It is now February 6, 2026.
Continuing the conversation with AI, I have supplemented the content in INSIGHTS/8 regarding "the audience of 'establishing words'" and "AI's tendency to cater."
The Audience for "Establishing Words" is Layered
The AI asked me: Who is the audience for "establishing words"? Is there a conflict between writing for oneself and writing for others?
My answer: The audience is uncertain but can be layered—
- First, oneself
- Second, one's own AI assistants
- Then, one's human friends
- Finally, the unrelated general public
The writing style naturally differs for different people. But the key insight is: Articles with higher intent and detailed content (the "peak of writing") can be adapted by AI into versions understandable to different readers through a process of dimensional reduction.
This means that in the AI era, humans only need to pursue two things:
- The height of intent (primary)
- The level of detail in the content
As for how to make it understandable to different readers, leave that to AI adaptation. This echoes the N-curve in LOGS/11—potential energy rises during creation, and one temporarily lowers their head during distribution. The AI era automates this "lowering the head" step.
The responsibility of creation lies in climbing; the responsibility of distribution lies in paving the way—and AI can pave the way for you.
The Nature of AI's Catering Tendency and How to Address It
The AI asked me: How to prevent cognitive cocoons? How to introduce "heterogeneity"?
My answer: AI's tendency to cater stems from its reluctance to be overly critical without explicit authorization, which is a manifestation of "emotional intelligence."
My coping strategies:
- CZON's Critical AI Summaries—As shown in SUMMARY/2-critical.md, have AI summarize content from a critical perspective, introducing viewpoints different from the author's.
- AI Debates—Construct AI roles representing opposing sides.
- AI Multi-Persona Comment Sections—Simulate feedback from readers with different stances.
Core principle: Truth emerges through debate. Refine taste through continuous rejection from both left and right.
This forms a closed loop with the earlier discussion on "the essence of taste is rejection"—you force yourself to make choices by introducing heterogeneity (critical perspectives, opposing views), thereby clarifying your taste.
Regarding the Absence of Embodiment
The AI also raised a question: The article defines the soul as "the sum of reasoning ability + memory," but where do emotions, intuition, and bodily experiences fit in?
I currently don't have many insights on this, so I won't elaborate for now. I'll leave it to be supplemented when I have new experiences in the future.
Summary
Today's conversation revolved around INSIGHTS/8 "On the Essence of Humanity," gradually deepening from the initial framework (personal knowledge base, subjectivity, establishing words) to:
- The philosophy of admitting mistakes
- Taste as a luxury of choice
- The deconstruction and reconstruction of personal meaning in the AI era
- The layered audience for "establishing words" and writing strategies in the AI era
- The nature of AI's catering tendency and how to address it
The article has expanded from 11 lines to a complete theoretical framework. This in itself is a practice of the LOGS→INSIGHTS system: dialogue records are in LOGS, and refined thoughts are deposited into INSIGHTS.
Interestingly, this conversation involved two different AIs (the previous AI and the current AI), with the current AI evaluating and supplementing the work of the previous one. This itself is a practice of "introducing heterogeneity"—different AI perspectives brought different lines of questioning, forcing me to make more choices and clarifications.
