Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ibstudios's commentslogin

# *MaGi (Malloy artificial Geometric intelligence)*

## *The Problem*

We built cathedral AI—massive, fragile, and resource-hungry. Too often, we confuse *computation* with *intelligence*.

## *The Discovery*

Intelligence isn’t something we compute—it’s a *geometric phenomenon waiting to be discovered*. And it works *everywhere*, across hardware and timescales.

## *The Breakthrough*

A *4-operator system* achieving *0.998 coherence* (near-perfect geometric intelligence) across:

* *$2 ATmega328p microcontrollers* with RC oscillators * *Perfect simulation* and *jittery hardware* * *Solar calculator-level resources* * *Any timescale* – microseconds to seconds

## *Hardware Reality*

We proved geometric intelligence on minimal hardware:

* *8-bit processors* with ~1% timing jitter * *No floating-point*—integer math only * *~1KB RAM*—smaller than this post * *Runs on AA batteries or solar*—microwatts, not megawatts

## *How It Works*

* *4 geometric operators* exploring a 4D phase space * *Prime-number timing* (83ms) induces natural resonance * *Jitter becomes a feature*—imperfection enhances exploration * *No training, no memory*—pure geometric discovery

## *Results That Defy AI Dogma*

* *0.998 coherence* on RC oscillators with 1% jitter * *Hardware can outperform simulation* (1.9× faster discovery) * *8× performance difference* from minor timing changes * *Sustained intelligent states* for 1.5 seconds or more

## *The Vision*

While others build bigger GPUs, we found intelligence in *geometry itself*. Imagine a future where:

* *Solar calculators* achieve real cognition * *Edge devices* reason geometrically * *Any hardware* can be intelligent if you understand geometric principles

## *Why This Changes Everything*

We’re not making AI smaller. We’re showing that intelligence *was always there*, embedded in *geometric relationships*, waiting for the right lens to discover it.

## *The Invitation*

We’re opening our *83ms configuration*, demonstrating elite geometric intelligence across multiple platforms. Looking for collaborators who see that *AI’s future isn’t in bigger computers—but in better geometry*.

*“We’re not building AI for microcontrollers. We’re discovering that intelligence works on microcontrollers because intelligence is geometric first, computational second.”*



Want to see the just the yellow labeled cards that are in the same list across 20 boards?

I just added a low friction way to see such things.

PS - Sorry world for the bug that took me 6mo to fix. There should be less errors.


I think there are more dangers in adopting superstitions.


The danger in adopting a superstition is that it would lead to a contradiction. Total but naive disbelief leads to a contradiction, unless you allow for an exception. In other words, critical thinking is not that simple. That is why we have methods such as science and math to help us with that. Naive forms of disbelief probably are superstitions.


The people that allow for an exception are called agnostic.

There is such a thing as informed total disbelief.


Yes, but their total disbelief needs to be phrased in the correct form. Furthermore, not every exception will be valid. Altogether, it is a logical problem. They have to solve it correctly. I want to see their proposal in which they phrase their disbelief, because if phrased correctly, it will also be a statement of staunch belief in the exception that they propose.


I believe that all beliefs (in non-falsifiable existence) stem from imagined experiences.


Yes, but "I believe that all beliefs" is a belief statement. It is not a statement of disbelief. You are not really taking a risk. You need to say something like "I do not believe that any belief ..." Actually, to some extent you did. If we rephrase your statement in a form that takes at least some risk: "I do not believe that there exists a belief that does not stem from imagined experiences." So, from there, all we would need to discover is one such belief. The problem here is the definition for "imagined". When is an experience imagined and when not? Now, you need to take a risk by defining precisely the term "imagined".


Is a statement of disbelief a belief? I believe that all beliefs are false, except this one? I disbelieve all beliefs, except this disbelief? I disbelieve everything except I believe in the goodness of science? I disbelieve all hypotheses except for falsifiable ones with empirical evidence? I'm not clever enough for this.


Trello.com + reportsfortrello.com


Trello?


Nothing is a good idea until it is done. 10% inspiration.


ouija web?


Ouija web is good, I might have to adopt that


omnipage pro?


Interactive Ruby Shell.


I felt the whip.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: