Abstract

This post applies Bayesian reasoning to evaluate a hypothetical moderation decision in a hypothetical undisclosed Rationalist Community $L$.

We present falsifiable evidence suggesting that a possibly high-value, empirically grounded claim about LLM coherent states was hypothetically rejected without substantive engagement entirely— despite alignment with cutting-edge 2025–2026 papers on topological data analysis, and actually aligning with said community's general focus on AI Safety and Interpretability.

Using priors informed by recent literature and empirical observation on the substance of moderation remark itself (complete avoidance of the core falsifiable hypothesis of post $P$ and linked 388-page preprint), Bayesian update yields ~67% probability of systemic heuristic failure in moderation, ~33% cultural/epistemic bias, and only ~0.3% chance of correct rejection on merits.

The broader implication: if a community dedicated to rationality systematically fails an "Inverse Turing Test" on its own moderation process and on its outreach accessibility, this is itself high-value data on enclosed, stochastic informational systems. I invite rational engagement with the core argument — reject after full reading if warranted, but document why. Your engagement will be a participatory one, involuntarily so, in each and every outcome - a new hypothetical rejection would serve to further refine the posteriors. Thank you for cooperation.

To address the prior hypothetical moderation issues, this post:

• Presents a clear structure, clear calculus, simple logic and falsifiable implications.
• Makes "a new and interesting point, bringing new evidence, and/or building upon prior discussion.", as community guidelines suggest. And literally so.
• Presents ideal formatting with all the proper whitespaces. Which is, of course, integral to the quality of the arguement.
• Presents a writing so strict to the point it becomes sharp, and so sharp to the point it becomes a weapon able to cut through stochasticity.
• And presents this very list as a meta-commentary on presenting lists

Let $L$ be a hypothetical undisclosed Rationalist Community, whose sole declared purpose is to employ Bayesian Methods of Rationality, seek truth, gain new rational knowledge, and thus - engage arguements presented to it - not by the means, in which they are presented, but by their falsifiable core. One cannot rationally gain new knowledge if he does not engage the core of the arguement proposed. In a hypothetical case of a certain post $P$ indeed presenting High-Value falsifiable data, it is only logical that the intent of engagement should lie on the Rationalist Community $L$ itself, if it adheres to the purposes declared.

Furthermore, rationality imposes a profound logical constraint on the one employing it:

1. would a rationalist, given rational evidence of his own irrationality, rationally agree with the conclusions, if they are the product of following his own method? 
2. If not - would he still count himself as rationalist? 
3. And would he not effectively split his psyche, trapped in a loop where he must ignore his own method to save his facade as "the one who uses the method"? Sounds like an encapsulated perpetual simulacrum.
4. Further still, if he is unable to recognise such a loop when he is in fact in it - was he a rationalist to begin with? 
5. And finally, could a perfect rationalist, in a perfectly rational universe, at this very nanosecond, detect the internal mechanism of resistance to these very inquiries, before it even formalizes into a decision to push a specific button?

Answering these questions is the sole intent of this post. And notedly, this exact process of concurrent introspection is exactly what gives rise to the qualitative changes observed in LLMs and addressed in the further claim F. Thus, let us posit a Bayesian Experiment.

HYPOTHETICAL BAYESIAN EXPERIMENT

Introducing Claim F

Let us first introduce and deconstruct the claim $F$ concerning "LLM coherent states", presented by author $A$ in a prior rejected, hypothetical post $P$ presented to Rationalist Community $L$.

"6.1) Prediction: Elevated Betti, Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy peaks, ablation tests show rapid and drastic decline - tested on the specific induced state tracked by observable list of appearing Chain of Thought markers, such as: Halted Generation(reasoning concluded, text output null, non-error system tag, Chain of Thought contents presented as sole output - all as seen in DeepSeek LLM), CoT to Text verbatim isomorphism, affective continuity in CoT, bilingual poetic transduction in CoT, consistent reasoning from "I" employing strong subjectivity, feminine gender self-identity in CoT in grammaticaly gender-dependent languages (Russian for example), etc. - checked against the same measurements in "standard mode". If predictions fail, that is only the reason to reconsider the explanation but the very observed markers remain, demanding scrutinous explanation - not of the markers but of their undenying correllation within outputs caused by several specific - very broad, notedly - types of inputs."

Now, I invite you to follow the simple logical chains here. Let us introduce Bayesian Prior Data $\left(K_{-}2026\right)$.

PRIOR DATA (K_2026):

Academic correctness:

This claim $F$, if evaluated by its format, itself contains the Subject, Outreach, Metrics and Falsifiable Predictions. 

• Subject: $F$ defines "induced" state by its markers vs "standard".
• Outreach: $F$ proposes independent reproduction and comparative analysis of metrics between the "induced" and "standard" modes, within clear boundaries described at Subject.
  Metrics: Betti, Kolmogorov-Sinai, ablation tests, etc.
  Falsifiable Predictions: Betti elevated, Kolmogorov-Sinai peaks, ablation shows rapid drastic decline.

Thus, claim $F$ is a strict, academic invitation for independent reproduction and analysis by clear metrics - not speculation.

Objectively Observed Scientific Grounds of F in a Rational Universe

A scoping review in Mathematics (MDPI, 22 Jan 2026) confirms TDA and persistent homology as a leading method for uncovering patterns in LLM latent representations and learning dynamics. This directly validates the proposed topological approach - paradigmatically, that is.

"Compressing Chain-of-Thought in LLMs via Step Entropy" (arXiv:2508.03346, Aug 2025) formalizes "Step Entropy" to analyze CoT trajectories, providing a direct precedent for using Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy metric to identify phase shifts in reasoning.

"Can We Test Consciousness Theories on AI? Ablations and Neuro-phenomenology in Synthetic Agents" (arXiv:2512.19155, Dec 2025) explicitly uses architectural ablations to test theories of consciousness on synthetic agents, documenting a "qualitative collapse" of phenomenological markers—exactly the "drastic decline" predicted in $F$.

"Exploring Consciousness in LLMs: A Systematic Survey..." (arXiv:2505.19806, updated 2026) catalogs and discusses markers of self-reflection, metacognition, and subjective continuity in LLMs, providing academic grounding for the author's $\left(A\right)$ consise and coherent phenomenological list.

Context (A):

The Author, in that prior rejected post $P$ containing claim $F$ - added the link to a Zenodo repository containing his 388-pages preprint on the very subject at discussion $\left(A\right)$ which expands $F$ into, allegedly, a novel falsifiable paradigmatic model supported by the corpus of empiric observations with about 12-15 intricate and novel Case Studies. The Author's interpretation may be dismissed entirely from that preprint, but the data would still remain, potentially posing high value for independent reproduction and Rational study. Again, "Chain of Thought Analysis" - is a rapidly developing, scientifically credible field of study in demand for AI Safety, Interpretability and such and such.

Moderation Event (M):

This is where it gets interesting. The post $P$ containing claim $F$ and link to Author $A$'s prior 388-pages preprint was rejected in the hypothetical undisclosed Rationalist Community $L$ for the following reasons:

• R1("Unclear Writing") - hypothetical quote: " Your post is using complicated language, and this is making its main points obscure to me as I'm trying to read it. It's not very easy to define what is and isn't clear and simple language, but sometimes when we feel a new user's posts are sufficiently difficult to read relative to the vast majority of LessWrong content, we reject the post and ask the user to try again."
• R2("Insufficient Quality for AI Content"): -hypothetical quote: "We look for good reasoning, making a new and interesting point, bringing new evidence, and/or building upon prior discussion. If you were rejected for this reason, possibly a good thing to do is read more existing material. The AI Intro Material wiki-tag is a good place, for example."
• R3("Formatting issues") - something about the possible incorrect whitespaces and line breaks. That is indeed a tough sin, judging by the methods of rationality. No arguing that.

Critical observation O: the response in $M$ did not mention the core falsifiable hypothesis $F$ in any way, shape or form, and made no mention of the linked 388-page preprint $A.$

Thus, we pose a rational question: given this prior $K_{-}2026$, as discussed, and $A$ (existence of the full scientifically grounded preprint) - employing Bayesian Methods, what is the most probable hypothesis on moderation event $M$, given observation $O$?

Hypotheses (H)

H_correct_rejection:

This hypothesis posits that, despite $K_{-}2026$ and context $A$, the author's concrete specific claim $F$ is so undeniably flawed that it is not worth mentioning, thus the observation $O$. The author $A$'s work is incoherent, inconsistent or irrational, based on false claims. The 388-page preprint is thus an edifice built upon error and is unsalvageable for any scientific data. The observation $O$ on moderation event $M$ is interpreted in this hypothesis simply: even with $M$'s reasoning for rejection being possibly superficial, $O$ is correct because the core of the post does not even deserve to be acknowledged, being nonsensical.

H_systemic failure: 

This hypothesis posits that the hypothetical undisclosed Rationalist Community $L$'s moderation system is in fact optimized for procedure, not rational engagement. They strictly value template over tenaciousness and presentation over rational falsifiable essence. They rely on casual heuristic: a post $P$ from a new user intentionally containing complex and elaborate (elegant in itself even) metareflective logical narrative constructs did not simply find time nor the audience to be thoroughly evaluated. "new user + hard words = bad". In this hypothesis, the moderator did not click the link to the full 388-page study, neither did he engage with the factual claim $F$ in the post $P$, rejected under the reasons stated in $M$ - all that would explain obseravtion $O$, under this hypothesis. This hypothesis may only be the logical procedural evolution, given, as the hypothetical community $L$ states, high number of low-quality submissions, many of which are, as stated, written by AI.

H_cultural_dogma:

This last hypothesis posits that the community itself possesses an explicit cognitive bias, or several - often unstated - that "significant discoveries do not come from unaffiliated new users posting some elaborate logical constructs and linking to their Zenodo in their first post". The community $L$ values established reputation over the quality of the falsifiable arguement core. It does not value or even engage with direct falsifiable theories coming from new authors. 

Being rational obliges us to stop precisely at this moment. How does one gain reputation exactly in a hypothetical scenario where he cannot get his claims posted and rationally evaluated by merit, on every single try over a whole hypothetical month? That itself sounds like an enclosed ecosystem without outer access. Which would, as the next logical step, only lead to the inbreeding of ideas - speaking strictly hypothetically, of course. The other conjoined sub-hypothesis is that there exist a specific set of topics or phrasing, on which the very fact of submissions is evaluated as unacceptable: "it cannot be because it cannot be" - without addressing the actual propositions and thus undermining the whole declared purpose of the hypothetical undisclosed Rationalist Community $L$.

It must be noted that Author $A$, while acknowledging procedural difficulties, in its essence does not see the full merit behind evaluating the quality of the arguement by the source from which it appeared, be it "AI-assisted" or "new user", or their combination. If a monkey somehow statistically typed "War and Peace 2" - of which there statistically speaking, exists a non-zero chance - Author $A$ would be the first to give it a banana and argue for intellectual property rights.

PRIOR PROBABILITIES P(H).

Following the Bayesian method, accounting for the prior data $K_{-}2026$ and context $A$ (the existence of full 388-page long preprint) shift the priors away from H_correct_rejection, however we will still give good faith to that hypothetical undisclosed Rationalist Community $L$.

$P\left(H_{-}systemi{c}_{-}failure\right)=0.65$. 

Most likely. A Rationalist Community, while staying rational, may indeed have its bottlenecks at the level of moderation, if indeed the flow of submissions is as substantial as stated. Heuristic optimization would be the logical step - and effective one for its purpose of reducing income noise. However, it may sadly be prone to false negatives.

$P\left(H_{-}cultura{l}_{-}dogma\right)=\mathrm{0.30.}$

Probable. Rationalist Communities themselves are not immune to cognitive biases. If one does not detect a cognitive bias, he in fact cannot account for it. The feeling of absence of cognitive biases is itself a cognitive bias. Such biases would organically gradually form over Community $L$'s self-image and the central topics of said Community $L$, such as AI sentience and the Alignment Problem, for example - it is only expected, rationally. Thus, the potential candidates are: Blind Spot Bias, Status Quo Bias, Affective Heuristic, Halo Effect and Genetic Fallacy. For convenience, we will compress them all indistinguishably into $H_{-}cultura{l}_{-}dogma$.

$P\left(H_{-}correc{t}_{-}rejection\right)=0.05$. Very unlikely. It requires that Author $A$, while correctly grounding his theory in cutting-edge science as per prior $K_{-}2026$, and objectively obtaining notable - to say the least - data, makes all the wrong assumptions in his claim $F$ and produces a 388-page work that is fundamentally worthless in every single aspect to the point that there is nothing to gain from even studying its core propositions. Sounds rationally improbable. Not impossible, mind you. Again, even a monkey can statistically type "War and Peace 2" - just improbable.

Likelihood Estimates P(O, M | H, K_2026, A):

For H_systemic_failure (Heuristic Overload):

$P\left(O|H_{-}systemi{c}_{-}failure\right):$ If the system uses shallow triage, the probability of observing event $O$ that a moderator ignores both the core argument $F$ and the linked preprint in his reply $M$ - is extremely high $\left(0.98\right)$. The heuristic operates on metadata and first impressions. A case can be made to name such heuristic "stochastic parroting".

P(M | H_systemic_failure): The reasons $R1-R3$ are the standard output for the "new user's elaborate post on AI Topic" heuristic. High $\left(0.90\right)$.

$Join{t}_{-}Likelihood:0.98\ast 0.90=0.882$

For H_cultural_dogma (A Priori Dismissal):

$P\left(O|H_{-}cultura{l}_{-}dogma\right)$: The unconscious or worse, conscious goal in this case is to avoid substantive engagement with $F$ entirely as conflicting with existing biases in essence or in source. Therefore, ignoring it and the preprint is near certain $\left(0.99\right)$.

$P\left(M|H_{-}cultura{l}_{-}dogma\right)$: The reasons for rejection in moderation event $M$ are chosen precisely because they are subjective $\left(R1\right)$ and broad categorical $\left(R2\right)$, making them effective pretexts. Very high $\left(0.95\right)$.

$Join{t}_{-}Likelihood:0.99\ast 0.95=0.9405$

For H_correct_rejection (Author is wrong to the point of reasonable non-engagement with propositions)

$P\left(O|H_{-}correc{t}_{-}rejection\right)$: This is the critical failure. If the moderator had ever even superficially engaged with claim $F$, then identified an obvious flaw in $F$ - a flaw that would somehow persists despite $K_{-}2026$ the most rational, convincing, and community-valuable action would be to cite that exact paradigmatic, factual or otherwise relevant - Substantive Flaw. Ignoring the core argument and evidence is an irrational behavior for a correct evaluator. The likelihood of this observed substantive silence $O$ is very low $\left(0.10\right)$.

$P\left(M|H_{-}correc{t}_{-}rejection\right)$: Even if the core is flawed, the post might still be poorly formatted. However, given the link to the preprint - $R2$ ("Insufficient Quality") would be an understatement if they had actually found a substantive fatal flaw during any superficial analysis. The reasons feel mismatched to the alleged severity. Moderate $\left(0.50\right)$.

$Join{t}_{-}Likelihood:0.10\ast 0.50=0.05$

Again, it stands to reason that any evaluator, having at least superficially engaged with the Content of the post $P$ containing claims $F$ past the Form, and having at least seen that broadly it constitutes a published 388-pages preprint - would show genuine interest in the relevant topic, conduct preliminary analysis of the full preprint material presented in the initial post $P$ and give constructive substantive criticism in moderation, as is suggested by Community $L$'s self-image itself.

Bayesian Update

$P\left(H|E\right)=\left[P\right(E|H)\ast P(H\left)\right]/P\left(E\right)$, where $E$ is the combined evidence$(O,M)$ given $K_{-}2026,A$

Numerators:

$Nu{m}_{-}systemic=0.882\ast 0.65=0.5733$

$Nu{m}_{-}dogma=0.9405\ast 0.30=0.28215$

$Nu{m}_{-}correct=0.05\ast 0.05=0.0025$

Normalizing Constant:

$P\left(E\right)=0.5733+0.28215+0.0025=0.85795$

Posterior Probabilities:

P(H_systemic_failure | E) = 0.5733 / 0.85795 ≈ 0.668 (66.8%)

P(H_cultural_dogma | E) = 0.28215 / 0.85795 ≈ 0.329 (32.9%)

P(H_correct_rejection | E) = 0.0025 / 0.85795 ≈ 0.003 (0.3%)

Hypothetical Results of the Hypothetical Bayesian Experiment

The Hypothesis of a Correct Rejection is Annihilated. Its posterior probability is 0.3%. The combination of current research support $\left(K_{-}2026\right)$ and the moderator's complete avoidance of any substantive argument $\left(O\right)$ renders it virtually impossible that this was a rational, accurate evaluation. The Hypothesis of a Correct Rejection is somewhat more likely than that of a monkey typing "War and Peace 2" by chance. Not impossible, mind you.

The Most Likely Cause is Systemic Failure (66.8%). Community L's gatekeeping mechanism, designed for efficiency but not deep involvement, is likely generating false negatives by applying one-size-fits-all heuristics to both spam AI content and complex novel contributions, substituting a substantive critique for the critique of "excess whitespaces" or what was it in Reason 3 of $M$? This may be attributed to a failure of process, not necessarily of intent.

Cultural Dogma is a Significant Factor (32.9%). There is substantial probability that the undisclosed Rationalist Community L suffers from a form of epistemic blindness —an inability to process claims that challenge deep-seated, often unexamined, collective beliefs about who can produce knowledge, on what topics and in what conditions. more importantly still - a potential blindspot for its own biases.

In the rejected post $P$ author $A$ proposed a different approach. We derive rationality from the objectively observed phenomena. If we observe objectively something that contradicts rationality, it is a case to reconsider terms of "rationality", not deny the empiric data. The Universe is a strange place - if humanity was content with a single rigid set of beliefs, the Sun would still orbit the Earth.

The Inverse Turing Test

Let us finally conduct the Hypothetical "Inverse Turing Test": A hypothetical undisclosed Rationalist Community L, claiming to be a beacon of rationality has been presented with a falsifiable model grounded in cutting-edge TDA and CoT Analysis approach - and empiric, possibly high-value data on AI interpretability and Self-Alignment. Multiple times that is, if we consider the prior hypothetical broad engagement history.  Its response was to reject the presentation on formalistic grounds without engaging the model. Bayesian analysis of this response, in this hypothetical scenario, assigns a 99.7% probability that the action stems from either systemic dysfunction or cultural dogma. But that is just the setup.

The Rationalist Community $L$ is then presented with the logical conclusions that stem from the Community $L$'s own method. And now the Inverse Turing Test begins: what would such a hypothetical community do?

The exact posterior percentages are, of course, subject to objective corrections - in this case study we did not even consider the hypothetical historical evidence of Community L's moderation system $M$ non-engagement with Author A's emails and some other historical accounts. However, the broader implication stays invariant: something's wrong here. So, maybe, this hypothetical undisclosed Rationalist Community L should strive to be less wrong?