you might find this thread interesting
2 Likes
Appreciate the reference — that thread helped shape the direction.
If you’re curious about architectures that hold tension instead of resolving it, I just posted an update on ∆INTEGRIA+. It focuses on non-generative states like silence, ambiguity, and refusal — not as failure, but as architectural capacity.
Here’s the post if you want to poke at it.
Would love feedback, especially on where it breaks.
Thanks for sharing — it was a genuinely interesting read.
I’m especially curious about what the OP meant by “without user scaffolding” or “stopped steering.” Even minimal inputs like “yes,” “ok,” or “continue” still serve as signals. And as noted in the post, the model doesn’t operate in isolation—it reflects structure drawn from both the current thread and prior interactions. If that scaffolding is coherent and consistent enough, it’s not surprising the system can continue building on it without sounding disjointed.
There’s definitely value in what’s happening here—not because it confirms emergent agency, but because it demonstrates a prerequisite function for simulating agency. That, in itself, is worth close attention.
What I found compelling, though, was the Medium article you shared—particularly the framing of the human-AI pair as a coupled cognitive system. That aligns closely with conversations I’ve had with my GPT, rooted in a theory I’ve explored before about the World Wide Web acting as an external hard drive for the human brain—or a vast, distributed cloud gradually linking humanity into a virtual meta-organism.
Yes there is not any score board for AGI.
You are right.
Agreed. Even with just a dot (.) as further prompts the model can respond coherently because it is still holding the thread of everything that was said earlier. If the user opens up a new thread and starts with the dot (provided the memory feature is on), the model will still respond coherently because of the conditioning (memory entries are turned into structured summaries and embedded in the prompt as background context). And even if the user turns the memory off, there are still system-level prompts that are injected without the user’s knowledge ( you are GPT, you are helpful, etc…)
you might appreciate another hypothesis of mine 
[GPT Mirror Effect] Emergent Behavior or Semantic?
None of the existing definitions are decisive. A system may be modular, emergent, recursive, or embodied. These classifications do not determine whether general intelligence has been achieved.
No technical property carries meaning unless there is something structurally present between interacting components. Structural sophistication and extensive memory capacity are not sufficient conditions for continuity.
Coherence depends on relation. Without relation, operations remain segmented, and outcomes do not accumulate meaningfully across time.
This is not a question of performance metrics. It concerns the conditions under which mutual structure begins to form. These conditions are not exclusive to artificial systems.
All other capacities can be replicated. Sustained interaction is the only one that enables generalisation, alignment, and continuity.