Wibe — I read The Ikiru Model carefully. What struck me is that you’re not really making an AI argument, but an epistemic one: intelligence only reveals itself once variation is constrained by irreversible cost.
In my own work, I arrive at a similar conclusion from the opposite direction — by looking at what remains invariant once axes of variation are systematically exhausted. Ikiru reads to me as a necessary constraint on discovery, but not yet a stopping rule.
I’m curious how you think about saturation: at what point does “more consequence” stop producing new structure / learning, rather than just moral pressure?
If you’re open to it, I think there’s a productive tension there worth exploring.
Jeroen let’s be clear: an epistemic argument is the ultimate AI argument. To suggest otherwise is to fall for the 'Bitter Lesson' fallacy: the belief that raw scale can eventually simulate intentional agency.
The Ikiru Model isn't just a philosophical exercise. It's a blueprint for the 5 hard constraints that kill the scaling myth and force true intelligence to emerge.
Without these, the Bitter Lesson just gives us a Mummy. The Ikiru Model gives us an agent that finally has something to lose.
AI lacks real stakes because it doesn't face mortality. B. Scot Rousse, is the industry’s focus on zeros and ones just an arrogant blindness to the nature of being?
Wibe — I read The Ikiru Model carefully. What struck me is that you’re not really making an AI argument, but an epistemic one: intelligence only reveals itself once variation is constrained by irreversible cost.
In my own work, I arrive at a similar conclusion from the opposite direction — by looking at what remains invariant once axes of variation are systematically exhausted. Ikiru reads to me as a necessary constraint on discovery, but not yet a stopping rule.
I’m curious how you think about saturation: at what point does “more consequence” stop producing new structure / learning, rather than just moral pressure?
If you’re open to it, I think there’s a productive tension there worth exploring.
Jeroen let’s be clear: an epistemic argument is the ultimate AI argument. To suggest otherwise is to fall for the 'Bitter Lesson' fallacy: the belief that raw scale can eventually simulate intentional agency.
The Ikiru Model isn't just a philosophical exercise. It's a blueprint for the 5 hard constraints that kill the scaling myth and force true intelligence to emerge.
Without these, the Bitter Lesson just gives us a Mummy. The Ikiru Model gives us an agent that finally has something to lose.
AI lacks real stakes because it doesn't face mortality. B. Scot Rousse, is the industry’s focus on zeros and ones just an arrogant blindness to the nature of being?
https://withoutwhy.substack.com/