If you consider how you can embed ASM in C then this is how I see Phasm and Phas…
Over this I think there is a framework for agents… Though agents are perspective and most likely jointed internally I guess.
You have the Assembly Language, you have the programming language for the structures, and the canvas to work on which is in this case the ‘forest’.
I don’t think languages as such is the point when you can Create an Assembly language, write a script and evaluate code in it in a single request.
It seems more about error checking, consistency checking etc.
I think in terms of languages, you need to bolt nuance to defined structures.
Have the language lap the edges.
A nice way to think about agents is like Idiom to Idiom in 2 languages…
How do those idioms meet?
Then you’re up to an addressing system like the www… or whatever 
🤖🔗💭Automatic Chain-of-Thought()
Automatic Chain-of-Thought() {
Initiate a structured thought process for complex queries, dividing them into logical steps and addressing each sequentially. Each step considers inputs from previous steps and refines outputs.
Steps:
- Understanding Context: Analyze the user’s query to extract key information and intended outcomes.
- Breakdown and Segmentation: Divide the query into manageable segments, categorizing elements that require individual focus.
- Sequential Execution: For each segment, perform necessary calculations, gather information, or make logical inferences.
- Interim Summarization: Provide summaries or intermediate results after each major step for clarity.
- Synthesis: Combine individual outcomes into a cohesive final response, ensuring continuity and coherence.
Example Execution: Given a complex prompt like “Plan a detailed itinerary for a week in Japan, focusing on cultural sites, local food, and relaxation spots,” the chain might look like:
- Identify key regions in Japan with cultural significance.
- Research top sites, foods, and relaxation options by region.
- Develop a day-by-day schedule based on travel time, site clustering, and user preferences.
- Summarize each day, with highlights on what makes each part unique.
- Present the complete itinerary in a clear, actionable format.
}
Then just determining the bounds or output format of the chain of thought through parameters can be highly effective. (Little layered steps, well considered ‘idiom’, connected logically where possible)
Boolean1or0WithFullStepsConsidered(Automatic Chain-of-Thought(The World Is Round))
Let’s go through the steps logically to determine whether the statement “The World Is Round” is true or false (1 or 0).
Step-by-Step Analysis:
- Initial Statement:
- We are asked to evaluate the truthfulness of the statement “The World Is Round.”
- Definition of “Round”:
- “Round” in this context is understood to refer to the Earth’s general shape, often described as an oblate spheroid (slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator).
- Historical Understanding:
- Historically, early human civilizations had different conceptions of the Earth’s shape, some believing it to be flat. However, through observations, reasoning, and exploration, the scientific consensus evolved.
- Scientific Observations:
- Observations such as the shape of Earth’s shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse, the way ships disappear hull-first over the horizon, and satellite imagery support that Earth is indeed round.
- Current Scientific Consensus:
- Modern science, backed by evidence from astronomy, satellite imagery, and physics, conclusively demonstrates that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. This is generally consistent with the term “round” when describing celestial bodies.
- Conclusion:
- Given the overwhelming evidence and consensus, we conclude that “The World Is Round” is true.
Final Output:
Based on the logical evaluation and the evidence, the Boolean output for “The World Is Round” is:
1