Fair question. I’m using “AI” in the older, broader sense: automated intelligence, not specifically neural networks.
This kernel makes autonomous decisions under constraints, evaluates feasibility, rejects invalid states, and guarantees deterministic outcomes. That puts it closer to classical AI (rule-based systems, constraint solvers, control theory) than modern statistical ML.
If someone prefers to call it a deterministic decision kernel or constraint-based controller, I’m fine with that. The label matters less to me than the guarantees.
And why not write the promotional material by hand?
The core ideas, architecture, and code are mine. I used tools to help polish and structure the explanation, the same way people use spell-checkers, linters, or diagram tools.
If the project doesn’t stand on its technical merits, no amount of wording would save it. I’m happy to have it judged on the code and the claims instead.
> No GPU, no neural nets, no randomness
In what sense is it AI?
And why not write the promotional material by hand?
In what sense is it AI?
Fair question. I’m using “AI” in the older, broader sense: automated intelligence, not specifically neural networks.
This kernel makes autonomous decisions under constraints, evaluates feasibility, rejects invalid states, and guarantees deterministic outcomes. That puts it closer to classical AI (rule-based systems, constraint solvers, control theory) than modern statistical ML.
If someone prefers to call it a deterministic decision kernel or constraint-based controller, I’m fine with that. The label matters less to me than the guarantees.
And why not write the promotional material by hand?
The core ideas, architecture, and code are mine. I used tools to help polish and structure the explanation, the same way people use spell-checkers, linters, or diagram tools.
If the project doesn’t stand on its technical merits, no amount of wording would save it. I’m happy to have it judged on the code and the claims instead.