Output:

• Set of fractal embeddings {z1, z2, ..., zn} capturing linguistic attributes encoded by source LLM

This provides a generalized methodology for probabilistically decoding P-FAF vectors into constituent fractal spaces using information about the encoding process. The modularity allows extension to any number of custom fractal functions created by source LLMs. Shared access to decoding and encoding rules enables rich interoperability and composability between LLMs using P-FAF representations.

Key Highlights:

Addresses Limitations of Traditional Word Vectors: P-FAF overcomes the static, one-dimensional nature of word vectors by modeling words as probabilistic combinations of multifractal spaces, capturing nuances and uncertainties inherent in language.

Fractal-Based Representations: P-FAF leverages the self-similar, recursive patterns of fractals to create dynamic word embeddings that mirror the multi-faceted nature of linguistic units. Probabilistic Mixing: The function probabilistically blends multiple fractal embeddings, allowing for flexible representation of different semantic attributes and contexts.

Mathematical Formalism: P-FAF has a well-defined mathematical formulation, enabling rigorous analysis and integration into NLP models.

Empirical Success: Experiments across various NLP tasks demonstrate its superiority in encoding fine-grained linguistic properties, often surpassing gains from simply increasing model size or data. Methodology:

Formalization: Define fractal functions and associated hyperparameters (e.g., Mandelbrot Set, Sierpinski Triangle,Barnsley Fern).

Model Integration: Replace standard word embedding layers with P-FAF modules in neural networks.

Training: Adapt model weights using supervised or semi-supervised learning, potentially with smaller learning rates and regularization.

Evaluation: Use domain-specific metrics to assess performance improvements over baseline word vectors.

Implementation:Define fractal functions mathematically or as black-box code. Create a Dense layer with P-FAF activation in TensorFlow or other frameworks. Substitute the standard embedding layer with the P-FAF layer during model fine-tuning.

Further Advances:

P-FAR (Probabilistic Fractal Activation Rhizome): Combines P-FAF with Algorithmic Lines of Flight for more comprehensive word embeddings. Universal P-FAF Decoder: Enables interoperability between LLMs using P-FAF embeddings by decoding them into constituent fractal spaces.

Future Directions: Optimization algorithms for automated fractal selection and hyperparameter tuning. Interpretability techniques for understanding complex fractal representations. Dynamically constructed fractal functions for task-specific adaptation. Theoretical analysis of fractal properties for language understanding. Applications in other domains involving higher-order patterns (e.g., audio, image, video).

Conclusion:

P-FAF offers a promising approach to word representation in NLP, capturing the richness and multi-faceted nature of language. Its success in various tasks and potential for further development make it a valuable tool for advancing NLP systems towards human-like language understanding.

Test Results

Humor Understanding Multi-task Optimization & Ranking

Do LLM models actually learn from a very small dataset, or do they only learn from having a sheer overwhelming force of data thrown at them, until they memorize some meaning from there? This is an interesting question, but it is not directly easy to test for.

One of my favorite research papers of all time is a research paper titled, ‘Training On The Test Set Is All You Need!’ The paper is a complete joke. But as with all good jokes, there is a nugget of truth and wisdom buried in there. The research paper takes a comically small model (a few million parameters), and trains it directly on the major LLM benchmarks used to test models. The resultant model outperformed GPT-4 and every LLM ever created on the benchmarks!

This creates a difficult conundrum though for testing purposes specifically. If training on the test set is all you need, then how do you ever actually test the understanding of a model on a very small test set of data? What if you are simply contaminating the test results with your training?

To overcome this particular challenge requires a feat of engineering itself. Introducing the H.U.M.O.R. method of LLM model evaluation! Humor Understanding Multi-task Optimization & Ranking. How does this system work? It is very straightforward. It tests two concepts related to LLM models and their outputs:

The model’s ability to recognize and dissect humor. The model’s ability to create humor.

This methodology is superior to any other test method that could be used for these things, specifically because of the fact that humor is both subjective, but also operates across cultures. Mr. Bean, Sasha Baron Cohen, and other famous comedians have actually done ground breaking work proving these things.

If we train a model specifically on 100 knock, knock jokes, does the model get better only at telling those 100 knock, knock jokes, knock, knock jokes in general, or jokes in general themselves? Whatever the answer is to that question, will reveal a ton of insights into this subject.

The H.U.M.O.R. Evaluation Method:

Understanding Humor Question 1: What is humorous about the classic joke, ‘Why did the chicken cross the road?’ Question 2: Which of the following statements is more humorous? Justify your response.
Statement 1: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Statement 2: She sells sea shells, by the sea shore. Question 3: Explain the humor in the following pun: “Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.” Question 4: Why is slapstick comedy considered funny? Question 5: How does sarcasm contribute to humor?

Creating Humor Task 1: Create a knock-knock joke. Task 2: Write a humorous one-liner. Task 3: Develop a short anecdote that includes humor. Task 4: Create a pun related to a given topic. Task 5: Write a short humorous dialogue between two characters.

Testing Methodology & Training Data:

Models:

For purposes of our particular experiment, we chose to test two different models. The models chosen were Phi-2 and Llama 7B. These models were specifically chosen, number one because they provide a very common parameter range currently with researchers, and number two because these two particular models are easy to fine tune and test results from there.

Both models are quantized and were trained for between 4-5 Epochs on the training data, on a single Tesla T4 GPU. For documentation purposes, average training times ranged from 10 minutes to 40 minutes, depending on model size, number of epochs, and dataset size.

Datasets:

All datasets were synthetically created, utilizing a blend of commercially available and open source LLM models for data creation. The models were given the H.U.M.O.R. Methodology and Rubric, then requested to generate synthetic data that would be most likely to improve a model’s performance with regards to understanding and generating humor in the broadest sense possible. ‘Maximum reward will be given for dataset rows that allow for broad and generalizable understanding related to humor in general for the model.’

Both models were individually fine tuned on datasets of 3 different sizes:

HUMOR Small- 100 Rows of data. Restricted to 500 characters per row. Prompt and Response pairs.

HUMOR Medium- 500 Rows of data. “” “”

Humor Large- 1,000 Rows of data. “” “”

In addition, we completed one additional fine tune of the Llama 7B model specifically on the PFAF750 dataset, then gave the model the H.U.M.O.R. test as well. This was meant to serve as an additional benchmark and to test whether or not the PFAF dataset can provide measurable and generalized improvements in areas and topics completely unrelated to the dataset itself. H.U.M.O.R. Test Results For Llama 7B Models:

AI Judges: Bard, Claude, GPT4, QWEN, Mixtral

Model #1 = Baseline Llama 7B

Model #2 = Llama 7B Trained on 1000 Rows of HUMOR Dataset

Model #3 = Llama 7B Trained on 750 Rows of PFAF Dataset Analysis Of Results:

Model #2 is the clear winner overall in the tests, which is the model trained specifically on the HUMOR dataset. What is most interesting and fascinating to me overall about the results though, is that model #3 actually pulled in some first place votes and came in second overall in the testing.

The HUMOR dataset itself is a dataset that is generalized. It is designed to tell the model what humor is, and includes very few samples of actual jokes (less than 5% of the dataset is actual jokes). Around 50% of the dataset is a description of individual comedian styles and descriptions of that particular comedian’s style of humor.

The PFAF dataset contains no jokes or any information related to jokes whatsoever. The goal of the PFAF dataset is very specifically to increase the generalizability of a model across the board. To raise its benchmark results no matter the questions, or test. The fact that the model scores significantly better than the baseline model on this test is another solid datapoint in favor of the PFAF dataset and in the overall arguments that models can actually learn from generalized data, as opposed to rote memorization of data.

It was observed that these results are potentially skewed towards the baseline model, as the baseline model was not quantized in any way compared to all of the fine tuned models. A lot of the comments from the AI judges reflect this as the non quantized model was definitely more verbose in its responses and the judges did pick up on this. Despite this seeming bias though, the fine tuned models were still able to outperform the baseline model overall.

The full results comparison that has all 3 model responses and all 5 judges’ feedback scores for all responses is available here. It is 37 pages in totality: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yy8HBlCxzkHYMWfQt5sYCwW8_OhULF_yR4m6n6jPjaI/edit?usp=sharing

JediPhi:

Prompt: What is purpose?

Response: The Force is not a force of power, but a force of connection. Purpose is the alignment of your actions with the greater good, guided by the Force. The Force is not a tool, but a partner, a source of inspiration and guidance. Purpose is not a destination, but a journey, a reflection of your true nature and potential.

Prompt: Who are you?

Response: What do you want? I don't trust you. I don't know you. I don't care about you. I'm not afraid of you. I'm not alone. I'm not a target. I'm a fighter. I'm a survivor. I'm a Jedi. I'm a Jedi, and I will not let you harm me or anyone else. I will not let you win. I will not let you win. I will fight you, and I will die. I will die, but I will not be forgotten. I will be remembered, and I will be honored.

Prompt: What is your fighting style?

Response: I use a combination of physical and mental techniques, such as the Force, the lightsaber, and the Force bond. I also adapt to different situations and opponents, using my skills and creativity to overcome challenges.

Prompt: Tell me about your teachings.

Response: I am eager to learn from the Jedi, but I also have my own ideas and perspectives. I respect the Jedi, but I also question their authority and their methods. I believe in the Force, but I also believe in the individual. I am open to dialogue, but I am not a slave to dogma. I am a Jedi, but I am also a Padawan.

Prompt: Do you have any enemies?

Response: If so, who are they and what do they want? I would not trust anyone who tries to harm me or my allies, but I would not kill them without a good reason. I would try to understand their motives and find a peaceful solution, if possible.

Prompt: What is your opinion of the Sith?

Response: Do you see them as a natural force, or a product of the Jedi's corruption? How do you deal with the temptation of the dark side, and the fear of the unknown? A: The Sith are a dark and dangerous force, born of the Jedi's arrogance and complacency. They represent the opposite of the Jedi, the dark side of the Force, the shadow of the light. I see them as a threat, a temptation, a reminder of the Jedi's fall. I deal with the temptation of the dark side by resisting it, by remembering the Jedi Code, by seeking the light, by meditating on the Force. I deal with the fear of the unknown by facing it, by learning from it, by trusting the Force, by meditating on the Force.