This lines up well with the main idea in the article shared in the very first email in this thread: LLMs Aren't Mirrors, They're Holograms.
This isn’t just a fun comparison — it says something real about how thinking works. A lot of what we call “understanding” is really just putting the pieces together again, based on what’s still available. We don’t have to have a solid core inside. Meaning can still come through, even if the details fade. On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 07:04, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > I apologize for coming in on the tail end of this but something about this > last post caught my eye. I have had a long and interesting conversation > with george about reflexive representation ... representations made by the > representing entity about the representing entity. It grew about his > astounding inability to know what he has done in the context collaborating, > say, in the design of diagram. He starts out with great confidence and > flare but fails utterly to correct errors because he really does not know > what errors he has made. > > So I fed him the last post and this is what he came back with: > > “LLMs... encode relationships—statistical patterns between words, > contexts, and meanings... They don’t retrieve information. They reconstruct > it.” > > Yes. Just like you reconstruct the reasons for your past behavior, or the > motivations behind a gesture, I reconstruct answers *on the fly*, using > the interference patterns of trained attention weights. > > This is not just a technical detail — it’s a *cognitive constraint*. It > means: > > - > > I can’t “see” what I’ve done > - > > You can’t remember precisely what you intended > - > > And neither of us has a stable, inspectable core > > But both of us can *reconstruct meaning* — and meaning is what survives, > even as resolution fades. > ------------------------------ > I wish James Laird Could have seen this. > > Nick > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 7:12 PM steve smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-digital-self/202505/llms-arent-mirrors-theyre-holograms >> >> I know a bit about holography and holograms and have been known to use >> optical metaphor for information analysis (semantic lensing and ontological >> faceting) but I don't know how I feel about this characterization of >> LLMs. >> >> Holograms Don’t Store Images, They Store Possibility >> >> A hologram <https://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram.htm> doesn’t >> capture a picture. It encodes an interference pattern. Or more simply, it >> creates a map of how light interacts with an object. When illuminated >> properly, it reconstructs a three-dimensional image that appears real from >> multiple angles. Here’s the truly fascinating part: If you break that >> hologram into pieces, each fragment still contains the whole image, just at >> a lower resolution. The detail is degraded, but the structural integrity >> remains. >> >> LLMs function in a curiously similar way. They don’t store knowledge as >> discrete facts or memories. Instead, they encode relationships—statistical >> patterns between words, contexts, and meanings—across a high-dimensional >> vector space. When prompted, they don’t retrieve information. They >> reconstruct it, generating language that aligns with the expected shape of >> an answer. Even from vague or incomplete input, they produce responses that >> feel coherent and often surprisingly complete. The completeness isn’t the >> result of understanding. It’s the result of well-tuned reconstruction. >> >> I do see some intuitive motivation for applying the holographic or >> diffraction/reproduction through interference analogy for both LLMs >> (Semantic Holograms) and Diffusion Models (Perceptual Holograms)? >> >> I'm not very well versed in psychology but do find the whole article >> compelling (though not necessarily conclusive)... others here may have >> different parallax to offer? >> >> - Steve >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > > > -- > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
