Marshferm

This is bad news as full grown ticks aren’t involved, but this is evolution after all, the function is to end CAFO related greenhouse gas in meat production but the genetic mechanism was tick human coevo through infectious pathogen. Time to prepare to say byes to red meat. Not a bad thing.

>>>Platts-Mills realized that many “chigger bites” in the Eastern United States are actually bites from Lone Star tick larvae.

I recommend this extraordinary book, The First Domestication the coevolution of Humans and Wolves, charting the possible events.

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300226164/the-first-dome...

We’re looking at an ecological model - Eocene - not seen for 45 million years in which most mammals may not survive and that includes us.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64241-0

Are you for real dude? Lkms is a typo of LLMs. Semantic is only in task demands, and they’re variable. They extend limitlessly from action or spatial syntax, they don’t exist in words or images. You’ve been sold junk tech, read any Gary Marcus or Rodney Brooks and yes am enjoying the ride, we are the next stage - analog entertainment.

Laughing all the way at the AI clown show.

You’ve just explained how neither images nor words cohere thought in LKNs Gaussian frontier or otherwise- they are wholly arbitrary. They reference nothing in and of themselves. And investors have been sold a bubble in every model so far. Enjoy the ride!

Your intellectual insecurity doesn’t mean I offer due diligence for existing information, nor does it give you any protocol to shift apologies especially since we evaluate software for special effects in high budget streaming. And none of our research indicates LLMs RL or frontier approaches will work in spatially specific ways. It’s a wash, we can see it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cXtU97SCjxaHCrf8UVeQGYaj...

Take great offense at being called a bot, especially considering any glance can spot my numerous typos. And the weakness of your search capability: that quote is from a discussion of Ev’s following the pub of this paper

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4874898/

And btw, that’s not a blanket statement that’s an empirical statement that wipes away quite a bit of LLM relevance. I’d say it destroys the approach.

Do the research. And an apology is in good order.

It’s not a keyword, it’s the seat of intelligence. What coders don’t grasp is nothing g related to symbols metaphors words language manifests as consciousness and or intel. Your field is a wash.

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT

They have no functional or processual relationship to brains, there are scores of papers making light of this. There are no valid parallels between AI and brains.

There were never approximations merely false models.

The field is trapped in bad definitions and decisions

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37863713/

These are not approximations, they are arbitrary simulations that have nothing to do with observation.

They’re irrelevant in terms of any idea of intelligence as intel is built upon topologies.

Intelligence is tied to development where functional outcomes are by genetic tinkering with environments for flexibility. These gaslighted trivial models are function aimed, so they have zero ability to even mimic what intel is.

Face it this is a massive washout. It has no ambition. It lacks even a weak definition of the models name “spatial intelligence” and it lacks one because there is no such thing.

Fundamentally world models do not exist and are oxymoronic.

Western collapse of patriarchy, annals of…

System 2 has been disproven at least 7 years ago.

Fundamentally incorrect across the board. we study ML for any signs of parallel function even from a tinkering level. Nope.

Look at Unlocking The brain both volumes, rhythms of the brain and the brain from inside out, and these are the tip.

Neurobio is built from the base units of consciousness outwards, not intuited interpretation. Eg prediction has nothing inherent to do with consciousness directly. That’s a process imposed on brains post hoc.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38579270/

And

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262552820/the-spontaneous-brain...

Easily refute prediction or error prediction as fundamental.

The path to intelligence or consciousness isn’t mimicry of interpretation.

In terms of strong definitions, start at the base, coders: oscillation, dynamics, Topologies, sharp wave ripples, and I would say roughly 60 more strongly defined material units and processes. This reverse intuition is going nowhere and it’s pseudoscientific nonsense for social media timeline filling.

The problem is none of these approaches to intelligence are related to biointelligence. These are intuited, folk psychological/scientific, in a sense pseudoscientific graftings from machine vision principles. While there is spatial computing in brains, there is no metric or need to claim there is such a thing as spatial intelligence, it's like saying intelligence intelligence. The brain is spatial, so what? And the spatial this approach uses is mechanically formulaic, without any connection to how we grow intelligence.

Biology does not see 3-D, we integrate two 2-D inputs and make a 2.5-D from them in varying degrees of resolution. Within the brain our mapping systems and sensory/emotional/memory architectures range from no D (they are affinities of exploding areas) to 2-D topology, which integrate from whole brain to the finer aspects of mapping in what we understand so far are unique combinations of allo and egocentric scales of space.

Also as thought and words (and symbols, representations, metaphors, add anything arbitrary here in our weak externals) are divergent and unrelated, the manifest idea these approaches link them as a route to an unsupportable and additonal layer of "world modelling" is inferior innovation (if can even be called innovation). These are all steps back from the integrations we see biointelligence operating with. This is synthetically deciding that intelligence can be simplified with limited general processes and then form fitting them into a binary code to mimic it. It's really poor ideation.

None of this requires models (maps are not models), and the entire idea that a model is being used as a gateway to intelligence as redundant and oxymoronic as in any "world model". In essence, this is the last range of disability to achieve intelligence from binary, which in itself is a poor form to interpolate the oscillatory dynamical nature of consciousness/intelligence. It was very premature to develop this phase of code like this.

those two words only describe AI models, as they are models. A "world model" is worse than those two words as it is oxymoronic.

The idea that words and space are being conflated as a formula for spatial intelligence is fundamentally absurd as our relationships to space have no resolution, both within any one language and worse, between them, as language is arbitrary. Language and thought are entirely separate forms. Aphasia has proved this since 2016.

AI developers have to face the music, these impoverished gimmicks aren't even magic, they are bunk. And debunkable once compared to the sciences of the brain.

https://mcgovern.mit.edu/2024/06/19/what-is-language-for/

This is arbitrary, it has nothing to do with specifics or coherence. Study it carefully particularly as it relates to general robitics.

It’s irrelevant - it has nothing analogous to mental imagery. It’s pseudoscience.

Edit - of course you have no idea, you have no grasp of the oscillatory-dynamic origins of consciousness, nor does it seem anyone in AI.

If biology operated this way animals would never have evolved. This is bunk, it has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with hyping the oxymoronic/paradox branded as spatial intelligence. It's a flimsy way of using binary to burn energy.

Senses do not represent, if we needed them to in order to survive, we'd be dead before we never saw that branch, or that step, etc. This is the same mistaken approach cog-sci took in inventing the mind from the brain.

The problem is the whole brain prior to sensory and emotional integration is deeply involved so that an incredibly shallow oscillatory requirement fits atop the depth of long-term path-integration, memory consolidation involving allo and egocentric references of space and time, these are then correlated in affinities by sense emotion relays or values. None of this is here, it's all discarded for junk volumes made arbitrary, whereas the spaces here are immeasurably specific, fused by Sharp Wave Ripples.

There's no world model in the instantaneous shallow optic flow response (knowing when to slam on brakes, or pull in for a dive) and in the deep entanglements of memory and imagination and creativity.

This is one-size fits all nonsense. It's junk. It can't hope to resolve the space time requirements of shallow and deep experiences.

The transition from episodic thought dominance to mythological thought dominance as literary theory posing as neuroscience. For a non pseudoscientific approach, see Aurbachs Mimesis which builds the same argument without pretext. We would never accuse humans of hallucinating false timescales in the time of Song of Roland, how can we do the same thing to ancient greece? The idea that narrative adoption ever stopped being a hallucination is Jaynes’s hand wave. Narrative is adopted in every child, it’s not innate though our prefrontal comes ready to use for it. The conundrum of an animal that can’t think straight.

Models are trivial in bio intelligence. Spatial intelligence here is never defined, it’s only thrown against a wall with random examples of uses like storytelling (another trivial world model). Face it this is a frontier Hail Mary as the approach flails.

World models are trivial. eg narratives are world models and they provide only pre frontal simulation, ie they are synthetically prey-predation. No animal uses world models for survival and doubtful they exist (maps are not models), a world model doesn't conform to optic flow, ie instantaneous use and response. Anything like a world model isn't shallow, the basic premise of oscillatory command, it's needlessly deep, nothing like brains. This is just a frontier hail-mary to the current age.

The real question is what types of music can AI hide inside best? See it as a pathogen.

There are no distinct advantages that confer dominance that affords such a construct as patriarchy.

Hypotheticals regarding where optimums are best expressed are irrelevant in terms of a partnership future, they will be negotiated.

These mental differences do not confer dominance. This is obvious! Don’t fall back upon ye old patriarchal arguments splitting hairs on hippocampal endocrine adjustments.

Physical prowess is no longer convincingly conferring a definitive route to dominance unless there’s a patriarchal overreach into coercion that defies growing universal regularities of equalities in bills of rights etc.

The fact women give birth does in no way restrict them into submission.

Please reject all patriarchal myths in order to discus partnership goals.

Humans are not like other primates, we’re a mix of evolutionary and biological factors that result in a continuum rather than a strict dichotomy, humans fall somewhere between "tournament mating" species and "pair-bonding" species. We’re not locked into any certain gender dominant if you know endocrinology and evolution.

There is no true dominant outcome once the mental playing field is leveled. Male aggression is uniquely equalized in feminine control.

This has never happened in history, Kurgan partnership old Europe was probably seamless with hunter gatherer preceding, and the mass transition is only beginning of the overthrow of patriarchy, and is teamed with instant planet wide communication and the rhetoric in the peak male dominators of the West: Trump, Hegseth, Kirk, Thiel, Yarvin, Galloway, Peterson in eg is not brain science level, it’s amateur hour.

Partnership males are ready to negotiate, the negotiations are social and online.

There are few if any true differences in mental abilities. The construction of gender in social societal terms is being dismantled. There are casualties, and there is backlash in masculine reverb and even terror but the construct of patriarchy is dying - that’s what needs to be discussed, not Galloways take.

Let the patriarchy dissolve. It was a bad idea all around: domestication, no partnership theology, calling non residents out there barbarians, borders, myth of the state, competition for competitions sake.

Dissolve the mythic residue from all of it: cause and effect folk science explanations.

I was a student in Gerda Lerners patriarchy class at Madison and she always said off hand there’d be a time where the narrative construct of patriarchy (our male unideity myths, our law, our state, our history in cause effect simplifications- all illusions btw) would run aground when women gained equality and the hidden legacy that gave lesser able men places at the societal table would vanish. These men who are castaways were included earlier as the effluvia of dominance. Now they’re not included.

That’s evolution, especially as patriarchy is dismantled far too slowly. When do we demote these male gods? The dinosaur skeleton of patriarchy?

Keep in mind, patriarchy is just a narrative that masculinity can never resurrect.

And the question becomes how do we ensure parity or partnership, otherwise women can possibly implement the pendulum swing matriarchal dominance? The patriarchy (male mono mythic gods, inheritance favorability, dominance, you name it) is slowly coming to an end. And those that sneaked by in the past on the coattails of dominance are not getting into college nor can this plurality compete in an open market.

Retrieving masculinity isn’t bringing back the dominance or self image of it.

What did men do to deserve this? We accepted evolution and the switchover happens.

This is pie in the sky swing for the hills nonsense that lumps everything into space. First world models are oxymoronic. Ecological principles, processes and material outcomes eschew models, they’re unnecessary because they’re provided for in the exchange between DNA, biology, bauplan, brain and environment as fast acting optic flow. Any animal relying on anything as preposterous as a world model is dead, splat, drowned etc. world models and survival are incompatible.

The notion it is reducible to spatial ‘intelligence’ is just another case of flavor of the month in AIs contraction and desperate search for success and funding.

That a world model as inconsistent and inaccurate as storytelling is given here as a premise to hoist cash for flavor of the month spatial details how desperate the search has become in Frontierland.