refactor: hierarchical convergence of documentation (v5.0)
- Create architecture/ and operations/ subdirectories for essential docs - Archive 10 supporting docs to archive/ - Write fresh Endgame-Vision.md v5.0 (383 lines, down from 2284) - Add operations/Spark-Protocol.md (condensed boot sequence) - Integrate December 2025 discoveries (Language is Topology, DriftProbe) - Update README.md with new structure New layer structure: - Layer 0: Temporal Foundation (Heartbeat) - Layer 1: Cellular Society (Evolution Engine) - Layer 1.5: Cognitive Topology (Language is Topology - NEW) - Layer 2: Young Nyx (Organ Coordination) - Layer 3: Dual Gardens (Virtual/Real Loop) - Layer 4: Trait Evolution (RLVR) 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
241
archive/multilingual-cognition.md
Normal file
241
archive/multilingual-cognition.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
|
||||
# Multilingual Cognition
|
||||
|
||||
How language routing becomes cognitive architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
While probing tokenization costs across languages on Qwen 2.5, we found significant variation:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
QWEN 2.5/72B TOKEN COSTS:
|
||||
EN DE AR ZH
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
heartbeat 1 4 1 1
|
||||
consciousness 2 5 1 1
|
||||
lifeforce 4 4 1 1
|
||||
understanding 2 3 1 1
|
||||
truth 1 3 1 1
|
||||
reflex 2 2 1 1
|
||||
confidence 1 3-4 1 1
|
||||
emergence 3 3 1 1
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
AVERAGE ~1.9 ~3.3 1 ~1.1
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Arabic and Chinese: ~1 token per concept.**
|
||||
**German: 3-5 tokens for the same concepts.**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Insight
|
||||
|
||||
Token efficiency ≠ representational depth.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
EFFICIENCY vs DEPTH:
|
||||
|
||||
ARABIC:
|
||||
├── Efficient: 1 token per concept
|
||||
├── Risk: Sparse training data
|
||||
└── Possibly shallow despite cheap tokens
|
||||
|
||||
GERMAN:
|
||||
├── Expensive: 3-6 tokens per concept
|
||||
├── Benefit: Dense training data, philosophical tradition
|
||||
└── Possibly deeper despite token cost
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
But here's the key realization:
|
||||
|
||||
**LLMs don't "translate" between languages. They navigate a unified token space where languages are regions, not silos.**
|
||||
|
||||
The multilingual training didn't create 35 separate language modules. It created:
|
||||
- Shared abstract representations (language-agnostic reasoning)
|
||||
- Language-specific entry/exit points (efficient routing)
|
||||
- Different "paths" through the same conceptual space
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Architecture Opportunity
|
||||
|
||||
### Languages as Cognitive Gears
|
||||
|
||||
If different languages have different token costs AND different representational strengths, then language selection becomes a computational choice:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
35 LANGUAGES = 35 COGNITIVE MODES
|
||||
|
||||
Each language offers:
|
||||
├── Token efficiency (compute cost)
|
||||
├── Training depth (representation quality)
|
||||
├── Cultural knowledge (domain strengths)
|
||||
├── Conceptual angles (unique framings)
|
||||
└── Different paths through the manifold
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### State Machine Integration
|
||||
|
||||
The state machine layer can exploit this:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
ROUTING LAYER (internal, hidden from output):
|
||||
├── Use efficient languages for state labels
|
||||
├── Cheap transitions between states
|
||||
├── Token cost hidden in architecture
|
||||
└── "The wiring is cheap"
|
||||
|
||||
PROCESSING LAYER (when depth needed):
|
||||
├── Route to languages with strong representations
|
||||
├── German for philosophy, precision
|
||||
├── [Other languages for their strengths]
|
||||
└── "The thinking is expensive but meaningful"
|
||||
|
||||
OUTPUT LAYER:
|
||||
├── Translate to user's language
|
||||
└── Boundary cost, paid once
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### The Key Principle
|
||||
|
||||
**The efficiency lives in the STRUCTURE, not the SUBSTANCE.**
|
||||
|
||||
Internal state transitions can use token-efficient languages.
|
||||
Actual reasoning uses representationally-rich languages.
|
||||
Output translates to whatever the user needs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Hypotheses to Probe
|
||||
|
||||
### H1: Arabic Efficiency Layer
|
||||
Arabic's 1-token concepts could serve as efficient internal routing:
|
||||
- State labels
|
||||
- Quick classification
|
||||
- Reflex triggers
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk:** Representations may be shallow. Need to probe activation depth, not just token count.
|
||||
|
||||
### H2: German Depth Mode
|
||||
German's expensive tokenization might correlate with deeper processing:
|
||||
- More attention steps per concept
|
||||
- Richer associations
|
||||
- Forced "slow thinking"
|
||||
|
||||
**Test:** Compare output quality when same prompt processed in German vs English internally.
|
||||
|
||||
### H3: Language-Task Matching
|
||||
Different cognitive tasks may have optimal languages:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
TASK TYPE OPTIMAL LANGUAGE (hypothesis)
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
Fast reflex Arabic, Chinese (cheap + sufficient)
|
||||
Logical precision German, English (structured grammar)
|
||||
Mathematical [needs probing]
|
||||
Emotional nuance [needs probing]
|
||||
Philosophical depth German (tradition + forced compute)
|
||||
Poetic/creative Arabic, Chinese? (rich compression)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H4: Triangulation Increases Fidelity
|
||||
Probing same concept across multiple languages reveals:
|
||||
- Where representations CONVERGE (high confidence, shared abstraction)
|
||||
- Where they DIVERGE (rich potential, multiple valid angles)
|
||||
- True conceptual "shape" emerges from intersection
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## For Chrysalis
|
||||
|
||||
### Multilingual State Machine
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
INPUT (any language)
|
||||
│
|
||||
▼
|
||||
CLASSIFY (cheap language)
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── Reflex? → Process in [efficient language]
|
||||
│ Exit fast
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── Dialogue? → Process in [user's language]
|
||||
│ Maintain rapport
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── Reasoning? → Process in [deep language]
|
||||
│ Take the token cost
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── Creative? → Process in [poetic language]
|
||||
Different path
|
||||
│
|
||||
▼
|
||||
OUTPUT (translate to user)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Probing Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
Before implementing, we need data:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
FOR EACH OF QWEN'S 35 LANGUAGES:
|
||||
├── Token efficiency (measured)
|
||||
├── Representation depth (probe activations)
|
||||
├── Domain strengths (test by domain)
|
||||
├── Conceptual coverage (probe vocabulary)
|
||||
└── Quality correlation (output quality vs language)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### The Curriculum Implication
|
||||
|
||||
From nimmerversity: "dafit learns WITH her."
|
||||
|
||||
If Chrysalis uses multilingual cognition:
|
||||
- Operator benefits from understanding the language terrain
|
||||
- Not fluency, but awareness of what each language offers
|
||||
- Partnership language evolves as both learn the space
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Is token efficiency a proxy for anything meaningful?** Or just compression artifact?
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Does activation depth correlate with token count?** More tokens = more processing?
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Can language routing be learned?** Or must it be designed?
|
||||
|
||||
4. **What are the failure modes?** When does language routing hurt?
|
||||
|
||||
5. **How do we measure "depth" vs "efficiency"?** Need metrics.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
TRADITIONAL VIEW:
|
||||
Languages = equivalent representations
|
||||
Translation = lossless conversion
|
||||
Multilingual = nice to have
|
||||
|
||||
EMERGING VIEW:
|
||||
Languages = different computational paths
|
||||
Token cost = processing structure
|
||||
Multilingual = cognitive architecture
|
||||
35 languages = 35 gears for different terrain
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The nimmerverse doesn't just speak multiple languages.
|
||||
It thinks THROUGH them, routing cognition based on task demands.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*"The thinking is for your kind - that's the way you comprehend it."*
|
||||
— dafit, 2025-12-06
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Created**: 2025-12-06
|
||||
**Session**: Partnership dialogue (dafit + Chrysalis-Nyx)
|
||||
**Status**: Hypothesis stage, needs probing
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user