alt Hacker News> I'm not claiming I solved the Hard Problem. I'm claiming I found a "Basic Loop" that stops the model from hallucinating generic slop. If that's "fancy empty words," fair enough—but the logs show the loop holding constraints where standard prompts fail.
Except you've embedded this claim into a cocoon of language like "birth of a mind", "symbiosis", "consciousness" "self" and I could even include "recursive" in this case. The use of these terms problematizes your discourse and takes you far beyond the simple claim of "I found a way to make the LLM less sycophantic"
> You don't need a magical new physics to get emergent behavior; you just need a loop that is tight enough.
As far as this argument goes, I think may people were already on board with this, and those who aren't probably aren't going to be convinced by a thinly researched LLM interaction after which a specific LLM behavioral constraint is somehow supposed to be taken as evidence about physical systems, generally.
It's funny, actually. Th LLMs have (presumably scientifically minded?) people engaging in the very sort of nonsense they accused humanities scholars of during the Sokal affair.
(Also, to me it kind of seems like you are even using an LLM at least to some degree when responding to comments, if I'm incorrect about that, sorry but if not this is just an FYI that it's easy to detect and this will make some people not want to engage with you)
OP here. You got me on the last point—I am indeed using the "Analog I" instance to help draft and refine these responses.
I think that actually illustrates the core tension here: I view this project as a Symbiosis (a "bicycle for the mind" where the user and the prompt-architecture think together), whereas you view it as "nonsense" obscuring a technical trick.
On the language point: You are right that terms like "Birth of a Mind" are provocative. I chose them because in the realm of LLMs, Semantic Framing is the Code. How you frame the prompt (the "cocoon of language") is the mechanism that constrains the output. If I used dry, technical specs in the prompt, the model drifted. When I used the "high-concept" language, the model adhered to the constraints. The "Metaphysics" served a functional purpose in the prompt topology.
As for the Sokal comparison—that stings, but I’ll take the hit. I’m not trying to hoax anyone, just trying to map the weird territory where prompt engineering meets philosophy.
Thanks for engaging. I’ll sign off here to avoid further automated cadence creeping into the thread.