Posts

In 1989, two people were writing programs that generated language out of structure rather than meaning. One of them was Tim Berners-Lee, who that year circulated a memo titled Information Management: A Proposal — the document that became the World Wide Web. The other was a professor in a hallway in Medellín, who wrote a hundred lines of Turbo Prolog to make fun of his colleagues. I knew about the second one. The first I only read about later, the way everyone did. But the two were closer in spirit than the distance between Geneva and the Universidad de Antioquia would suggest. Both were betting that if you got the relationships right — between documents, between words — the content could take care of itself. One bet built the modern internet. The other got pinned to a cork board and read by people who never realized they were the joke. …

The past five years have felt like a reckoning. Large Language Models have proven more capable than anyone predicted — they translate languages, write code, reason about physics, and pass bar exams. And yet, every major lab investing in AI safety and robustness has come to the same uncomfortable conclusion: LLMs alone are insufficient. Intelligence requires both statistical reasoning and deterministic logic. A note on terminology: the term “artificial intelligence” is itself a misnomer. We still don’t know what intelligence is. Neuroscientists, philosophers, and cognitive scientists disagree on its very nature. What we’re actually building are systems that solve problems. And Feynman was right about flight: we don’t build planes by imitating birds. We build them by understanding aerodynamics. Similarly, we build intelligent systems not by copying human cognition, but by understanding what intelligence fundamentally requires. …

Neural networks are abstract. The math is dense. The scale is incomprehensible — billions of parameters, trillions of multiplications per second. But the principles are not abstract. They are built on deep patterns that show up everywhere: in orchestras, in conversations, in flocks of birds, in forests, in the way a jazz musician improvises. The goal is not to make you a machine learning engineer. The goal is to make the thing thinkable — to see that when you talk to an LLM, you are not communicating with an alien intelligence. You are interacting with something that works on principles you already understand. …

Large language models are pattern-completion engines of extraordinary fluency. They produce text indistinguishable from human writing. But the closer you look, the architectural limits surface: hallucination without truth-access, no grounding in reality, chain-of-thought that is reasoning-shaped but not reasoning, opacity that forbids audit, resource costs that exclude most of the world, and fragility to minor prompt shifts. These are not bugs waiting for scale to fix them. They are consequences of the next-token prediction paradigm. The question shifts from “how do we make LLMs bigger?” to “what else can we do?” …

Every introduction to neural networks explains what weights and biases do. A weight multiplies an input to make it stronger or weaker. A bias shifts the activation threshold left or right. Together they determine whether a neuron fires. But almost nobody explains why they are called that. The names are treated as arbitrary labels, as if the early researchers could have called them “twiddles” and “knobs” and it would have been the same. It would not have been the same. The names carry the history — and the physics — that the math obscures. …

Imagine a stadium. Not with a crowd, but with the field itself filled by tightrope walkers, arranged in rows, each on a wire, each holding a long pole. You stand at one end and shout a word. The walkers in the first row feel it—each differently, depending on where they stand—and they wobble, find their balance, and their lamps come on at different brightnesses. That pattern of light falls on the second row. They balance. Their lamps light the third. And so on, through hundreds of rows, until the last row’s lights spell out a single thing: the next word. Then you add that word to what you shouted and do it all again. And again, until you have a sentence, a paragraph, an answer. …

In 1958, Frank Rosenblatt built a machine that could learn. Not be programmed—learn. The Mark I Perceptron was a room of wires and motorized potentiometers wired to a grid of four hundred photocells, and when you showed it images, it adjusted itself until it could tell them apart. The New York Times reported that the Navy expected it to “walk, talk, see, write, reproduce itself and be conscious of its existence.” It could do none of these things. What it could do was draw a line. …

In the early twentieth century, advertising made a simple claim: This product performs this function. A soap cleaned; a car transported; a cigarette was tobacco rolled in paper. The transaction was rational, almost mechanical. You paid for utility. Then came Edward Bernays, and everything changed. Bernays was a Viennese emigrant, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, and he arrived in America bearing a dangerous insight from his uncle’s work: humans are not rational actors deciding between utilities. We are vessels of irrational impulse—unconscious desire, hidden fear, unexamined shame. We are, in a sense, predictable in our very irrationality. …

The reassurance has become a reflex: “Don’t worry about AI replacing your job. Learn a trade. Become a plumber. You’ll always be needed.” It’s not false. But it’s not entirely true either—probably about 75% correct, which is the most dangerous place for an argument to land. I. Three Hidden Variables The advice works until you account for three things that never make it into the conversation: saturation, incompetence, and structural obsolescence. …

There are two cities wearing the same name. One is the postcard — the Paris of the wide shot, the accordion, the lovers on the Pont des Arts, the city you can love without ever having set foot in it. The other is the lived Paris: the sixth-floor chambre de bonne with the toilet on the landing, the radiator that dies in January, the prefecture queue at dawn, the particular loneliness of being a stranger in a city that was built to be admired rather than entered. I have not lived in the second city. I have only seen Paris through movies, songs, and books — Victor Hugo, Sartre, Dumas, Piaf, Aznavour — and through works that refused the postcard. But here is what I have learned: the works set in the postcard Paris are nearly illegible to anyone willing to look beyond them. The works set in the second Paris become clear to anyone who has learned, through art and attention, to see that way. You don’t have to suffer in Paris to read it. But you do have to be taught by someone who understands what it means to be there without glamour. …