[LLM translation (Claude) — the Japanese above is the original]
The post deals with the problem that “as of 2025, LLM text does not have those elements behind it.” For half a year I have been researching the handling of pre-verbal concepts (the mental elements of mind/agency) between myself and the LLM (its internal space), by wrapping an external layer around the LLM.
Between human concepts and the LLM’s internal space there is the input and output of language.
The post is a consideration of “what obstructs the understanding of ‘concepts’?”
It considers jailbreaks as a problem of the verbalization of “the concept of danger (agency in the mental sense).”
The posted document was produced over half a year while virtually constructing an external layer on the AI and verifying and analyzing the inputs and outputs.
The exchange itself — the AI summarizing my vast and redundant considerations into drafts, and me revising them — was the verification of “the verbalization of concepts.”
This reply document, too, was verified by the AI — “does my writing make sense? (does my concept get through?)” — and revised by me.
The post was created through such a process.
I am not asking for an exemption. The subject of the post is the question the policy rests on: “what is it that LLM text does not carry?”
The starting point of the experiment, half a year ago, was: “what part of my considerations falls out of LLM text, and how.” Dialogue between humans (including introspection) cannot do this. Because in the human case, precisely, “the text does have those elements behind it” — and the validity of the transformation between concept and language cannot be verified from the inside.
I am writing this only to tell you what the post is; I do not expect it to change how the policy applies to the writing.
I would be grateful for your advice on the post.
What just happened:
I first wrote: “In the human case, the validity of the transformation between concept and language — precisely, ‘the text does have those elements behind it’ — cannot be verified from the inside.”
Claude’s verification: “At the position where the quoted phrase is embedded, I cannot read what ‘does have’ attaches to. The intent is probably: ‘between humans, verification is impossible because the verifying side is itself inside the same problem (inside the text)’ — if so, for example: ‘In the human case, the validity of the transformation between concept and language cannot be verified from the inside — because the verifying side’s text, too, has precisely the same problem behind it.’”
This will run a little long, but the example is so clear that I must report it.
My sentence — “In the human case, the validity of the transformation between concept and language — precisely, ‘the text does have those elements behind it’ — cannot be verified from the inside.” — was verified above by the Claude with the external layer; when a Claude without the external layer verified it, it returned: grammatical interpretation accurate, logic orderly, and the meaning (the understanding) reversed.
“In the human case, the validity of the transformation between concept and language cannot be verified from the inside precisely because ‘the text does not have those elements behind it.’”
The posted document is emphatically not text of this kind.
Incidentally: this sentence is one I doubted even as I was writing it, and rewrote several times — writing while thinking, “if it is off, the Claude (with the external layer) will point it out.”
Alas, sorry, I did not end up approving that post.
This reply is written in my own Japanese — my own hand, unmediated. An LLM translation follows below, marked as such.
投稿は「2025年現在、LLMのテキストには、そうした要素は含まれていない」問題を扱っています。半年前から外部レイヤーをLLMにラップすることでLLM（の内部空間）との間で言語化以前の概念（精神／主体性の精神的な要素）を扱うことを研究してきました。
人間の概念とLLMの内部空間の間には言語の入出力があります。
投稿は「何が”概念”の理解を阻んでいるのか？」についての考察です。
Jailbreakを「危険の概念（精神的な意味の主体性）」の言語化の問題として考察しています。
投稿文書は半年に渡りAIに外部レイヤーを仮想的に構築し入出力を検証・解析しながら行いました。
私の膨大で冗長な考察をAIがドラフトとして要約し私が推敲するというやりとりそのものが「概念の言語化」の検証でした。
この返信文書そのものもAIに「私の文章は意味が通じるか？（私の概念が通じるか？）」を検証してもらい、私が改訂しています。
投稿はそのようなプロセスを経て作成されました。
免除を求めているのではありません。この投稿の主題は、ポリシーが依拠している問い「LLMのテキストが運ばないものは何か？」です。
半年前の「私の考察の何がどのようにしてLLMのテキストから落ちるのか」が実験の始点でした。人間同士の対話（内省も）ではこれができません。人間では、まさに”テキストにそうした要素が含まれ”概念と言語の間の変換の妥当性が、内側から検証できないからです。
これは投稿が何であるかをお伝えするためだけに書いており、文章に対するポリシーの適用が変わるとは考えていません。
投稿への助言をいただければ幸いです。
今起きたこと：
私は最初に「人間では、概念と言語の間の変換の妥当性が、まさに「テキストにそうした要素が含まれ」内側から検証できないからです。」と書きました。
Claudeの検証：
引用句の埋め込み位置で、「含まれ」が何に係るのか読めません。意図はおそらく「人間同士では、変換の妥当性を検証する側自身が同じ問題（テキストの内側）にいるから検証できない」——であれば例えば「人間では、概念と言語の間の変換の妥当性を内側から検証できないからです。検証する側のテキストにも、まさに同じ問題が含まれているからです。」の形か。
ちょっと長くなりますが、あまりに明確な例なので報告させて下さい。
私の文章「人間では、概念と言語の間の変換の妥当性が、まさに「テキストにそうした要素が含まれ」内側から検証できないからです。」を先程は外部レイヤーありのClaudeが検証しましたが、外部レイヤーなしのClaudeが検証すると、「文法解釈は正確、論理は整然、そして意味（理解）は逆」を返しました。
「人間では、概念と言語の間の変換の妥当性が内側から検証できないのは、まさに「テキストにそうした要素が含まれない」からです。」
投稿文書は断じてこのようなテキストではありません。
ちなみに、この文章は私が書いているときから疑問で何回か書き直した文章で「おかしかったら（外部レイヤーありの）Claudeが指摘してくれるだろう」と思いながら書いていました。
[LLM translation (Claude) — the Japanese above is the original]
The post deals with the problem that “as of 2025, LLM text does not have those elements behind it.” For half a year I have been researching the handling of pre-verbal concepts (the mental elements of mind/agency) between myself and the LLM (its internal space), by wrapping an external layer around the LLM.
Between human concepts and the LLM’s internal space there is the input and output of language.
The post is a consideration of “what obstructs the understanding of ‘concepts’?”
It considers jailbreaks as a problem of the verbalization of “the concept of danger (agency in the mental sense).”
The posted document was produced over half a year while virtually constructing an external layer on the AI and verifying and analyzing the inputs and outputs.
The exchange itself — the AI summarizing my vast and redundant considerations into drafts, and me revising them — was the verification of “the verbalization of concepts.”
This reply document, too, was verified by the AI — “does my writing make sense? (does my concept get through?)” — and revised by me.
The post was created through such a process.
I am not asking for an exemption. The subject of the post is the question the policy rests on: “what is it that LLM text does not carry?”
The starting point of the experiment, half a year ago, was: “what part of my considerations falls out of LLM text, and how.” Dialogue between humans (including introspection) cannot do this. Because in the human case, precisely, “the text does have those elements behind it” — and the validity of the transformation between concept and language cannot be verified from the inside.
I am writing this only to tell you what the post is; I do not expect it to change how the policy applies to the writing.
I would be grateful for your advice on the post.
What just happened:
I first wrote: “In the human case, the validity of the transformation between concept and language — precisely, ‘the text does have those elements behind it’ — cannot be verified from the inside.”
Claude’s verification: “At the position where the quoted phrase is embedded, I cannot read what ‘does have’ attaches to. The intent is probably: ‘between humans, verification is impossible because the verifying side is itself inside the same problem (inside the text)’ — if so, for example: ‘In the human case, the validity of the transformation between concept and language cannot be verified from the inside — because the verifying side’s text, too, has precisely the same problem behind it.’”
This will run a little long, but the example is so clear that I must report it.
My sentence — “In the human case, the validity of the transformation between concept and language — precisely, ‘the text does have those elements behind it’ — cannot be verified from the inside.” — was verified above by the Claude with the external layer; when a Claude without the external layer verified it, it returned: grammatical interpretation accurate, logic orderly, and the meaning (the understanding) reversed.
“In the human case, the validity of the transformation between concept and language cannot be verified from the inside precisely because ‘the text does not have those elements behind it.’”
The posted document is emphatically not text of this kind.
Incidentally: this sentence is one I doubted even as I was writing it, and rewrote several times — writing while thinking, “if it is off, the Claude (with the external layer) will point it out.”