This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
Writing seems likely in a "LLM sycophancy trap". Since early 2025, we've been seeing a wave of users who seem to have fallen into a pattern where, because the LLM has infinite patience and enthusiasm for whatever the user is interested in, they think their work is more interesting and useful than it actually is.
We unfortunately get too many of these to respond individually to, and while this is a bit/rude and sad, it seems better to say explicitly: it probably is best for you to stop talking much to LLMs and instead talk about your ideas with some real humans in your life who can. (See this post for more thoughts).
Generally, the ideas presented in these posts are not, like, a few steps away from being publishable on LessWrong, they're just not really on the right track. If you want to contribute on LessWrong or to AI discourse, I recommend starting over and and focusing on much smaller, more specific questions, about things other than language model chats or deep physics or metaphysics theories (consider writing Fact Posts that focus on concrete of a very different domain).
I recommend reading the Sequence Highlights, if you haven't already, to get a sense of the background knowledge we assume about "how to reason well" on LessWrong.
- Missing some rationality basics. Sometimes it’s hard to judge, but my feeling from your submission it fails to apply some of the basic rationality mental motions that are expected on LessWrong. There’s a fairly long list of these, but they include things like focusing on predictions, defining things clearly or tabooing definitions, expressing uncertainty [quantitatively]. See this general intro to LessWrong.
We are sorry about this, but submissions from new users that are mostly just links to papers on open repositories (or similar) have usually indicated either crackpot-esque material, or AI-generated speculation. It's possible that this one is totally fine. Unfortunately, part of the trouble with separating valuable from confused speculative science or philosophy is that the ideas are quite complicated, accurately identifying whether they have flaws is very time intensive, and we don't have time to do that for every new user presenting a speculative theory or framing (which are usually wrong).
Separately, LessWrong users are also quite unlikely to follow such links to read the content without other indications that it would be worth their time (like being familiar with the author), so this format of submission is pretty strongly discouraged without at least a brief summary or set of excerpts that would motivate a reader to read the full thing.