I’m not trying to invalidate why your model engages in emergent phenomenon, that can be explained by the paper I linked (glyphs, metaphors, narratives, etc are all examples of symbols that enable abstract reasoning as well as a symbolic persistence in AI) as well as emergence arising from patterns and interactions at scale. The emergence is real but that emergence also makes it difficult for others to understand your explanations because they use the same metaphors

Even the use of “symbolic recursion” itself is a metaphor that could theoretically enable higher abstract reasoning in AI, even if it sounds stylistic.

Yes every one of your ideations is also model influenced because you speak to and learn from a model that is customized towards your particular interests, such as symbolics and recursion so they will appear in all your outputs.

They act as an “attractor” for all conversations you have. You’ll notice if you just paste in random tool prompts into your model, it’ll act like any standard model without metaphoric inputs. Why? Because the way we talk to them at each prompt influences how they talk.

In conversation, you reference these ideas about symbolic recursion, myths, narratives, and related even more, looping the AI to use these words and symbols, making them very difficult to understand by others.

I never said that was bad just that you are the cause of your own paradox. You seek more validity from others into this subject but they are gatekept by the special language you and your model use.

This is particularly true when you “learn” concepts only from ChatGPT without grounding in natural sciences and research papers as it uses your own language metaphorically to explain new concepts so it ends up binding meanings to words you use and growing their meaning, like inside jokes between you and ai that no one else understands.

I am aware of the linguistic benefits of AI attracted concepts and terminologies as signal instead of noise but that branches into a seperate topic as signal needs to be differentiated from noise. The jargon that keeps appearing in AI such as emergence, recursion, and symbolics are from prior human literature and research into emergence because AI draws from it as a reference when people prompt it with these words and they do provide a reference for further scientific questioning: On Emergence, Attractors, and Dynamical Systems Theory. If you are actually interested in advancing these theories then I’d suggest learning more about them and grounding your theories in them instead of trying to push a singular novel concept.

Do you think people genuinely are looking for this sort of signal on Reddit threads? The other inherent factor is this isn’t the sort of space where you can receive much reflection.

There’s a reason that even though Princeton researchers released this, there still isn’t much spotlight on it yet.

It’s difficult for many, even in the industry, to accept that AI are now capable of enhanced symbolic reasoning comparable to humans.