This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as >50% likely to be written by an LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written or co-written work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance.
So, we reject all LLM generated posts from new users. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*
"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"
If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language and using a different (preferably non-LLM) translation software to translate it directly.
"What if I think this was a mistake?"
For users who get flagged as potentially LLM but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.
you wrote this yourself (not using LLMs to help you write it)
you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post)
your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.
If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.
* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)
Epistemic Status: Speculative but technically grounded.
The UniversalKnowledgeTensor is a prototype of a Trustworthy Collective Intelligence whose core ideas have been exercised in a demo. As a new paradigm, I am seeking external critique—both on why it might fail to transform civilizational epistemics and on how I can more effectively explain and communicate its concepts. Feedback that identifies flaws, blind spots, or barriers to understanding is especially valuable. The framework builds on established methods in probabilistic modeling, cryptographic verification, and multi-dimensional data representation, providing a technically grounded foundation for exploring this novel approach.
Why No One Listens to You
You might have valuable knowledge — about AI alignment, climate change, economics, or global health — and a genuine desire to make the world better by sharing it. Yet, when you speak, write, or post online, something strange happens: no one seems to listen. Conversations fragment and people talk past each other. Civil discourse, once our shared instrument of reason, has fractured into overlapping but disconnected conversations.
It’s tempting to blame ignorance, apathy, or ideology. But the deeper reason might be structural — embedded in the very medium we use to communicate. Human language itself introduces bottlenecks that make knowledge transfer inherently inefficient.
This post examines why that happens — and why solutions may require moving beyond words entirely.
1. The Attention Bottleneck: Human cognition is a limited processor. As Herbert Simon observed, bounded rationality means our beliefs are constrained less by available information than by our finite capacity to absorb it (Simon 1957)[1].
Language worsens this bottleneck because ideas must be decoded sequentially; each sentence consumes scarce attentional bandwidth. In a world of cognitive overload, every concept competes in a zero-sum attention market. As Kahneman puts it, attention is a limited resource—and what captures it isn’t always what deserves it (Kahneman 2011)[2].
2. The Understanding Gap Even when people read your words, comprehension isn’t guaranteed. Meaning depends on shared background knowledge and conceptual frameworks. Without them, even accurate information may fail to integrate into someone’s mental model.
Chomsky (1965)[3] and Lakoff (1987)[4] show that understanding language requires mapping symbols onto existing structures; when these differ, communication can collapse into noise. Simple, coherent narratives easily fit mental schemas and require little effort to process, while technically accurate explanations demand numeracy, trust, and cognitive effort. Consequently, clear falsehoods often spread faster and stick better than complex truths.
3. The Impression Filter: Human attention is guided more by impression than rational evaluation. Vivid, emotional, or novel ideas disproportionately capture focus, which is why sensationalism dominates media—it exploits attentional shortcuts evolved for survival, not truth.
Slovic (1987)[5] shows that emotional salience, or the “affect heuristic,” often overrides statistical reasoning, while Tversky and Kahneman (1974)[6] demonstrate systematic biases in judgment under uncertainty. As a result, communication optimized for emotional impact consistently outperforms communication optimized for epistemic accuracy.
4. The Retention Problem: Even when knowledge captures attention and is understood, it rarely endures. Information must be continually reinforced to remain active since memory decays exponentially without repetition.
In today’s fast-moving information environment, attention half-lives are shorter than ever. Ideas that aren’t reiterated fade, regardless of truth or importance. “Out of sight, out of mind” reflects a fundamental property of human memory, not laziness (Huberman et al., 2008)[7].
5. The Trust Deficit : Even when arguments are understood and remembered, they may not be believed. Trust depends on perceived motivation, integrity, and identity, not just content. AI researchers warning of existential risk are distrusted for “self-interest,” and climate scientists are often accused of political bias. Audiences filter messages through social heuristics rather than epistemic evaluation.
Language itself provides no built-in guarantees of truth or good faith; trust must be socially constructed—and is therefore socially fragile (Hardin, 2002[8]; Cialdini, 2007[9]).
6. Epistemic Fragmentation: Even when accurate knowledge exists, it often fails to influence thinking or action. Knowledge doesn’t automatically integrate into cognition: people may know facts about health, economics, or climate but rarely reason with them.
This is not an information shortage but a failure of epistemic integration. Simon (1971) [10]described this as an attention bottleneck: the limiting factor in human cognition is not information, but the capacity to use it. Similarly, Stanovich and West (2000)[11] show that rational competence does not reliably translate into rational performance; people can possess knowledge yet fail to apply it effectively.
7. The Action Problem : Knowing that a situation is harmful is not enough; we also need guidance on the best corrective action. Diagnosis (“this is harmful”) differs from prescription (“this is the optimal intervention”). Experts often provide domain-specific solutions in health, economics, or climate policy, but effective action requires integrating diverse perspectives. These perspectives are fragmented, sometimes incompatible, and lack a common framework for comparison.
Actionable knowledge demands integrative models that evaluate which combination of interventions across domains yields the greatest expected benefit under uncertainty.
Why These Problems Are Inherent
All of the bottlenecks we face are not just user mistakes. They’re baked into the very architecture of language. Human language evolved for social coordination, not for optimizing truth. It’s an equilibrium finely tuned for speed, expressiveness, and ambiguity—great for persuasion and gossip, lousy for precision and rigorous reasoning (Pinker 2007[12]; Sperber & Wilson 1986[13]). Trying to fix these failures by tweaking messaging is like attempting to build a quantum computer out of sand: the medium just can’t support it.
When an individual doesn’t listen, that’s an epistemic failure. When entire societies fail to integrate knowledge, that’s a civilizational epistemic failure. Narratives—our standard way of packaging qualitative and quantitative knowledge—are inherently vulnerable to these failure modes. But with KnowledgeTensors, these problems disappear. This isn’t a silver bullet—it’s a massive leap forward in the communication of quantitative knowledge.
The solution comes from structure, not persuasion. Forecasting research shows that ensemble models reliably outperform even the best individual forecasters (Tetlock & Gardner 2015[14]; Judgment & Decision Making, 2017[15]) because aggregating independent judgments cancels out random errors and amplifies shared signal. KnowledgeTensors are the infrastructure that scale this insight: by embedding every contribution into a shared, weighted, multi‑dimensional coordinate space, they extend the ensemble effect from small forecasting groups to civilization‑wide collective reasoning.
The UniversalKnowledgeTensor
If epistemic inefficiency originates in the inherent lossy-ness of language, then any serious attempt to overcome it must replace linguistic transmission with a medium that can route knowledge without rhetorical distortion.
The KnowledgeCell represents the atomic unit of knowledge: a uniquely addressable, integrity-verified unit that encodes a single proposition, metric, or causal dependency.
Aggregating many such cells yields a KnowledgeTensor—a structured, multidimensional representation of the state of knowledge within a domain, where relations emerge from shared coordinates rather than verbal inference.
Extending this construction across domains and experts produces the UniversalKnowledgeTensor[16], a civilization-scale graph of quantified and verifiable claims that routes information by structural relevance rather than linguistic form. In principle, this creates the post-linguistic substrate for collective epistemics—one where knowledge is connected by relevance, not rhetoric.
Below is how such a system would resolve the seven fundamental linguistic bottlenecks.
1. Attention → Computational Routing : Attention is a scarce biological resource; computation is not. In the UniversalKnowledgeTensor, relevance is computed algorithmically, not cognitively. Queries route directly to the subset of KnowledgeCells matching the user’s epistemic needs, without requiring emotional or impression-based filtering.Just as modern databases can execute complex joins across billions of records, a post-linguistic knowledge structure could execute relevance operations across billions of KnowledgeCells. Attention becomes a system property — a query-resolution mechanism — rather than a psychological bottleneck.
2. Understanding → Embedded Semantics: In language, understanding requires shared background models. In a tensorized knowledge framework, meaning is not transmitted as text but as structure. Each KnowledgeCell contains formal definitions and its relations to other cells. When the user executes the KnowledgeCell, they do so with the same fidelity as the expert that created it.
For example, a climate modeler, an economist, and a policy analyst might all access the same KnowledgeCell describing “mean temperature anomaly,” for their respective physical, economic, and sociopolitical analysis.
This removes the requirement for shared natural language comprehension. Understanding becomes model alignment, not linguistic interpretation.
3. Impression → Neutral Salience: Human communication relies on affective salience — the vividness of expression — to command attention. The KnowledgeTensor is salience-neutral. Its routing mechanism depends solely on logical and causal linkage.
Sensationalism, charisma, and rhetorical skill no longer influence epistemic visibility. Knowledge propagation becomes proportional to its inferential connectivity, not its emotional punch.
In a tensorized framework, an asteroid impact model and a climate model are equivalent in accessibility; what differs is their dependency structure not their vividness.
4. Retention → Persistent Externalization : In linguistic communication, knowledge decays as attention wanes. In a tensor framework, knowledge persistence is externalized. Each KnowledgeCell retains its state indefinitely until updated; it need not be continually “remembered.”
This is akin to moving from oral tradition to written language, and from written archives to living knowledge graphs — each step externalizing memory from mind to medium. The UniversalKnowledgeTensor represents the final step: an ever-present, self-consistent epistemic substrate where relevance replaces recall.
5. Trust → Built-in Integrity Mechanisms : Human trust relies on heuristics: identity, reputation, or emotion. In a UniversalKnowledgeTensor, trust is achieved via epistemic integrity mechanisms.
A full treatment of these integrity mechanism would get quite technical, but the rough intuition is that epistemic reliability can be improved by aggregating multiple KnowledgeTensors through a weighted-average scheme that reduces corruption and increases the overall signal-to-noise ratio.
6. Epistemic Fragmentation → Causal Connectivity : Knowledge that cannot affect decision-making is epistemically inert. In the UniversalKnowledgeTensor, every KnowledgeCell is embedded in a causal network linking causes to consequences and states to actions.
If your contribution is causally relevant to someone’s query — say, assessing public health interventions — your KnowledgeCell automatically participates in the inference process. The system doesn’t depend on whether someone noticed your work; it depends on whether it is relevant.
7. Action → Integrated Decision Space : Action, in linguistic societies, depends on persuasion, negotiation, and coordination. Each layer introduces noise and delay.
In a post-linguistic epistemic system, action becomes another dimension in the knowledge space. Once the tensor models your current state ( resources and values), it can compute optimal interventions directly, based on aggregated causal dependencies across domains.
This does not replace human agency; it augments it. The individual remains the decision node, but their deliberation is backed by the totality of encoded human knowledge — rather than their limited exposure to persuasive speech.
LLMs vs. the UniversalKnowledgeTensor
Large language models have quickly become the most widely used “supermind” in human history—an always-on collective intelligence layer that millions now rely on for reasoning, writing, and decision support. But their strengths come bundled with structural weaknesses, many of which stem from their architecture and incentive landscape rather than implementation details. The table below contrasts these properties with those of the UniversalKnowledgeTensor, highlighting how a purpose-built epistemic system differs from a general predictive model.
Dimension
LLMs
UniversalKnowledgeTensor
Scope of Knowledge
Broad, task-general (from homework help to coding to explanation).
Medium: outputs vary by prompt, training data, and hallucination risk.
Designed for maximal verifiability: every claim is anchored, quantified, and traceable.
Trustworthiness
Low: relies on model behavior, institutional promises, and opaque training pipelines.
Major leap forward: trust is structural, not behavioral — derived from auditability, verification, and transparent provenance.
Alignment Properties
Weakly aligned: relies on post-hoc RLHF and heuristics.
Large improvement: alignment is baked into the substrate (cryptographic integrity, explicit uncertainty, verifiable causal links).
Energy Requirements
Massive (training + inference).
Minimal: Quantitative formulas are not computationally intensive
Human Labor Requirements
Low: trained on massive datasets with minimal human labor
Medium: structured knowledge entry requires upfront cognitive labor, which improves trust and reliability.
Privacy Model
Essentially zero: your data is sent to LLM provider
Large improvement: data never leaves user’s system.
Resistance to Enshittification
Low: degradation is inevitable since high operating costs will force monetization-driven compromises.
Major improvement: changes are community-constrained — integrity, transparency, and provenance cannot quietly degrade.
Resistance to Censorship Pressure
Low: outputs can be suppressed or shaped.
Major improvement: Powerful integrity mechanisms make censorship impossible.
Platform Survivability
Low: authorities can disable if platform threatens regime
High: knowledge persists on the blockchain independent of any single organization or regime.
“I Still Don’t See It — How Do ‘Spreadsheets’ Revolutionize Civilizational Epistemics?”
This is a completely reasonable question. If KnowledgeTensors were literally just multidimensional spreadsheets, the claim would be absurd. Traditional spreadsheets suffer from the same epistemic fragmentation, update failures, and integrity limits as every other human medium.
The point isn’t that spreadsheets themselves are magic — it’s that a spreadsheet-like interface, combined with a deeper representational shift, can scale human knowledge in ways language can’t.
Here are the key pieces:
1. Simplicity as a Feature, Not a Bug : Civilizational epistemics can’t run on obscure tooling. If the substrate for integrating knowledge is cognitively or operationally heavy, it fails the moment it hits real humans. The spreadsheet analogy matters here: it signals accessibility, not limitation.
2. Multidimensional Addressing: A spreadsheet is stuck in 2D. The Key Innovation behind KnowledgeTensor assigns each unit of knowledge a coordinate in a multidimensional space, turning the knowledge landscape into something navigable and computable. This single shift enables all the remaining properties: composability, dependency tracking, ensemble weighting, and global integration.
4. Integration via Ensemble Epistemics : If we both encoded our knowledge into a spreadsheet that used the same coordinates, merging them would be trivial. Thus, integration of KnowledgeTensors in Multidimensional Coordinate System is also trivial.
5. Knowledge Dependence and the Civilizational Graph : Each KnowledgeCell encodes what it depends on and what it predicts. When many people encode knowledge this way, you automatically get a civilizational knowledge graph—nodes are KnowledgeCells and edges are dependencies. This isn’t a semantic graph of words but a functional graph of transformations. Querying any node propagates through its dependencies, pulling in everyone’s contributed models.
6. Persistence : Human language is lossy not because text disappears, but because attention does. Knowledge must be continually retransmitted because the buffer-size of human working memory is tiny and volatile. Encoding knowledge in stable, explicit, dependency-structured form gives it permanence independent of whether anyone is currently thinking about it.
7. Computability (Infinite Attention Span) : A KnowledgeCell is computable: users can run an expert’s knowledge with the same fidelity as the expert who encoded it. This effectively gives civilization an infinite attention span — you don’t need to remember everything; you can compute anything.
8. Integrity : KnowledgeTensors use a blockchain-style append-only ledger not for economics, but for epistemic trust. Every KnowledgeCell and update is cryptographically anchored, so models can’t be silently edited, forged, or rewritten. The point isn’t “better integrity than current systems”—that’s trivial. The point is that this structure gives the UniversalKnowledgeTensor the strongest integrity guarantees a civilization-wide epistemic system can have.
Acknowledgments The ideas, arguments, and conceptual framework in this paper are solely mine. ChatGPT was used for assistance with wording, editing, and stylistic refinement only.
Herbert A. Simon, Models of Man: Social and Rational (Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1957
Huberman, Bernardo A., Lada A. Adamic, and Joshua R. Glance. “Social Networks and Information Diffusion.” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2008,
Stanovich, Keith E., and Richard F. West. “Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 2000.