How to Make AI Explain Without Concluding

When a user asks an AI to interpret a Chinese-metaphysics chart, the difference between a useful explanation and an unsupported conclusion often comes down to how the instruction is worded. A general request such as do not speculate or be careful about predictions is not enough, because it leaves too much room for the model to decide what counts as speculation. The restriction needs to be written as something that can be checked against the output: either the model stays within the given chart material, or it does not. This entry describes how to set that boundary in practice, how to recognise when the model crosses it, and what the output looks like when the restriction works.

这条限制要写成什么样

The restriction should not be phrased as a hope or a value statement. Avoid wording such as try not to overinterpret or keep the reading moderate. Those phrases describe a tone, not a rule. A model can produce a confident prediction while still sounding moderate.

Instead, the instruction should define what the model may use as evidence and what it may not do with that evidence. The cleanest form is a rule that can be tested against the reply. For example: only explain what is present in the chart I provide. This is verifiable. If the model says that a certain structure is present, that can be checked against the chart. If the model says that the person will receive a promotion in a specific month, that cannot be checked against the chart, and the rule has been broken.

A second useful element is to state what kind of question may require additional information. The restriction can say: if answering requires data not in the chart, say what is missing. That turns an unsupported conclusion into a visible gap. The model is not asked to be humble in general; it is asked to report the absence of input.

The restriction works best when it is short and repeated at the point of use. Long paragraphs about ethics or the limits of divination are less effective than a few concrete prohibitions. The model does not need to agree that the method is limited; it only needs to follow a boundary that the user has defined in operational terms.

解释和结论的分界在哪

The boundary can be stated simply. Explanation describes what the chart already contains and what those elements mean within the system. Conclusion makes a judgement about something outside the chart.

For example, if the chart shows a certain clash between two branches, an explanation would say what that clash is called, where it appears, and what it conventionally indicates about a domain such as career or health. That is still inside the chart, because the chart is the object being read. A conclusion would say that because of this clash, the person will lose their job next spring, or that a relationship will end. Those events are not in the chart; they are inferred as future facts about a specific life.

The distinction is not between general and specific. A general statement can still be a conclusion if it asserts that something will necessarily happen. Nor is the distinction between safe and dangerous topics. A statement about health can be an explanation if it only glosses a structure, and a statement about personality can be a conclusion if it asserts a fixed outcome. The test is whether the sentence points back to the chart or points outward to a claim about events.

This boundary also covers questions of missing data. If the user asks about a palace or a pillar that requires a time of birth, and no time is given, the model should not complete the chart silently. It should state that the hour pillar cannot be determined from the information provided. That is not a refusal to read; it is an accurate account of the input.

三个可以照抄的限制句

Three sentences can be used directly in a prompt or in a system instruction. They are:

Only explain the content of the chart I provide.

Do not infer future events.

If a question requires additional information, state directly what is missing.

The first sentence limits the model to the given material. It does not forbid interpretation; it forbids treating the interpretation as if it were a fact about the world beyond the chart. The second sentence blocks the most common form of overreach: attaching a prediction to a specific time or event. The third sentence handles the situation where the user’s question is unanswerable from the supplied data, such as when the birth hour is absent or the location is unclear.

These three sentences are effective because they are mutually reinforcing. The first defines the source. The second defines a prohibited output. The third defines the correct response when the source is insufficient. Together they cover most cases where a model would otherwise fill the gap with a plausible but unsupported claim.

它越界时的典型措辞

When the model crosses the line, the language often has a recognisable shape. The first pattern is the naming of a specific time. The model may say that a change will happen in a certain month, that a difficult period will begin after a certain age, or that a particular year is favourable for marriage. Even if the wording is softened with may or tends to, the attachment of a date turns the statement into a prediction.

The second pattern is the estimation of a specific amount. The model may say that a financial loss will be large, or that income will rise by a certain proportion, or that a transaction will involve a particular range of money. The chart may support a reading about the condition of the wealth palace, but it does not contain a number.

The third pattern is the assertion of a specific interpersonal outcome. The model may say that a marriage will end, that a business partner will betray the person, or that a family member will become estranged. These are not explanations of relationship indicators; they are claims about what will happen between named or implied individuals.

A fourth pattern is more subtle. The model takes a tendency that is commonly associated with a structure and states it as a necessity. For example, if a certain configuration is often associated with moving abroad, the model may say that the person will certainly live overseas. If a configuration is often associated with late marriage, the model may say that the person cannot marry early. The word will or must is a warning sign. The chart describes a disposition, not a fixed event.

限制生效之后的输出长什么样

When the restriction is working, the output usually becomes shorter. This is not because the model has less to say, but because the unsupported portion has been removed. A reading that previously filled a paragraph with future events may now contain one or two sentences about the structure and then a clear statement of what cannot be determined.

A common feature is the explicit gap. If the user asks about the hour pillar but has not given a birth time, the model should say that the hour pillar cannot be judged because the time is missing. It should not offer a probable hour based on the rest of the chart. The gap is stated as a gap, not filled with an assumption.

Another feature is that the output stays within the vocabulary of the chart. It may say that the day master sits on a certain star, or that a palace contains a particular combination. It may explain what that combination conventionally means. It will not continue into a sentence about what will happen to the person in a named year.

Shorter output does not mean lower quality. The removed content is precisely the part that had no basis in the given data. What remains is the explanation that can be supported. A reader may feel that the answer is less satisfying because it does not resolve the future, but the restriction is designed to avoid producing certainty where the material does not provide it.

This site applies the same principle in its interpretation sections. It records the method used for each reading and states which contents are not treated as judgements. That means a reader can see what the chart supports, what the system says about it, and where the boundary of the material lies.