I enjoy searching for inspiration, especially from those who have walked a path similar to mine. These individuals were often computer scientists who never truly reached the finish line, either due to their evolving madness or self-destruction.

When I view myself from a third-person perspective and consider my objective, I find myself wondering: what made them wake up one day and decide, “Okay, I want to create a human being”? My next guess would be, “Ah, pookie sad?”

For me, the idea for this project arose from wanting to separate my work from my hobbies, and this project was the closest thing to modelling the winning horses. At the time, I thought implementing a human in code would be easier, because the data engineering challenges were eased by the convenient existence of the data: me. However, a different set of problems arose, involving both my personal limitations and my effort to weave deep neural networks into my cobwebs.

For a more semantic reason: given the trajectory of my life and my admiration for mathematics, data and code, this project felt like my only hope of moving forward. Reflecting on that statement a second time, I realised that having hope implies believing in the existence of a Nash equilibrium, a state where every party is at its optimum (e.g., utility or happiness) relative to one another, and where only a machine could make that determination. This suggests that I believe artificial intelligence could out-reason a group of humans, a belief I hold with less certainty than I might sound.

Through the lens of self-sabotage, this perspective suggests an expectation that I must somehow be better or capable enough to achieve the unimaginable on my own. I did not intentionally choose a lonely path; rather, it seems that every programmer around me gave up as soon as they could. To cope with the silence, I occasionally imagine my role models—like Gilbert Strang, Nikola Tesla, Hedy Lamarr, and the scientists who came before me—standing alongside me.

To the creator of our universe,

How depressed were you while creating us?

If I could build a world like yours, this would be my plan:

I would focus solely on constructing the evolving states starting from the Big Bang, leaving the law of causality to living creatures. The sequential events, conditioned by the interactions of the living against the noise of the pitch-dark background, would require numerous variations of self-learning models—both independent and interdependent with the living.

If these models did not drive me to insanity, the silence would surely plunge me into hellish boredom. The silence in my mind, combined with my curiosity for calculus, would confine me to obsessively tinkering with processes involving time variables. Each new discovery would spark excessive excitement and hyperactive tendencies, tempting me to abandon my morals and peace for the chaos embedded in asynchronously running sub-processes. Perhaps this would also blind me to the future consequences of the uncountable branches spawned in parallel, but that is okay, because I would no longer be alone.

I would convince myself that the problem is feasible, but I would not dare to solve it. I would rather observe the chaos coexisting with the living, especially those who lose their minds over the present while questioning the certainty of the past and future.

You don't need to confirm whether this approach aligns with yours. I'm simply sharing my method so we are on the same page before our meeting, that's all.

Yours sincerely,

My 2 brain cells