No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
Intelligence is a stitcher of what we have already discovered. It is not a discoverer.
The Accident That Proves It
Look at LLMs. What "intelligence" foresaw what GPT would be able to do? None. Not even the researchers building it.
It was a pure accident. Scale plus architecture plus data, and suddenly: emergence.
That accident is evidence of something I call entropy mining - the brute-force collision of energy against the unknown. The discovery came from drilling into reality, not from stitching existing patterns together.
In a couple of years, researchers will understand exactly how LLMs work. They'll name the phenomena. They'll write the equations. And in 100 years, people will say how "smart" we were to "invent" LLMs.
But we didn't invent them. We stumbled into them.
Intelligence came after. To stitch the accident into something explainable.
Even the original neural network model wasn't invented by contemplation. It was derived from nature itself. From how neurons actually fire. Someone looked at the territory and copied it.
That's not intelligence creating. That's intelligence mapping what drilling already revealed.
Why Chain of Thought Works
This explains why chain-of-thought prompting works so well.
When you prompt an LLM with a single complex question, you're asking it to make a hole-in-one. You're demanding it leap across the entire stitched map in one jump, where the probability of error is highest.
But when you use chain of thought, you're doing something different. You are artificially introducing constraint.
You are forcing the model to lower the entropy of the next token by narrowing the search space step-by-step.
Each step constrains the next. Each answer collapses the probability distribution.
Chain of thought isn't making the model "smarter." It's making the stitching tighter. It is the difference between guessing the destination and tracing the immediate gradient of the road.
The Map is Not the Territory
Intelligence is not reality. It is a map of reality.
The linearizations, the operating points, the disciplines, the frameworks - they are attempts to describe parts of the non-linear reality we live in.
Think of intelligence as a coordination system. A map of the current state that we constantly update to make sure it's navigable.
That's useful. Essential, even. But it has limits.
The Water Test
Imagine water's phase transitions were unknown to the internet. Nowhere in the training data. Now ask an LLM: "What happens if we heat water to 110°C?"
It would say: "The water becomes very hot."
It cannot predict the phase shift. It cannot anticipate that water transforms into steam. Because phase transitions are non-linear. They are not extensions of the pattern. They are breaks in the pattern.
A recent paper by two Boston University professors argues that AI hollows out institutions. It makes them appear functional while removing the structural integrity underneath.
This is not surprising if you understand what intelligence actually is.
Generative AI expands the stitcher based on patterns already in the stitcher. Map stitched to map stitched to map.
That is very different from analyzing the real world and then expanding the map.
When institutions replace real sensing with AI-generated stitching, they lose contact with the territory. The map looks complete. The tensile strength is gone.
And when the territory shifts, the map tears.
The Danger
The danger is not that AI is too intelligent.
The danger is that we've confused stitching for drilling.
We are expanding the map while forgetting to check the territory.
The stitcher is growing. The drill is rusting.
And somewhere beneath our feet, the gradient is shifting.
The Bottom Line
Discovery requires a drill; the brute-force collision with the unknown, the willingness to break patterns rather than extend them.
Intelligence is just the historian that writes the plaque afterward.
Intelligence is a stitcher of what we have already discovered. It is not a discoverer.
The Accident That Proves It
Look at LLMs. What "intelligence" foresaw what GPT would be able to do? None. Not even the researchers building it.
It was a pure accident. Scale plus architecture plus data, and suddenly: emergence.
That accident is evidence of something I call entropy mining - the brute-force collision of energy against the unknown. The discovery came from drilling into reality, not from stitching existing patterns together.
In a couple of years, researchers will understand exactly how LLMs work. They'll name the phenomena. They'll write the equations. And in 100 years, people will say how "smart" we were to "invent" LLMs.
But we didn't invent them. We stumbled into them.
Intelligence came after. To stitch the accident into something explainable.
Even the original neural network model wasn't invented by contemplation. It was derived from nature itself. From how neurons actually fire. Someone looked at the territory and copied it.
That's not intelligence creating. That's intelligence mapping what drilling already revealed.
Why Chain of Thought Works
This explains why chain-of-thought prompting works so well.
When you prompt an LLM with a single complex question, you're asking it to make a hole-in-one. You're demanding it leap across the entire stitched map in one jump, where the probability of error is highest.
But when you use chain of thought, you're doing something different. You are artificially introducing constraint.
You are forcing the model to lower the entropy of the next token by narrowing the search space step-by-step.
Each step constrains the next. Each answer collapses the probability distribution.
Chain of thought isn't making the model "smarter." It's making the stitching tighter. It is the difference between guessing the destination and tracing the immediate gradient of the road.
The Map is Not the Territory
Intelligence is not reality. It is a map of reality.
The linearizations, the operating points, the disciplines, the frameworks - they are attempts to describe parts of the non-linear reality we live in.
Think of intelligence as a coordination system. A map of the current state that we constantly update to make sure it's navigable.
That's useful. Essential, even. But it has limits.
The Water Test
Imagine water's phase transitions were unknown to the internet. Nowhere in the training data. Now ask an LLM: "What happens if we heat water to 110°C?"
It would say: "The water becomes very hot."
It cannot predict the phase shift. It cannot anticipate that water transforms into steam. Because phase transitions are non-linear. They are not extensions of the pattern. They are breaks in the pattern.
Intelligence stitches patterns. Reality breaks them.
The Hollowing Out
A recent paper by two Boston University professors argues that AI hollows out institutions. It makes them appear functional while removing the structural integrity underneath.
This is not surprising if you understand what intelligence actually is.
Generative AI expands the stitcher based on patterns already in the stitcher. Map stitched to map stitched to map.
That is very different from analyzing the real world and then expanding the map.
When institutions replace real sensing with AI-generated stitching, they lose contact with the territory. The map looks complete. The tensile strength is gone.
And when the territory shifts, the map tears.
The Danger
The danger is not that AI is too intelligent.
The danger is that we've confused stitching for drilling.
We are expanding the map while forgetting to check the territory.
The stitcher is growing. The drill is rusting.
And somewhere beneath our feet, the gradient is shifting.
The Bottom Line
Discovery requires a drill; the brute-force collision with the unknown, the willingness to break patterns rather than extend them.
Intelligence is just the historian that writes the plaque afterward.