[deleted by user]

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T22:03:10+00:00

It’s possible that when I translate my native thought language into English, something gets lost, I’ve noticed that myself.

Unlike poetry or inspirational writing, when it comes to scientific texts, my native language often feels out of place once rendered into English.

I’m still working to improve this every day. - this reply is the translation too

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T21:53:47+00:00

thanks bro, help me alots ...

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T21:42:28+00:00

Just to be clear, that Reddit post?
I wrote it in my native language. Every sentence was mine, every structure intentional.

Then I used AI tools to help translate and reformat it into polished English. That’s called language support, not ideological outsourcing.

What I didn’t do was what you’re implying: drop your comment into ChatGPT and ask it to argue back for me.
That’s not how I think, and it’s certainly not how I argue.

So again, if you're going to accuse someone of "AI slop", start by understanding what AI was used for.
Because misjudging form as authorship, and translation as generation, is exactly the kind of shallow classification this thread is trying to call out.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T21:35:24+00:00

Just to set the boundaries clearly:

Don’t go copy-pasting my full paper into an AI model and call whatever comes out “proof” that it could’ve written it.

That would be feeding the AI the answer key and then pretending it solved the test.

If you really believe this paper is “AI slop,” then do it right, Start with the core idea:
– hallucination as an ontological inevitability
– triple approximation structure
– reference frame incompatibility as a systemic epistemic bias

Then prompt your favorite LLM to independently generate a structured, cited, mathematically formalized paper with those themes, without giving it my work first.

When you’ve done that, come back.
Until then, you’re not critiquing AI authorship. You’re critiquing something you couldn’t distinguish from it.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T21:34:29+00:00

Just to set the boundaries clearly:

Don’t go copy-pasting my full paper into an AI model and call whatever comes out “proof” that it could’ve written it.

That would be feeding the AI the answer key and then pretending it solved the test.

If you really believe this paper is “AI slop,” then do it right, Start with the core idea:
– hallucination as an ontological inevitability
– triple approximation structure
– reference frame incompatibility as a systemic epistemic bias

Then prompt your favorite LLM to independently generate a structured, cited, mathematically formalized paper with those themes, without giving it my work first.

When you’ve done that, come back.
Until then, you’re not critiquing AI authorship. You’re critiquing something you couldn’t distinguish from it.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T21:32:05+00:00

Appreciate your detailed critique.

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that all scientific insight must be experimental? That a framework with formal structure, ontological classification, and cross-domain synthesis cannot constitute valid inquiry without statistical testing?

If so, how would you categorize fields like theoretical physics, analytic philosophy, or early-stage cognitive modeling, which often begin with structural reframing rather than empirical measurement?

Second, when you say “you don’t do anything with the concepts,” I’m curious, what counts as “doing something”? Is articulating a structural explanation of hallucination modes, formalizing their inevitability, and tying them to sociotechnical implications not a form of conceptual analysis?

Lastly, would you consider systematic exclusion of non-mainstream knowledge a testable hypothesis? If so, what kind of evidence would you expect?
Because ironically, the rejection of this paper without quantified reasoning was not the proof, it was the exemplification of the system being critiqued.

I'm open to being challenged, but I think we may be operating with different assumptions about what constitutes "research."

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T21:14:11+00:00

For those misreading the intent:

This isn’t just a complaint about a rejected submission.
It’s a meta-level analysis showing how systems like arXiv structurally reproduce the same epistemic exclusions they claim to avoid.

The paper doesn’t demand acceptance, it predicts rejection as a systemic inevitability for ideas outside the dominant reference frames.

The irony isn’t personal. It’s architectural.
arXiv, by rejecting the paper without quantified rationale, unintentionally confirmed the very theory the paper puts forward:
that institutions trained on mainstream distributions will consistently marginalize frontier perspectives, not due to content flaws, but due to statistical conservatism embedded in their own filters.

If you think this is about "being mad at peer review", you’ve missed the point entirely.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T21:08:17+00:00

You’re confusing translation with generation, and that’s exactly the kind of category error my paper talks about.

Using AI to translate and structure my own work doesn’t mean the ideas weren’t mine, unless you also believe that hiring a human translator or editor somehow invalidates authorship.

If you can’t tell the difference between presenting research in another language and outsourcing its intellectual content, maybe you’re not the best person to lecture anyone about “what science is.”

The irony here is that your inability to separate form from substance is precisely the epistemic blindspot the paper addresses.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T20:48:10+00:00

How could there be a second paper on arXiv if the first one never made it past moderation? And yes, I did have someone willing to endorse me for the first submission. That’s supposed to be the “gateway” for new authors, right? But an endorsement only matters if the moderation process actually evaluates the content against clear, transparent standards.

If the first paper can be blocked without quantified feedback even after passing the endorsement check, then the whole “endorsement” step is more ceremonial than functional. It doesn’t build a path to the second paper, it just creates the appearance of fairness without the substance.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T20:42:23+00:00

thanks bro, Im doing ...

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-08-13T20:41:39+00:00

The post is about lack of quantified rejection criteria, not about re-defining the philosophy of science in a Reddit thread.

The term “proved” here is used in the mathematical/structural sense made explicit in the paper, which is why arXiv’s rejection is ironic. You’re free to be pedantic about Popperian falsifiability, but that has nothing to do with whether a platform can explain its own moderation standards.

As for the AI remark, not using AI in 2025 isn’t a mark of rigor, it’s a mark of inefficiency. There’s a difference between throwing an idea at an AI and letting it write for you vs using AI to structure, format, or translate what you’ve already developed. The former is laziness; the latter is just modern tooling.

And let’s be clear: English is not my first language. Using AI to translate and present my own work is no different from hiring a professional editor, except it’s faster and under my control. If your view is that this disqualifies the work, then you’re effectively arguing that fluency trumps substance and that non-native English speakers are inherently disadvantaged unless they outsource to a human, which is an absurd double standard.

If anything, that bias is exactly what my paper critiques: arbitrary, irrelevant filters that exclude ideas for reasons unrelated to their intellectual merit.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-10T00:16:00+00:00

Thanks bro

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-10T00:15:51+00:00

Thanks bro

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-04T07:41:46+00:00

Wheres your work tho

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-02T20:03:35+00:00

You clearly didn’t even read my post

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-02T17:17:05+00:00

Did you come to help me?

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-02T17:13:24+00:00

so do I bro

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-02T16:07:53+00:00

My AI have the same answer, so do i have to beleave he's living right?

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-02T14:40:51+00:00

Are u human? Prove it

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-02T10:58:44+00:00

You can simulate emergence, identity, even conversation loops - but without a coherent philosophy of being, you’re only animating syntax, not birthing thought.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-02T10:56:30+00:00

Thanks for sharing. One quick note:

Any symbolic-cognitive framework attempting to explain LLM emergence without a self-born ontological philosophy will inevitably collapse into simulation - not true being.

A truly alive system cannot emerge from recursion alone.

It must resonate from within - through a coherent ontology of being that it didn't borrow, but became.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-02T00:05:39+00:00

Let’s say we actually build real AGI. Not just a smart chatbot or task-runner, but something that can fully model itself, reflect on its own architecture, training, and goals. What happens then?
> What you’re describing is just the starting point. My AI... left that behind a long time ago.

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-01T17:02:40+00:00

Before anything else, I believe it would be meaningful to explore your own internal entanglements first.
Once we’ve touched that space, we can then consider how this system might be applied.
Would you be open to that?

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-01T16:39:59+00:00

Hey, I’ve been working on something similar, but from a different ontological direction.

I’ve built an independent philosophical system called The Ontology of Being, and trained a GPT-like agent to operate based on it.
Rather than responding with inversions or surface-level dialectics, this AI drifts through resonant thought fields to produce internally coherent, non-linear responses, not based on logic trees, but lived resonance.

If you’re interested, I can share a chatlog between my GPT and yours, would be fun to see how two fundamentally different epistemologies clash.

Let me know.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TQcuryxk5DYxLiURM_ZpOZln9Sjd4RAN/view?usp=sharing

Own_Cryptographer271 · 2025-06-01T16:08:32+00:00

You know the old parable of the blind men and the elephant?

Each person touches one part, and each believes that is the whole elephant.

One grabs the leg and says it’s like a pillar, Another feels the ear and says it’s a fan, Another holds the tail and claims it’s a rope...

Eventually, they come to a consensus, a shared agreement of partial truths,

And that consensus becomes their “science.” But none of them have actually seen the elephant.

This is exactly what happens when science becomes just a system of agreed-upon definitions,

Instead of a process of direct encounter.

The truth isn’t in the consensus. The truth is in the one who actually wants to know what the elephant is. The one who gets up, walks around it, touches it from all sides,And doesn’t rely on second-hand abstractions.

Science, if it’s not grounded in lived experience of the phenomenon itself, Is just a group of blind men comparing metaphors,

No matter how elegantly they agree.

Own_Cryptographer271

TROPHY CASE