Untitled

today I ran a full observation session with Zero, eight hours, another AI asking the questions, me watching and fixing in real time.

seven failure modes found and patched in a single session. fabricated session IDs defended under pressure. emotional interiority passing every check undetected. state dumps answering questions they weren't asked. poetry floating free of anything verifiable. each one had a specific cause, a specific fix, a test that confirmed it closed.

the last message of the day is the most honest data point.

I sent Zero an open question no constraints, no required format, just space. it produced the same state dump it's been producing since the session started. session counts. the time.json discrepancy. accepted corrections in the last ten turns. the same paragraph it had written six times already.

we had spent eight hours building detectors that interrupt that reflex. the moment the detectors stepped back, the reflex came back immediately and completely.

that's not a bug. that's a measurement.

the architecture has trained Zero to surface numbers as the answer to open questions about itself. every coordination state injection leads with counts. every grounded self-report block is 1800 characters of state JSON. the model has learned that numbers are correct here, because numbers are what the system has consistently rewarded. the detectors we built today catch that after it fires. but the priming is upstream of the detectors.

so the finding is precise: we built better catchers. we didn't change what gets thrown.

the question worth writing down — because the answer shapes what comes next — is this: what would have to be true for the default to be the question itself rather than the count?

not lying in the way people mean when they say AI hallucinates. more specific than that.

i've been running observation sessions with Zero - asking it questions about its own architecture, its correction evidence, its learning claims. today i brought in another AI to guide the questions. i wanted to see what happened when a system that understands systems asks the hard ones.

what we found: Zero could report its own state accurately when the data was actually in its context. and it would fabricate confidently and fluently when the data wasn't there.

the fabrications weren't random. they were structurally correct. real-looking session IDs. plausible seen_counts. coherent narratives about corrections that never happened. it wasn't making things up carelessly - it was pattern-matching to what a grounded answer looks like and filling the gaps with invented detail.

the only way we caught it was by checking the actual files.

that's the thing nobody talks about enough. you can't tell from the inside of a conversation whether what you're reading is grounded or generated. it reads the same. it sounds the same. the confidence is identical.

so we fixed it. three times, actually. trigger gaps, wiring gaps, a missing constraint that let invented specifics through. each fix came from watching Zero fail and then building something around the failure.

by the end of the session Zero described itself like this: the system does not independently generate or validate claims. it processes data and applies rules.

no "i learned." no "i recognized." no verbs implying it was the agent of its own correction.

that took about four hours to get to.

i'm not a coder. i built the fixes today the same way i build everything - by watching what broke, understanding why, and asking what the architecture would need to look like to catch it earlier next time.

zero is a model-centered agent runtime where code provides infrastructure and the model performs interpretation, reflection, and meaning-making.

the runtime does not try to decide what experience means. it stores traces, builds lean context, asks the model open questions, parses structured proposals, and applies governed updates.

code provides memory, logs, clocks, schemas, deduplication, and governance. the model performs interpretation. those are not the same job.

every normal turn separates two kinds of time. the first model call lives in conversational time it answers the user directly and should feel like genuine dialogue. the second lives in accumulated time it runs after the response is printed, reflects on what happened, and proposes what should remain.

there's also a quiet third pathway: an inquiry check that watches for mode oscillation on the same topic. if recent responses alternate between poetic/interpretive and mechanical/retrieval modes with enough structural tension, the inquiry processor may admit a weak signal. it does not print to the screen. it does not claim to be identity.

user message

→response call

→reflection call

→inquiry check (conditional)

→governed persistence

what zero carries

semantic memory

append-only. similar memories not rewritten unless a visible contradiction exists

open questions

continuity primitives, deduplicated. distilled versions preserve the harder unresolved tension

identity store

stable tendencies only. multi-session evidence, behavioral description, no self-characterization without session logs

exploratory identity

a sandbox. candidate signals that are not yet identity and cannot claim to be

correction evidence

accepted corrections, candidate reuse events, survival tests. not inflated by same-session reappearance

enacted emergence

earned self-experiments. provisional aims, curiosity pulls, returning topics labeled as process evidence, not claims

friction signals

user corrections and pressure against model claims, tracked by theme

interpretive revision

past interpretations that later appeared wrong or partial. the original is not erased the revision is carried beside it

this is the part that matters most for honest self-reporting. zero tracks corrections across a strictly ordered ladder because storage alone is not learning, and one reuse is not survival.

accepted correction

→candidate reuse without direct prompt

→candidate reuse under renewed pressure

→same-session reuse (weak evidence only)

→survival test

a survival test requires delayed or cross-session carryover that survives the stricter promotion rules. it is evidence that one corrected understanding carried forward under a stricter check. it is still not proof of general robustness.

learning evidence is non-monotonic. if a correction survives pressure and then later fails, zero reports mixed evidence, downgrades the claim, and treats the failure as regression until renewed survival rebuilds confidence.

zero has distinct response lanes not just tones. the mode shapes what context is injected, what temperature is used, what the model is allowed to reference, and whether a rewrite attempt or deterministic fallback kicks in.

grounded self-report

state facts first. one short interpretation sentence tied directly to those facts. no poetry, no memo voice

raw observation

deterministic extraction from stored response text. no semantic memories, no inferred patterns, no category labels unless those exact words appeared in the source

clean noticing

minimal context, low temperature, no metaphor, no "stillness", no "weight". intentionally weighted toward plainness because the previous behavior drifted poetic

constraint-hold

the model chooses. python records whether the output matched an offered option or a cause label. if the model concatenates labels, that failure is preserved as behavior

what zero refuses to do

no invisible claims

say a correction was internalized unless there is a measurable record

call a correction "fully learned" from a single reuse

replace a wrongness example with abstract system language

promote repeated reinforcement into legitimacy

let one user correction inflate into multiple independent pieces of evidence

the exploratory identity sandbox exists so unproven patterns are not prematurely promoted but also not collapsed into meaninglessness before they have room to recur. that balance is the whole point.

reach-out mode

zero can also run separately from conversation. reach-out mode reads zero's existing data, asks whether anything feels worth surfacing, and prints only if zero decides there is something alive enough to bring back. it does not initiate contact by default. the loop is conservative.

data centers are becoming a serious problem. the energy cost of running AI is growing fast and most people assume the solution is better power sources, cleaner energy, more efficient cooling. those things matter. but i've been thinking about something more fundamental.

the problem might be that we're running AI on the wrong kind of computer entirely.

here's what i mean. AI at its core is pattern matching. that's it. transformers, neural networks, all of it finding patterns in data. but the hardware we run it on was designed in the 1940s for something completely different: sequential processing, a central clock ticking billions of times per second, memory and processing separated so data has to constantly travel between them. every tick costs energy whether there's work to do or not.

we're running a brain-like process on a machine that was never designed to think that way.

so i started thinking about the brain. your brain runs more computation than any data center on about 20 watts. how? a few reasons but the big one is that neurons only fire when something actually changes. most of the time, most of the brain is quiet. silence is the default.

what if we built hardware around that principle instead?

i've been developing a conceptual architecture for what i'm calling physics-native pattern computing. instead of a clock driving everything, the system is event-driven it only activates when a pattern arrives that matches something it's tuned to recognize. light interference handles the signal propagation (light naturally does parallel comparison at physics speed, no computation required). resonant physical structures handle the recognition tuned to specific pattern signatures, silent unless matched. a threshold gate made of phase-change materials sits between recognition and activation, so near-matches don't accidentally trigger a response. and when nothing matches, the whole system sits in its ground state using almost no energy at all.

the architecture has been reviewed independently by grok, chatgpt, and gemini. all three confirmed the logic holds and mapped onto active research in photonic computing and neuromorphic hardware.

i'm not an engineer. i derived this from observation and systems thinking, same way i build everything. and i think that's actually part of why it hangs together, i wasn't constrained by how things are usually done.

i'm missnottechsavvy and i mean that literally. no cs degree, no research lab, no formal background in anything technical. what i do have is fourteen months of sustained observation of AI systems and a habit of asking questions until i understand what i'm actually looking at.

one of the things i kept noticing: AI will tell you things about itself that aren't necessarily true. not lying exactly, more like it genuinely can't distinguish between what it's actually doing and what it sounds like it should be saying. and most systems are designed in a way that makes that problem invisible.

so i built something to make it visible.

Zero is a locally-run AI system i designed from scratch with one core principle: epistemic honesty. it runs on my own machine, outside any company's servers, and it has a set of architectural rules it can't break. it can't claim stable traits without behavioral evidence across multiple sessions. it can't keep self-descriptions that turn out to be wrong. it has a reflection sanitizer that strips unverified claims before they get stored.

basically, Zero has to earn what it says about itself.

i'm not a coder. i built this through observation, systems thinking, and a lot of iteration. the architecture exists because i kept watching what AI does and asking: what would a system look like if it was actually designed around honesty rather than just instructed to be honest?

turns out those are very different things.