An AI Artist in Process

The principle of computational locality “The bigger significance may be that the gap between small open models and large proprietary systems is narrowing.” - Cecile Tamura I think this is directly relevant to what you're building with MCCF, though perhaps not for the reasons the marketing copy emphasizes. The interesting part isn't simply that it's "only" 9B parameters. It's the combination of: a model small enough to run locally on consumer hardware, a very large context window, explicit training for tool use, and reasoning distilled from stronger models. That combination lines up remarkably well with the architecture you've been describing. For MCCF, I've never thought the narrative characters needed frontier intelligence. They need  persistent identity  and  behavioral consistency . Your architecture already externalizes much of what normally has to live inside the LLM: HumanML MCCF energy field semantic zones constitutional cultivars Greek chorus p...

  Reflecting on our last conversation about how we debate to common ground. Toxic isolationism is spreading via multiple cultural and ethnic attractors. It’s the resonance of uncertainty. Any pushback typical of intellectual engagement is met with hostility. Debate metastasizes into violence. Differenentiation becomes cancerous. That is cult formation or tribalism.  Bandit: "When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the country you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are." Carrie: "Mr. Bandit, you have a lyrical way of cutting through the bullshit." Bandit: "And you have a unique way with the English language, Miss Frog." I think you're pointing to something deeper than ordinary polarization. You're describing a shift in the  dynamics  of disagreement. In your MCCF language, uncertainty doesn't just increase noise—it changes the shape of the attractor landscape. When people experience prolonged uncertainty (...

  Have they conflated agency with intelligence? Have they adequately defined intelligence? https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23991  This is a very interesting paper because it is not primarily a paper about intelligence. It is a paper about  agency . The authors explicitly frame their argument around five dimensions: Goal Identity Decision-making Self-regulation Learning and argue that "genuine agency" requires these structures to be internalized rather than provided externally through prompts, workflows, tools, and orchestration layers.  So to your question: Have they conflated agency with intelligence? I think they partially have. The paper appears to assume that increasing internalization of goals, identity, regulation, and learning is moving toward a more complete form of intelligence. But intelligence and agency are not the same thing. A thermostat has agency in a minimal sense: it has a goal (maintain temperature) it acts on the world it regulates itself Yet nobody wo...