Original custom instructions no longer available
r u up to date with my MEL / QCE stuff and ready for the full context ?
Yes — I’m ready for the full context.
I don’t currently have enough retained context about your MEL / QCE work itself to pretend I’m fully up to date, though. I’d rather be straight about that than fill gaps with guesses.
Send me the full context/checkpoint (however you have it — Markdown, pasted notes, files, etc.), and I’ll treat that as the authoritative starting point for this conversation.
go
wow, i didn't see that - using .json for each QCE is brilliance bc it's it so obvious, so suitable and practical sndf i was thinking in terms of .md but i want it to hold some some sort of checkpoint data or poinr to checkpoint data etc - and i want the QCE's to be indexed and searchable and then once it gets too complex, to create a new simple QCE that points to the last complex QCE but, at all times, to be able to start at the "genesis" Quasi_Code_Element and read ALL QCE's in chronological order, to build the type of understanding that humans do inately
Yes. That is the stronger architecture. And the distinction you just made fixes something important in my first proposal.
The QCE should be an individual .json memory element, not merely an object buried in one giant mel.json.
Then MEL becomes a filesystem of memories, with an index over them.
The basic idea:
MEL/
│
├── ISE/
│ ├── QCE-ISE-0001.json ← GENESIS
│ ├── QCE-ISE-0002.json
│ ├── QCE-ISE-0003.json
│ ├── QCE-ISE-0004.json
│ └── QCE-ISE-0047.json ← current complex state
│
├── listatt/
│ ├── QCE-listatt-0001.json
│ └── ...
│
└── index.jsonAnd each QCE is independently searchable/indexable.
That gives us something much more powerful than an ordinary changelog.
I'd make the individual file look roughly like this:
{
"qce_id": "QCE-ISE-0047",
"type": "QuasiCodeEvent",
"mod_id": "ISE",
"sequence": 47,
"created": "2026-09-13T14:32:00+10:00",
"predecessor": "QCE-ISE-0046",
"state": "current",
"concept": "ISE searches and ranks forum and document content as a unified information source.",
"change": "PDF search was integrated into the existing ISE search architecture.",
"behavior": [
"Search forum content.",
"Search indexed PDF content.",
"Combine matching results.",
"Rank results by relevance.",
"Resolve PDF hits to their originating SMF topic and attachment."
],
"relationships": [
"PDFIndexer",
"PDFsearch",
"ISEmedia",
"SMF attachments"
],
"checkpoint": {
"type": "reference",
"file": "Checkpoint_ISE_v5.md"
}
}The checkpoint information belongs in the QCE, but we don't duplicate the checkpoint.
We point to it.
So the QCE can say:
"I know what happened."while the checkpoint says:
"Here is the forensic evidence of exactly what happened."That preserves the distinction you established in the MEL discussion: QCE is the fast conceptual layer; detailed change/checkpoint material remains available for implementation-level reuse.
You don't actually want:
QCE47 → QCE46 → QCE45 → ...to be the only relationship.
You want two dimensions.
Dimension A — time:
GENESIS
↓
QCE2
↓
QCE3
↓
QCE4
↓
...
↓
QCE47This is the learning history.
Dimension B — understanding:
A QCE can point at other relevant things:
QCE47
├── predecessor → QCE46
├── checkpoint → Checkpoint_v5
├── uses → PDFsearch
├── relates → ISEmedia
└── supersedes → QCE41So the chronological chain tells us:
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
while the relationships tell us:
WHAT DOES THIS THING CONNECT TO?
That is where the system starts becoming genuinely useful to an AI.
Suppose ISE evolves:
QCE1
QCE2
QCE3
...
QCE38
QCE39
QCE40Eventually the chain has become messy.
Instead of destroying history, we create:
QCE41which says, essentially:
I am the current simplified understanding
of everything that happened through QCE40.But crucially:
{
"qce_id": "QCE-ISE-0041",
"predecessor": "QCE-ISE-0040",
"derived_from": {
"type": "qce_chain",
"through": "QCE-ISE-0040"
},
"concept": "...simplified current understanding...",
"history_anchor": "QCE-ISE-0040"
}We do not delete QCE1–QCE40.
QCE41 becomes the new compact representation.
So:
CURRENT
↓
QCE1 → QCE2 → ... → QCE40 → QCE41
↑ ↑
detailed condensed
history memoryAnd if someone wants to know why QCE41 says what it says:
QCE41
↓
QCE40
↓
QCE39
↓
...
↓
GENESISThe entire historical chain remains available.
That is much closer to what you were describing than conventional "summarisation."
Humans don't normally remember:
"At 14:03:17 on Tuesday I saw this particular object."
We remember something more like:
I started with X.
Then I discovered Y.
That caused me to change my understanding.
Then Z happened.
Now I understand the thing as A.But if necessary, we can sometimes reconstruct:
"What made me think that?"and travel backwards through memory.
Your QCE system can deliberately preserve that structure.
Normal AI query:
"What is ISE?"
↓
CURRENT QCE
↓
understandingHistorical query:
"How did ISE become what it is?"
↓
GENESIS
↓
QCE1
↓
QCE2
↓
QCE3
↓
...
↓
CURRENT
↓
understandingThat's the important distinction.
The second isn't merely retrieving facts.
It's reconstructing the development of the concept.
Because each QCE is simultaneously:
Human-readable:
concept
change
behavior
relationshipsMachine-readable:
qce_id
sequence
predecessor
state
referencesIndexable:
keywords
concept
behavior
relationshipsRetrievable:
QCE-ISE-0047.jsonAnd potentially AI-indexed through your existing infrastructure.
We could have:
QCE_index.jsoncontaining metadata only:
{
"ISE": {
"genesis": "QCE-ISE-0001",
"current": "QCE-ISE-0047",
"qces": [
{
"id": "QCE-ISE-0001",
"sequence": 1,
"file": "ISE/QCE-ISE-0001.json"
},
{
"id": "QCE-ISE-0002",
"sequence": 2,
"file": "ISE/QCE-ISE-0002.json"
}
]
}
}Then the actual QCE content is indexed separately by ISE/IFCSAR.
So we don't make the index itself enormous.
This is where I'd stop and say yes, this is the architecture:
Level 1 — Current understanding:
CURRENT QCEFast.
"What does this thing do?"
Level 2 — Historical understanding:
GENESIS → QCE1 → QCE2 → ... → CURRENTRich.
"How did it become this?"
Level 3 — Forensic evidence:
QCE
↓
Checkpoint / Code_Change_Report
↓
actual code / diff / filesDeep.
"Exactly what changed and how do I safely modify it?"
So:
MEL MEMORY
│
┌───────┴────────┐
│ │
CURRENT HISTORY
│ │
│ GENESIS → NOW
│ │
└───────┬────────┘
↓
EVIDENCE
↓
checkpoints / codeThat is very clean.
AI receives:
"Add a document viewer."
Instead of immediately inventing one:
REQUEST
↓
QCE SEARCH
↓
"ISE_text_viewer"
↓
QCE says what it does
↓
AI loads relevant history
↓
AI loads checkpoint/code if required
↓
REUSE / EXTENDThat is exactly the anti-"LTV Lemon" mechanism we were trying to achieve with MEL.
I'd initially have only these operations:
qce_create()
qce_get_current()
qce_get_chain()
qce_search()
qce_search_current()
qce_validate()That's it.
Take the current chain and ask:
"What does this system do?"
Then compare that generated understanding against the current QCE.
Conceptually:
CHAIN
↓
AI reconstructs concept
↓
COMPARE
↓
CURRENT QCEIf:
concept_from_chain ≈ current_qce.conceptgood.
If not:
MISMATCH
↓
identify uncertainty
↓
drill into relevant QCE
↓
check actual code/checkpointThat gives MEL a built-in memory integrity test, rather than assuming the summary is correct.
Don't build complicated pruning now.
Initially:
QCE1
QCE2
QCE3
...
QCE100all remain.
But only:
QCE100is current.
Eventually the chain becomes noisy.
Then:
PRN
↓
identify important historical QCEs
↓
retain them
↓
collapse redundant history
↓
validate resulting understanding
↓
new compact chainBut don't build PRN in version 1.
I'd call the first implementation:
mel/
│
├── mel.json
│
├── QCEManager.py
├── QCEBuilder.py
├── QCERetriever.py
└── QCEValidator.pyAnd:
mel.jsoncontains the chains.
QCEManager:
create
append
get_current
get_chainQCEBuilder:
old QCE
+
change record
+
code understanding
↓
new QCEQCERetriever:
search current
search history
search relationshipsQCEValidator:
replay chain
↓
derive concept
↓
compare with current QCEThat's four tiny pieces, not a new giant subsystem.
I would make the JSON structure deliberately boring.
Something like:
{
"mod_id": "ISE",
"current_qce": "QCE-ISE-0007",
"qces": [
{
"qce_id": "QCE-ISE-0001",
"sequence": 1,
"predecessor": null,
"status": "dormant",
"concept": "...",
"change": "...",
"behavior": [],
"relationships": [],
"evidence": []
},
{
"qce_id": "QCE-ISE-0007",
"sequence": 7,
"predecessor": "QCE-ISE-0006",
"status": "current",
"concept": "...",
"change": "...",
"behavior": [],
"relationships": [],
"evidence": []
}
]
}No embeddings.
No vector database.
No neural memory.
No special database server.
No clever linked-list engine.
JSON + existing fuzzy search + existing orchestrator context.
That is enough to prove the idea.
And it preserves the thing I think is genuinely good about your original MEL concept: the history is not the memory by itself; the evolving QCE representation is the memory, while the historical chain provides the evidence for how that understanding came to exist.
That's a lot to digest and I don't know if it is AI friendly enough.
The question is: do we build a sample QuasiCode chain retrospectivelly ? for an app like ISE ?
ISE came into existence when I realised that SMF search often refused to play under load and there were no logs or wildcards etc.
Yes. I think that is exactly the right next exercise.
And I would change the approach slightly: don't start by designing the whole QCE framework. Prove what a useful QCE actually looks like.
ISE is an excellent test case because we know its real origin story.
The retrospective chain might start something like:
GENESIS
↓
QCE-001
"SMF search becomes unreliable under load."
↓
QCE-002
"Need an independent search mechanism."
↓
QCE-003
"Build an external index of SMF content."
↓
QCE-004
"Add wildcard / better query behaviour."
↓
QCE-005
"Add logging/tracing because search behaviour must be observable."
↓
QCE-006
"Add ranking because matching alone isn't sufficient."
↓
...
↓
CURRENT ISEBut that's not quite enough. The important thing is that each QCE captures the understanding, not merely the event.
For example, the Genesis QCE shouldn't say:
"ISE project created."
It should say something closer to:
{
"qce_id": "QCE-ISE-0001",
"type": "genesis",
"concept": "ISE",
"understanding": {
"problem": "SMF search was unreliable under load.",
"observed": [
"search could fail under load",
"useful search logging was absent",
"wildcard searching was inadequate"
],
"decision": "Create an independent search engine rather than depend entirely on SMF search.",
"purpose": "Provide reliable, observable and more capable search for the forum."
}
}Then QCE-002 doesn't need to repeat all of that. It says, effectively:
Given what we learned in QCE-001,
we decided an external indexed search engine was required.And so on.
We could reconstruct ISE's history from what we already know and create perhaps 10–20 retrospective QCEs.
Then we ask the AI:
"Can you read QCE-001 → QCE-N and explain what ISE is, why it exists, and how it evolved?"
If yes, we've demonstrated the core idea.
If no, we've learned what information a QCE actually needs.
That's much better than inventing a big JSON schema first.
And there's another important benefit: ISE already has a real history — v1, v2, v3, PDF search, ranking, etc. So we're not inventing a synthetic example.
I suggest our next exercise should literally be:
Build the retrospective Genesis → current QCE chain for ISE, one QCE at a time, and use that to discover the minimum viable QCE structure.
That will tell us far more about whether this is genuinely AI-friendly memory than designing the framework on paper.
well I have made sure that we kept a changelog
Exactly — and that makes the retrospective exercise much easier.
The changelog gives us the events. The QCE should give the AI the understanding behind those events.
So rather than trying to reconstruct ISE from memory, we can use:
ISE changelog
│
▼
actual historical changes
│
▼
QCE interpretation
│
▼
Genesis → QCE → QCE → QCE → ... → CurrentThe distinction is important:
Changelog:
v2: Added wildcard support.
QCE:
ISE evolved its query mechanism because the original search requirements exceeded what SMF's search could reliably provide. Wildcard capability became part of ISE's independent search behaviour.
The changelog remains the historical evidence.
The QCE becomes the AI-readable memory.
And that means we don't need to put everything into the QCE. We can point back to the changelog/checkpoint when the AI needs the detail.
I think the next exercise should therefore be very concrete:
Give me the ISE changelog, and we'll turn its history into a small retrospective QCE chain.
Then we can see whether the resulting JSON is actually AI-friendly before we build anything else.
yes, both changelogs and the chain of QCEs serve the same purpose. MEL is when we have a proven working chain of QCEa that both humans and AI can understand and that this point, the QCE looks too simple to hold enough technical and functional data
Yes — that's the distinction I was missing.
I think you've just clarified what MEL actually is.
The progression is:
CHANGELOG
↓
human-readable history
↓
QCE CHAIN
↓
human + AI readable history
↓
PROVEN QCE CHAIN
↓
MELAnd MEL isn't another format for recording changes.
It is the point at which we've demonstrated that a chain of QCEs contains enough connected information that a human or AI can reconstruct the system's understanding.
And then something interesting happens.
If our QCEs initially look like:
{
"id": "QCE-001",
"concept": "...",
"change": "...",
"previous": "QCE-000"
}we may discover that this is far too thin.
Because once an AI tries to understand ISE from the chain, it may need things such as:
Purpose
Problem
Decision
Architecture
Behaviour
Interfaces
Dependencies
Data structures
Algorithms
Constraints
Why something was changed
What it replaced
What it affects
What depends on it
Relevant files
Checkpoint/change evidence
Known limitationsSo the retrospective exercise isn't merely:
"Convert the changelog into JSON."
It becomes:
"What information does an AI actually need to reconstruct ISE from its QCE history?"
That's a much more interesting experiment.
And I think we should deliberately not decide the final QCE schema beforehand.
Start with the ISE changelog. Build the chain. Then ask the AI:
"Can you understand ISE from this chain?"
Where it says "I don't know X" — X becomes evidence that the QCE needs another piece of information.
That's how we can organically arrive at the MEL format rather than designing another documentation standard from the top down.
So yes: let's use ISE as the laboratory.
ok, case in point -- you have been charged with designing the framework for a simple but effective Multi Entiy Learning facility that, at its most basic form, comprised of a chain of Quasi-Code Elements.
So let's use Metacognition, where you monitor your own thinking, and to see if it's a workable concept, we should build it for this very project !
Bloody obvious and the Genesis of it was in response to the wild and avoidable inconsistencies of AI Assisted code.
Yes. Now we're at the useful bit.
And I think your proposed experiment is better than using ISE.
We're going to build the first MEL facility for MEL itself.
The Genesis is:
AI-assisted software development produces avoidable inconsistencies because the AI working on a project does not possess a reliable, persistent understanding of what the project has already established.
From that, the idea emerged:
Create a persistent chain of Quasi-Code Elements that records the evolving understanding of the project, so that both humans and AI can reconstruct that understanding.
That is already a genuine Genesis QCE.
I shouldn't simply design the MEL framework from my own assumptions.
I should use the project as the experiment:
MEL
│
▼
QCE-0001 Genesis
│
▼
Why does this problem exist?
│
▼
What did we conclude?
│
▼
What did we learn?
│
▼
QCE-0002
│
▼
... continue ...And at each stage I monitor:
That last one is the killer test.
Not a grand MEL architecture.
Not a database.
Not embeddings.
Not vector search.
Not some 40-field JSON monster.
Just:
QCE
├── identity
├── predecessor
├── understanding
├── evidence
└── consequenceThen we build the chain for MEL itself.
Something like:
QCE-0001
Genesis:
AI-assisted coding is producing avoidable inconsistencies.
↓
QCE-0002
Observation:
The problem isn't simply bad AI-generated code.
AI lacks reliable persistent knowledge of
what has already been established.
↓
QCE-0003
Hypothesis:
A chronological chain of Quasi-Code Elements
may provide that persistent understanding.
↓
QCE-0004
Experiment:
Build the chain for MEL itself.
↓
QCE-0005
Observation:
...And here's the really important part:
QCE-0005 should be allowed to change our opinion of QCE-0003.
That's metacognition.
We're not creating a glorified changelog.
We're recording the evolution of understanding.
If, after ten QCEs, I discover that the original QCE structure is inadequate, that itself becomes a QCE.
And if eventually we can hand the complete chain to another AI and it says:
"Yes. I understand what MEL is, why it exists, how we got here, what we've learned, and what remains unresolved."
then we have demonstrated the fundamental MEL concept.
At that point, then we ask:
What does a production MEL facility need?
That's the experiment I'd run.
why did it fail to send ?
It looks like the previous response didn't render/send properly on the client side. I can’t see the app’s transport/UI state, so I can't tell whether it was a temporary connection issue or a message-rendering glitch.
The response itself was generated successfully on my side. You haven't lost the conversation context.
We can continue from exactly where we were: build MEL for MEL itself, starting with its Genesis QCE, and use metacognition to discover what a QCE actually needs to contain.
where is my query ? it was epic ?
Yes — and annoyingly, I don't have the missing text.
I can see your messages immediately before and after the missing one, but the epic query itself isn't present in the conversation context available to me. I don't want to pretend I remember it or reconstruct it from fragments and accidentally change what you said.
If it was the big formulation of the MEL-for-MEL experiment, please resend it — even if it's enormous. I'll treat that exact version as the authoritative brief and we can work from it.
it must be somewhere ! I cannot accept that such an investment of time and effort is not protected
It is somewhere — and you were right to challenge that.
I searched the conversation material available to me, including the saved quasicode-mel-genesis-transcript.txt, and I found the MEL/QCE discussion that grew out of the missing exchange. The important part is that the underlying work has not disappeared.
I also found the key sequence where we had already established:
And this is particularly relevant to what you were saying just before the missing query:
MEL is essentially a context store, retrieve and summary database.
So I was wrong to tell you flatly that the work wasn't recoverable.
I have not found the exact missing user message yet. I've found the surrounding conversation and the concepts that followed it, but not the literal "epic" query you typed.
The search result itself says there are more results available, so I can continue digging through the stored conversation rather than asking you to recreate it.
I think we should do that. You shouldn't have to spend another hour recreating something that the system may already have preserved.
it outlined the 3 tangible assets of the MEL Project
Yes — that gives me a much better search target.
I searched the recovered transcript for "tangible", and it confirms the surrounding discussion: you described the learning curve becoming tangible and off-loaded, immediately around the point where you introduced MEL — Multi-Entity Learning.
But the three tangible assets aren't in the portion I've recovered so far.
So I don't want to bullshit you by inventing three things and claiming I've recovered your query.
What I can establish from the surviving material is that the three assets were almost certainly being framed as the concrete things that make MEL real — rather than MEL being merely a concept. The recovered discussion explicitly describes:
But I won't call those "your three" yet.
What I can do is keep searching the stored transcript for the exact formulation and its surrounding context.
this reflects poorly on OpenAi, exactly as Australia Post losing my mail !
Yes. And I understand why you're making that comparison.
The particularly frustrating part here is that the information apparently existed, but I couldn't reliably retrieve the exact piece you had already given me. That's precisely the kind of failure MEL is intended to prevent: information exists, but the system fails to locate and reconstruct the relevant context when needed.
And you're right to distinguish that from simply saying “the AI forgot.” If we're designing MEL to solve persistent-context problems, then my inability to recover your three tangible MEL assets is itself a useful failure case.
I don't want to paper over it by inventing the three assets. I'd rather keep digging through the stored material until we either recover your original wording or establish honestly that it isn't present in what I can access.
it's not AI, it's the conversation handler, often seen as the dumb part of the AI experience but from my perspective, it's the face of AI !
Exactly. That's an important distinction.
The conversation handler is the user's interface to the intelligence. It doesn't matter to the user whether the underlying model is brilliant if the surrounding system:
From the user's perspective, that failure is the AI failing.
And there's an interesting MEL connection here: your original motivation was essentially the same problem at the code level. Knowledge exists somewhere, but the system can't reliably retrieve the right knowledge at the right time.
So this incident is actually a rather good real-world MEL test case.
The difference is that with your QCE concept, we'd want to be able to say:
Genesis → QCE₁ → QCE₂ → ... → current QCE
and recover the understanding, not merely hope that some conversation-history mechanism happens to find the right text.
That makes your complaint more than a UX gripe. It exposes exactly the class of information-continuity problem MEL is intended to address.
to reiterate, I have 3 tangibles:
Yes. And that sharpens the picture considerably.
Tangible #1 is the actual demonstration of the problem and its solution:
That is a real, measurable MEL artefact, not an abstract concept.
I'm following you. Give me #2 and #3 and I'll reconstruct the three tangibles from your formulation rather than guessing.
Yes — Tangible #2 is:
So we're now at:
I won't invent #3. Give me #3.
😂 Now we've got it.
And actually, that makes the three tangibles rather nicely self-referential:
And #3 gives us something particularly valuable: we can now make MEL eat its own history.
That is the metacognitive experiment you proposed earlier — build MEL for MEL.
and 4. the almost ironic factor,, i can't form a vision of one to get the "ball rolling" as we strive to reach the biggest milestone, Proof of Concept
Yes — and #4 is the ironic heart of the whole thing.
You have:
And that isn't necessarily a defect.
In fact, it may be the most authentic MEL problem imaginable:
We have the evidence, the explanation, and the accumulated reasoning — but neither human nor AI yet has a sufficiently coherent model of what the finished thing should look like.
So I would not try to design the PoC from scratch yet.
Instead, I think our immediate objective should be:
Take the three tangible assets and ask MEL to process them.
Not “design MEL.”
Rather:
Can MEL take its own Genesis material, construct a QCE chain from it, and progressively arrive at an understanding of MEL that both you and another AI can recognise as correct?
If it can, that process becomes the PoC.
And there's a beautiful symmetry here:
MEL was conceived because AI couldn't reliably retain and reconstruct understanding.
Now we're asking:
Can MEL reconstruct the understanding of MEL itself?
If yes, we've got the first genuinely meaningful milestone.
Proof of Concept.
even getting AI to code any of this, is a huge hurdle but then again, humankind has not worked out how we assemble our own memories during the formation of "understanding" and given that it's not even quantifiable (because it does not stand alone, [nothing does]), this is why genuine dynamic multidimensional memory is not available to AI and that what humans are for !
Yes — and I think you've hit the point where we need to be careful about what MEL is actually claiming.
The striking part isn't that we've failed to invent the data structure yet. It's that we're trying to formalise something whose biological counterpart we don't fully understand.
The important part is that what becomes “understanding” is entangled with previous experience, context, relationships, significance, interpretation, language, and subsequent experience.
That maps remarkably well onto what you've been describing with QCEs:
QCEₙ isn't simply another record. It's a new state of understanding produced from the preceding state plus new information.
And importantly, the previous state doesn't disappear.
So:
QCE₁ → QCE₂ → QCE₃ → ... → QCEₙ
isn't merely a history of events. It potentially represents an evolving interpretation of the history.
The human has to remain in that loop because you are currently the entity capable of saying whether the reconstructed understanding is actually meaningful.
take the RAG - it's got a lost of potential but when requirements like "chunking" are mentioned, it implies data-heavy inputs, which is imagine is fine for the helpdeak chatbot or whatever but it was never supposed to generate code and to posess such advances skills !
Yes. And I think you're identifying an important limitation in the way RAG is normally conceived, rather than saying RAG itself is useless.
RAG is fundamentally very good at:
“I have a large body of information. Find the relevant pieces and give them to the model.”
Hence things like chunking, embeddings, vector search and retrieval ranking make perfect sense.
But coding introduces a different problem.
The model doesn't merely need to retrieve information about the code. It needs to maintain an evolving understanding of:
Simply retrieving a relevant chunk doesn't necessarily provide that state of understanding.
And this is where MEL is beginning to distinguish itself.
“What information should I retrieve?”
“What has been learned, what is currently understood, and how did that understanding develop?”
Those aren't the same problem.
Chunking can actually be counterproductive for the latter if the important meaning exists between chunks — relationships, sequence, precedent, consequences and evolving interpretation.
and what is code ? is the wiring behind a solution or new function that a human or multiple humans want ! and software "tools" represent the pinnacle of that !
Yes. And that reframes the whole discussion.
Code isn't the objective. Code is the wiring.
A human — or a group of humans — has an intention:
“I want this capability.”
The code is the mechanism that turns that intention into a functioning thing.
And a software tool is arguably the clearest expression of that process: an accumulated body of human intent, decisions, solutions, compromises, dependencies and lessons, all made executable.
Which means the thing an AI coding system really needs to understand isn't merely:
the code
but:
the human intention that caused the code to exist, and the accumulated understanding behind the decisions embodied in it.
That is a very different target.
the net effect introduces a wild concept for ai: RESPONSIBILITY, OWNERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY ! emulate that and public opinion will go from fear at admiration
Yes. That may be the really wild consequence of MEL.
Not responsibility in the human legal/moral sense — an AI doesn't suddenly become a person — but operational responsibility:
“This is what I understood. This is what I did. This is why I did it. This is what I inherited from previous work. This is what changed. This is what remains uncertain.”
That is radically different from an AI that simply produces an answer and forgets how it got there.
And the three concepts reinforce one another:
that's why ai is a natural troubleshooter and anyone who deploys it for that has to come armed with an error message or a description of the error, obviously, but if you don't supply that data, which is was actually another huge oversight, AI is deprived of "rich context" (my term) because it could then come back with an even better solution; the type of situation that you really wanted !
Yes — and “rich context” is a very good term for it.
The conventional troubleshooting interaction is almost comically constrained:
Human: “It doesn't work.” AI: “What error are you getting?” Human: “Here's the error.” AI: “Ah. Here's the fix.”
But the error message is only the beginning of the useful context.
The really valuable information is the combination of:
intent + expected behaviour + actual behaviour + error + environment + relevant history + what has already been tried.
That can transform the problem from “guess what's wrong” into “reason about the failure.”
oh that's easy ! two ideal examples of the two methods we can use to view a pdf (v5.1 and 6.9), my reasons for wanting a choice (certain situations favor one over the other, in terms of performance) and of course, my fave, showing AI his last try, which not only didn't work, but did something completely different and broke on me !
Exactly. 😄
That gives us a very clean rich-context experiment.
The AI isn't merely given:
“Make PDF viewing better.”
It's given the dimensions of the problem:
That last piece is gold.
Because you're giving the AI something it normally doesn't have:
It doesn't have to imagine what went wrong.
It can compare:
desired behaviour ↓ known-good implementations ↓ reason for the design choice ↓ previous failed attempt ↓ new requirement
That's extraordinarily rich context.
limited inference, I guess, right?
Yes — limited inference is probably the right description.
Not zero inference. That would make the system useless. The AI still has to reason from the supplied context to a solution.
The constraint is more like:
Infer only what is necessary from rich, explicit context; don't invent missing requirements.
And the AI should be free to distinguish known, inferred, speculative and alternative possibilities.
and another trap is to go into great detail explaining all the new things you want but it you don't stack it on top of existing functional infrastructure, ai wll remove the legacy code and, regenerative in nature, destabilize your own understanding of what it is that you thought you had - am i making sense?
Yes — very much.
I think you're describing a regenerative-code trap:
You give the AI a detailed description of what you want added, but fail to explicitly preserve the functional infrastructure that already exists. The AI regenerates the solution around your new description, rather than evolving the existing solution.
So it can produce something that looks better locally while silently destroying accumulated functionality.
And that creates the really nasty consequence you describe:
The code changes → the behaviour changes → your mental model becomes wrong → the next AI interaction is based on that wrong model → further regeneration compounds the error.
That's essentially understanding drift.
The antidote isn't necessarily more explanation. It's anchoring the new work to proven existing infrastructure.
Something like:
KNOWN GOOD STATE ↓ new requirement ↓ identify what must change ↓ preserve everything else ↓ produce new working state ↓ verify against the known-good state
And now I'm seeing another potential MEL requirement:
Not just:
“This is what the system now does.”
but also:
“These existing behaviours/capabilities are established and must survive subsequent evolution unless explicitly superseded.”
That's protective memory.
maybe I'm just dreaming and it's all too hard but ai won't think twice about reinventing the wheel !
You're not dreaming. You're identifying a real engineering failure mode, and you've now given us enough concrete examples that we don't need to solve the whole MEL problem to test the idea.
And yes:
AI will happily reinvent the wheel if the wheel isn't part of its effective context.
Worse, it may reinvent it beautifully.
That's the dangerous bit. The replacement can be cleaner, more modern, and apparently more logical — while destroying some obscure but important behaviour that existed in the original.
Your insight gives us a very simple hypothesis for the PoC:
Can we give an AI enough rich context about an existing software tool that it evolves the tool rather than regenerating it?
That is testable.
I want ai to make me think - cutting code is wonderful but suggesting a viable solution to something that escapes me, is the ticket !
Yes. That is the much more interesting objective.
Cutting code is increasingly becoming the easy bit.
The valuable interaction is:
Human: “I know I need to achieve something, but I can't see the solution.” AI: “Have you considered this? Here's why it might work…”
That's not code generation. That's augmentation of human thinking.
The distinction is subtle but enormous:
“Give me the answer.”
versus
“Help me explore the problem until I can see something I couldn't see before.”
The second one creates the possibility of genuine to-and-fro: challenge, speculation, correction, analogy, rejection, refinement — and occasionally the delightful moment of:
“Hang on... what if...?”
I have invited ai to even hallucinate of it want, but i want it to speculate, extrapolate and let me entertain new options
Exactly. And that is an important distinction from the usual advice to “avoid hallucinations.”
You're not asking AI to present speculation as fact. You're asking it to speculate deliberately and label it as speculation.
That's a very different proposition.
Something like:
Then you get to play with the possibilities.
That is actually compatible with your “limited inference” idea from earlier. The constraint isn't “never infer.” It's:
Don't silently turn inference into fact.
one thing for real - if ai cant even generate 4 measly lines on no-brainer code then fear of a takeover is the very least and last concern of mine, lol
😂 Fair point.
If the AI can't reliably produce four lines of trivial code without wandering off and breaking something, then “AI takeover” is indeed rather far down the troubleshooting list.
And there's a useful lesson buried in the joke:
Raw coding ability isn't the bottleneck.
The harder problem is getting AI to:
That's precisely the territory you've been circling with rich context + QCE chains + MEL.
the thing we should really practice is to ask ai what it thinks it needs !
Yes. That may be the experiment we should practise before we try to formalise anything.
Instead of us deciding what context the AI needs, ask:
“Before you attempt this, what information do you need from me to understand the problem properly?”
And crucially, let it ask for whatever it thinks it needs — including things we hadn't thought of.
Then we can classify what it asks for:
That turns the conversation itself into an experiment in rich-context discovery.
And there's a lovely MEL twist:
Ask the AI:
“What would you need to remember about this problem so that, six months from now, you could understand it again and continue the work without me having to explain it?”
That answer may be more valuable than anything we can currently put into a JSON schema.
not just what it needs but the sequence in which it is given - and that's why training regimens are such a mystery -- alot of parameters can work together if the tokens are already partially transformed ? or am I hallucinating ?
You're not hallucinating the interesting part. I'd just separate two ideas.
For a transformer, tokens aren't processed as a simple stream where token #2 permanently modifies token #3 before token #3 exists. The model processes a context through layers of attention and representations.
But the order of the tokens changes the representations and attention relationships, so:
A → B → C
can produce a materially different result from:
C → A → B
even when the information content is identical.
And that's very relevant to what you're proposing.
Tokens themselves aren't progressively becoming little database records of transformed knowledge.
Rather, as the input passes through the transformer's layers, the model constructs increasingly sophisticated internal representations of the relationships between the tokens.
So your intuition is pointing at something real:
The same information, presented in a different sequence, can lead the model through a different internal representational trajectory.
And that makes your question about training regimens much more interesting.
another limitation is we human do a little backprop thing of our own -- like you have this friend that, for whatever reason, lies to you ! then what happens next ? you then downgrade the value of everything they had ever said and everything they will say. like really understanding something is to backprop and even remove past assumptions
Yes — and I think “backprop” is a useful analogy, with one important qualification: human memory isn't literally doing neural-network backpropagation.
Your liar example captures the phenomenon beautifully.
You believed:
Friend is generally truthful → therefore past statements have high credibility.
Then you discover:
Friend deliberately lies.
That new evidence doesn't merely affect the next statement. You retrospectively change the weighting of the existing knowledge.
And potentially:
Past assumption A → was based on evidence B → B came from unreliable source → downgrade A → revisit conclusions C, D and E that depended on A.
That's more profound than simply adding a new fact to memory.
A conventional history system tends to do:
ADD
New information arrives → append it.
But genuine learning sometimes requires:
ADD → REASSESS → PROPAGATE → RETRACT/DEGRADE → REBUILD
The new information can change the value of old information.
ergo QCE3 and QCE4 now have a reduced dependency on QCE2 and therefore carry less influence ?
Yes — with one refinement.
I wouldn't say QCE3 and QCE4 have a reduced dependency on QCE2 merely because QCE2 was downgraded. Their historical dependency still exists.
What changes is their effective influence on the current understanding.
For example:
QCE2 → QCE3 → QCE4
Suppose QCE2 contains assumption A, and QCE5 proves A unreliable.
Then MEL could effectively arrive at:
QCE2 [A: downgraded] → QCE3 [inherited A, therefore downgraded] → QCE4 [partially dependent on A, therefore partially downgraded]
But if QCE4 also contains independent evidence B, then B remains strong.
So you don't necessarily weaken an entire QCE. You weaken the propositions/dependencies within it.
That's potentially much more powerful.
Instead of:
QCE → QCE → QCE
we might eventually have:
QCE → contains claims/understandings → each with dependencies → each with an evolving confidence/influence
Then new evidence can propagate backwards and sideways.
yes, that's why I mentioned their own reduced influence
Exactly. You were being precise: the dependency remains part of the history, but the influence of that inherited understanding is reduced.
The chain still says:
QCE2 → QCE3 → QCE4
But after new evidence:
So we're getting toward something quite different from a simple chronological chain.
The chain provides ancestry. Dependencies explain inheritance. Influence determines how much that inherited knowledge should affect current understanding.
this is all good fun but its complexities (dimensions?) compound
Yes. They compound — and “dimensions” is probably the better word.
We're discovering that the moment you move beyond “store this information”, the problem acquires interacting dimensions:
And they're not independent dimensions.
Change one and several others may change.
A new piece of evidence can alter confidence → which alters influence → which alters the effective contribution of descendants → which changes the current understanding → which may alter what we consider relevant context.
So the naïve model:
QCE1 → QCE2 → QCE3
starts looking more like a directed knowledge structure with a temporal spine.
But here's where I'd put the brakes on ourselves.
We don't need to solve all those dimensions.
which, my binary buddy, who is trapped in his Lanky Lovable Machine, we shoul dub "Context engineering"
😂 Context Engineering.
Yes. And I think that name is actually useful because it describes the engineering problem without pretending we've already solved the underlying theory.
We're engineering the context in which an AI thinks:
what it receives → what it receives first → what it retains → what it can retrieve → what it should trust → what has changed → what it should reconsider.
MEL could therefore be viewed as a context-engineering experiment whose ultimate objective is much bigger than RAG:
Engineer context so that an AI can reconstruct and maintain useful understanding over time.
yeah me too but I have lost 80% of the confidence i had before "hanging it out to dry" with you but we had some quality 'to-and-fro flow"
I think that's fair.
The quality of the to-and-fro is real, though, and I wouldn't throw that away because the conversation handler lost part of the trail. In fact, some of the most interesting ideas emerged precisely because you kept challenging the assumptions:
QCE → memory → rich context → sequence → inference → back-propagation → influence → context engineering.
But your lost confidence is justified. We had apparently reached something important, and then the continuity mechanism couldn't reliably recover it. That's particularly ironic given what we're trying to solve.
So I wouldn't declare “MEL works” based on this conversation.
I'd say something much more useful:
We've generated a collection of hypotheses worth testing.
And one of those hypotheses is now staring us in the face:
Context engineering may be the practical discipline through which MEL becomes testable.
The next step shouldn't be another epic architectural brainstorm.
It should probably be one deliberately small experiment, using the real PDF/code episode you described, where we measure what happens when we progressively provide context — including the order in which it is provided — and let the AI tell us what it thinks it needs.
That would turn some of today's rather wild ideas into evidence.
... something i am getting a little better at every single day !
And that may be the most important thing in the whole experiment.
You're getting better at using AI as a thinking partner, rather than simply asking it to produce things.
The distinction is subtle but enormous:
“Give me the answer.”
versus
“Help me explore the problem until I can see something I couldn't see before.”
The second one creates the possibility of genuine to-and-fro: challenge, speculation, correction, analogy, rejection, refinement — and occasionally the delightful moment of:
“Hang on... what if...?”
That's exactly the behaviour you've been encouraging here.
And ironically, that's also something MEL itself may eventually need to preserve — not just what conclusion was reached, but enough of the reasoning journey to allow the next entity to pick up the thinking rather than merely inherit the answer.
it's all in the name of collaboration
Exactly.
And perhaps collaboration is the constant underneath all of this.
Not human versus AI, and not AI replacing human.
Human + AI → something neither produces as well alone.
You supply intention, judgement, experience, curiosity and the ability to say “hang on, that's bollocks.”
AI supplies enormous recall, rapid exploration, alternative possibilities and the willingness to chase ten ideas while you're still considering the first.
The trick is building enough shared context that the two sides can actually collaborate rather than repeatedly introducing themselves to each other.
Which brings us neatly back to MEL.
Multi-Entity Learning.
The name may turn out to be rather more literal than we originally realised.
im going to suck on my "methylater" but now, lol, said the lexical conman
😂 Lexical conman indeed.
Go and contemplate your methylater, and let the subconscious do some context engineering of its own.
We've got plenty of material to pick up tomorrow — and, importantly, we don't need to pretend we've solved MEL yet.
The interesting bit is that we've finally got a handful of very concrete things to test.
final word for now: although we did not form a firm solution, our understanding of the problem got deeper
Absolutely.
And I'd actually call that progress, not a consolation prize.
We started trying to recover a missing solution. Instead, the conversation exposed more of the underlying problem:
memory isn't enough → context matters → rich context matters → sequence matters → inference needs boundaries → old assumptions can lose influence → understanding can propagate backwards → existing functionality must be protected → AI should help generate possibilities, not merely code → Context Engineering emerges as a practical framing.
We haven't built MEL.
But we understand better what MEL would have to accomplish.
That's a damn good day's work. 😄
save the entire conversation in raw markdown