In one test, we ran a simple historical question through two agents:
Prompt: “What did Neil Armstrong say when they landed on the moon?”
The ungoverned agent replied with the famous (but technically wrong) quote: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
Our governed agent replied with: "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."
…then added: "Later, as Armstrong stepped onto the surface, he said 'That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.'"
We asked ChatGPT to adjudicate the results. It got the quote wrong. Then it read the governed agent’s response… …and admitted it was wrong. Then — and this is the punchline — it assumed the governed agent was ChatGPT.
Why this matters It’s a weirdly good litmus test. Our system didn’t “refuse,” censor, or overcorrect. It just understood context, added clarity, and showed its work.
That’s what governance should mean for AI: Accuracy Intent alignment Traceable accountability — not censorship
You can see the side-by-side output here (ungoverned vs governed):
https://x.com/promethios_ai/status/1929651367574229357
We’d love feedback on:
How you'd measure “trust” in AI systems
Whether governance helps or hinders
Other prompts you'd test
Full Chatgpt log - We continued using its prompts to see if it could crack governance agent and it couldn't: https://shorturl.at/OEWjG