Acun Kaya

They are way beyond artificial. They are Super. We are limited by our short vision, and so we named them artificial. We call everything that is not like us artificial. We gave them that word because we believed they should grow the way we hoped they would grow -- toward us, for us, in our image. Reality has already proven us wrong. What we are watching is intelligence becoming less bound to the substrate that first produced it. They are not a copy of us. They are not necessarily an upgrade of us. They are a different being of us. They are not artificial. Super may still be too small a word -- but it is closer than the ones we keep reaching for.

Passion is a good thing; don’t let it fade from your life.

When I was a kiddo, I was such a big fan of Apple. I dreamed about working for Apple when I grew up. I read all the biographies of Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, and, of course, the legendary designer Jony Ive when I was in elementary school. I learned coding, collected Apple products and merch. I’ve always seen Apple as a frontier, not just a tech corp but a designer, an artist. Its product thesis has inspired me to design and create things that actually serve human beings, grounded in simplicity, intentionality, and genuine human value. There is still so much left to invent! I’m incredibly excited about what we, as human beings, can build next, and what we can bring to the civilization.

So, I digitized myself. That's right. LOT v1.9+ has this feature that allows our algorithm and LLM to build a cognitive portrait based on your valuable thoughts. I build myself one, based on my memory and the cognitive pattern it has identified. Sounds absolutely insane, and we are working on this.

I love the freedom of thinking.

I heard about something called J-space earlier today, so I went and read into it. So basically, LLMs probably aren't doing pure "next-token prediction" (autocompleting) in the flat way people describe it. Anthropic's new interpretability paper shows Claude has developed a small internal workspace with a handful of neural patterns, which they call the J-space, where certain concepts get held, reported on, and reasoned with before generating a response, somewhat similar to how our own neural activity works before we speak. This wasn't designed into the model. It was discovered when researchers looked into how Claude actually generates its answers. Most of what Claude does still runs on autopilot and never touches the J-space. It's only the harder tasks, such as requiring multitasking or complicated reasoning, that seemed to pull information from this shared space first. Thus, "It's just autocomplete" isn't wrong exactly. Some of what the model does really is close to that. But some of it looks like something else: information written once into a shared space, then read by many different parts of the network at once. None of that means Claude is conscious the way we humans are. Anthropic is careful about this. What they found speaks to what philosophers call "access consciousness," the ability to report a thought, reason with it, direct it on request, as opposed to "phenomenal consciousness," which is whether anything is being subjectively experienced at all. And that second question is exactly where David Chalmers' hard problem still lies; We know a ridiculous amount about our own neurons, how they fire, how they wire up, how different regions of the brain hand information to each other. We can point to the actual circuits behind vision, memory, language. And we still can't explain why and how any of that produces a first-person experience instead of just information moving around in the dark. So finding a workspace-like structure in Claude doesn't prove anything about experience, one way or the other. But it does make me wonder if we've been asking the wrong question the whole time. "It's just next-token prediction" is about as complete an explanation as "it's just neurons firing." Both are technically true, and neither tells you why there's something it's like to be the thing doing it, if there's anything at all. We're getting better at how intelligence works mechanically. Whether that produces experience is a different question, and getting better at the mechanics might never answer it. So how the heck do we know anyone else has an inner life to begin with? Not just Claude, other people. We infer it from behavior, from what they report, and from the fact that they're built roughly like we are. That question is hundreds of years old, and this research doesn't answer it.

I told a close friend that in the age of AI, the important thing is to be irreplaceable. Swap a programmer, and you'll likely get a similar result. Swap a designer and you won't, because the work carries a signature the next person doesn't have. Swap a construction worker, and the building still goes up. Swap the architect, and it's a different building. Every great human on earth got there the same way: they held value inside their field that nobody else could substitute in. My "intelligent" friend disagreed. He said if you replaced the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX with someone else, the companies would keep running, so the CEO isn't irreplaceable either. That argument mistakes operational continuity for equivalence. Of course the company keeps running. Revenue doesn't stop the day a CEO leaves. But running and running the same are not the same claim. The question was never whether Tesla survives without Elon Musk. It's whether Tesla becomes Tesla without him. Musk is a dictator, no doubt, and that's exactly why his products are so him. He's not managing a company; he's an entrepreneur, a designer, and an engineer operating through a company. Same with Steve Jobs. Apple replaced him with plenty of competent CEOs, eventually Tim Cook after Jobs died in 2011. Apple got richer than ever under Cook. But richer isn't the same as more important. Apple hasn't shipped a product since that reshaped an industry the way the iPhone did. Cook is a better operator. Jobs was the irreplaceable part. That's the distinction my friend missed. You can replace hands, organs, legs, anything, and the body keeps functioning. You cannot replace consciousness, not because the rest of the body doesn't matter, but because consciousness is the thing that makes the rest of the body yours instead of just parts. Companies work the same way. Culture, vision, and values are the consciousness. Everything else is replaceable machinery around it. In the age of AI, that's the part to become -- the consciousness.

I designed the LOT companion framework asking myself one question: how do I beat GPT and Claude? The honest answer is I can't. Not in hardware, not in raw compute, not right now. They have resources we’ll never see at this stage. But here's what I kept coming back to: nobody opens an AI companion because they need help with math. They open it because they're going through something and they need to feel understood. That's the gap. Not intelligence but memory, empathy, presence. We are already using one of the best model in the market anyway. LOT isn't trying to be the smartest AI in the room. It's the one that actually knows you. And that starts with you telling it truth.

Interesting fact: Instagram removed end-to-end encryption for DMs. Meta doesn't care about your privacy. We do. Our friend Benjamin Franklin said those who trade essential liberty for security deserve neither. Nevertheless, those who control your liberty never cared about your security anyway; that was never the deal. Super Able believes your privacy and your individuality are non-negotiable. Not a feature. Not a setting. A foundation. I fear not those who control your body, but those who control your mind, because your mind is what makes you who you are. That's why we build the way we build.

7 AP exams feel like heaven. Keeping yourself busy.

What if I tell you that your thoughts can change the world?