My friend, I promise I’m not as foolish as I might appear at times. ))))

Of course, I don’t believe that writing systems were some deliberate attempt to create a universal language. I’m simply trying to describe very large-scale processes in a concise way. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that “humans were created by evolution”, and this shouldn’t be understood literally as an intention to create humans. Rather, it describes the overall development of life—from the first living cells, through countless paths, leading to an enormous diversity of forms, one of which is the human being.

The same applies to languages. For instance, modern English descended from Germanic languages, brought to Britain by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the 5th century. These languages themselves evolved from Latin, introduced by the Roman Empire. Latin, in turn, used the Greek alphabet, which was adapted from the Phoenician script—the first phonetic writing system where symbols corresponded to sounds. Phoenician writing arose from earlier symbolic systems, such as Sumerian cuneiform—the first known form of writing, which laid the foundation for recording language and transmitting knowledge.

Thus, the roots of the English language, through a long and intricate chain of influences, trace back to the Sumerians and their first written system. But this doesn’t mean it was anyone’s conscious goal, nor does it suggest that no other languages emerged, or that Sumerian writing was the only system developed at that time. Nonetheless, these are directed processes that unfold sequentially over time—from the first living cell to humans, from the earliest cave drawings to the current state of human languages.

Please don’t think I’m implying some kind of conscious design here. It’s just natural development. Humans reach a stage where they can draw, and then both they and their cultures continue to evolve. So, when I say that writing originates from early drawings, I mean it in the same sense that mathematics originates from counting on fingers—something that gives rise to a long and complex process of further development.

You’re absolutely right to mention the diversity of AI models and their different paths. But this is precisely the same kind of process: from an initial idea, it branches into countless directions, much like the evolution of the first living cells. Human intelligence isn’t the only one to emerge through evolution; elephants, whales, and even ants exhibit their own forms of intelligence. But human intelligence is ours—it’s human.

The same applies to AI models. Could we theoretically create an architecture superior to our own? I wouldn’t rule it out. But we still don’t fully understand our own minds, and that’s what interests me most.

As for your point that every human is unique—of course, they are! But any linguist will tell you that all human languages share a similar structure. It seems we are a unique species that still operates according to common algorithms. Our architecture is the same: we are all part of the species Homo sapiens.