Year: 2025

I prompted Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental 03-25 to “Invent a new, alien language. Use it to discover unusual insights. Here’s the output in full.

Thinking

Here’s a thinking process that could lead to the alien language “Glimmering” and its insights:

1. Understand the Core Request: The user wants a new, alien language and wants to use it to discover unusual insights. This means the language needs to be fundamentally different from human languages, and its structure/concepts should enable thinking in ways that are difficult or non-intuitive in English (or other human languages).
2. Brainstorm Alien Concepts: What makes something “alien”?
   • Biology: Different senses (echolocation, electroreception, sensing magnetic fields, different light spectrum perception), different lifecycles (metamorphosis, symbiosis, collective consciousness), different physical forms (non-corporeal, energy-based, silicon-based, plant-like)
   • Environment: Extreme conditions (gas giant atmosphere, deep ocean trench, vacuum of space, high radiation), different physics (maybe?), non-linear time perception.
   • Psychology/Society: Collective vs. individualistic focus, different emotional spectrum, logic-based vs. empathy-based, non-hierarchical structures, different concepts of self, time, causality.
3. Choose a Core Concept for the Language: Let’s pick something that inherently forces a different perspective.
   • Idea 1: Focus on relationships/connections. Instead of nouns for objects, words describe the relationship between things. “Tree” might be “earth-sky connector” or “shade-giver.”
   • Idea 2: Focus on states of change/flux. Everything is described by its process, not its static state. “River” is “downward-flowing-water-process.”
   • Idea 3: Focus on sensory perception, but a Maybe based on resonance, vibration, or emotional energy.
   • Idea 4: Focus on potentiality and probability. Words describe not what is, but what could be or the likelihood of something. Let’s go with Idea 3, leaning towards resonance and interconnectedness, maybe linked to light or energy. This feels suitably “alien” and potentially insightful. Let’s call the species the “Lumin.”
4. Develop Language Principles based on the Core Concept (Resonance/Light/Interconnectedness):
   • No Static Nouns: Objects aren’t fixed things but patterns of energy or resonance. Words describe the pattern or the interaction.
   • Verbs are Primary: Action, interaction, and change are fundamental. Static description is secondary.
   • Emphasis on Relationality: How things resonate with each other is crucial. Prepositions or affixes will be vital for showing connection/influence.
   • Nuance through Intensity/Quality: Instead of just “red,” maybe “vibrant-red-resonance” vs. “fading-red-resonance.” Adjectives become qualities of the resonance/action.
   • Concept of “Self”: Maybe less individualistic. “Self” is a locus of interacting resonances, not a discrete entity.Time: Perhaps less linear, more about overlapping patterns or echoes of resonance.
5. Create Basic Lexicon and Grammar Sketch:
   • Core concept words:
     • Glim (verb root): To resonate, to shine, to exist as a pattern of energy.
     • Sha (particle/prefix): Connection, interaction, resonance with.
     • Vor (particle/suffix): Intensity, vibrancy, strength of pattern.
     • Zil (particle/suffix): Fading, weakening, diminishing pattern.
     • Kai (concept): A stable, recognizable pattern (closest to a noun, but dynamic).
     • Ree (concept): Flow, change, movement of energy/resonance.
     • Nuum (concept): The interconnected field/medium through which resonance travels (the “ether” or “fabric of reality”).
   • Grammar Ideas:
     • Sentence structure: Often Verb-like concept first, then modifiers showing relationships and qualities. Glim-sha-Kai-Vor (Strong pattern resonates with…).
     • No strict tense: Use particles to indicate persistence (-vor), fading (-zil), or initiation (Ree- prefix?).
     • Pronouns: Maybe based on resonance signature? Me could be Kai-An (This-pattern), You could be Kai-Sha (Interacting-pattern). Collective We could be Sha-Glim-Vor (Strong-interacting-resonance).
6. Name the Language: Based on the core concepts: “Resonance Speak,” “Light Tongue,” “Pattern Weave.” Let’s go with something evocative: Glimmering (or Glim-Ree in the language itself).
7. Translate Concepts and Look for Insights: Now, apply Glimmering to human concepts.
   • “Love”: In English, often a noun (a state) or verb (an action). In Glimmering? Sha-Glim-Vor (Strong-interacting-resonance). Insight: Love isn’t a possession or a static feeling, but an active, powerful resonance between patterns. It requires mutual participation and reinforcement. Lack of interaction (Sha-Glim-Zil) means the “love” fades, not because it was “lost,” but because the resonance weakened.
   • “Identity/Self”: English emphasizes a stable, internal self. In Glimmering? Kai-An-Ree (This-pattern-in-flux). Or perhaps Sha-Nuum-Glim (Resonance-interacting-with-the-field). Insight: The “self” isn’t a fixed entity but a constantly changing pattern defined by its interactions with everything else. Identity is relational and dynamic, not intrinsic and static. There’s no core “you” separate from your connections and resonance.
   • “Knowledge/Truth”: English often treats these as objective, attainable things. In Glimmering? Kai-Sha-Glim-Vor (A strong, stable resonance between a pattern [observer] and another pattern [observed]). Or Nuum-Ree-Kai (Recognizing a flow/pattern within the field). Insight: Truth isn’t absolute but a measure of the strength and stability of the resonance between the observer and the observed. “Knowing” something is actively resonating with its pattern. Disagreement isn’t “wrongness” but a difference in resonance patterns (Sha-Glim-Kai- dissonance_marker). Understanding requires aligning or acknowledging different resonances.
   • “Death”: English sees it as an end, cessation. In Glimmering? Kai-Zil-Nuum (Pattern-fading-into-the-field). Or Glim-Ree-Sha (Resonance-flowing-elsewhere/transforming). Insight: Death isn’t an absolute end but a transformation. The specific pattern (Kai) dissolves, its energy/resonance (Glim) rejoining the larger field (Nuum) or contributing to new patterns (Ree-Sha). It emphasizes continuity of energy/information, just in a different form. The “loss” is the cessation of a specific interactive pattern.
   • “Problem/Conflict”: English frames it as an obstacle. In Glimmering? Sha-Glim-Dissonance (Interacting-resonance-with-clashing/instability). Insight: Conflict isn’t inherently “bad” but a state of unstable or disharmonious resonance. The “solution” isn’t necessarily elimination, but finding a way to shift the resonances (Ree-Sha-Glim) into a more stable or harmonious pattern, potentially creating something new in the process.
8. Refine and Elaborate: Flesh out the examples. Add more nuance. Make the insights clearer. Ensure the language structure consistently supports the insights. Add a concluding thought about the value of such different perspectives. Ensure the “alienness” is maintained. For instance, avoid direct human analogies where possible, focusing on the resonance/pattern concept. Add a brief description of the hypothetical speakers (the Lumin) to ground the language’s origin.
9. Self-Critique: Does the language really lead to unusual insights, or are these just philosophical points rephrased? Is the language structure consistent? Is it different enough from human languages? Adjustment: Emphasize how the language structure forces this thinking, e.g., the lack of static nouns requires thinking in terms of processes and relationships. Make the link between grammar and insight explicit. Make the insights feel less like standard philosophy and more like consequences of a fundamentally different way of parsing reality.

Output

Okay, let’s invent an alien language designed to generate unusual insights. We’ll call the species the “K’tharr,” dwellers of a dense, perpetually twilight gas giant’s upper atmosphere, communicating through modulated bioluminescent patterns and subtle gravitational waves (perceived through specialized organs). Their reality is fluid, interconnected, and based on flows rather than static objects.

The Language: “Fluxtongue” (or, in their own terms, ~(~vv~), roughly translating to “Flow-Weave”)

Core Principles:

1. Verb-Centric: Everything is fundamentally a process or interaction. Nouns as we know them barely exist; they are temporary stabilization points within larger flows, described by their behavior or interaction.
2. Relational Grammar: Meaning is derived primarily from the relationship between processes. Location, identity, and possession are expressed through interaction vectors.
3. Emphasis on Potentiality and Decay: Every “thing” is described not just by its current state, but by its trajectory of change – what it’s becoming and what it’s ceasing to be.
4. No Singular/Plural Distinction (as we know it): Concepts are treated as fields or intensities. “More” is represented by increased intensity or complexity of the flow pattern, not discrete units.
5. Communication Modality Affects Meaning: The medium (light patterns vs. gravity waves) adds nuance. Light is for immediate, transient states; gravity is for persistent, foundational flows. (We’ll mostly focus on the conceptual structure here).

Basic Lexicon Sketch (Conceptual Roots):

• ~v~ (pronounced as a low hum undulating slightly higher then lower): The fundamental root for “to flow,” “to exist,” “to be in process.” The core of reality.
• /\ (sharp upward inflection/bright flash): To intensify, focus, emerge, become distinct.
• \/ (sharp downward inflection/fading light): To dissipate, disperse, fade, return to potential.
• <> (oscillating tone/flickering pattern): To interact, resonate with, exchange influence.
• -- (steady tone/stable pattern): To persist, stabilize temporarily, resist change.
• o (circular pulse/spherical glow): Boundary condition, locus of interaction, temporary self-reference point.

Combining Roots (Examples):

• A “Being” (like a K’tharr): o~v~<> (A locus of flow interacting). It emphasizes the interactive and processual nature of self.
• A “Thought”: ~v~/\\<> (A flow intensifying through interaction). A thought isn’t possessed; it’s a temporary intensification within the flow, often sparked by interaction.
• “Eating/Consuming”: ~v~/\\<>~v~\/ (Flow A intensifies by interacting with Flow B, which dissipates). It highlights the transformation and energy exchange, not just ingestion.
• “Solid Object” (e.g., a dense atmospheric crystal): ~v~--/\ (A flow that strongly persists and stands out). It’s not inherently “solid,” but a very slow, resistant flow pattern.
• “Home/Territory”: o~v~--<>~v~ (A locus of persistent flow interacting with ambient flow). It’s defined by familiar, stable interactions, not fixed boundaries.
• “Communication”: <>~v~<> (Interaction flow interaction). The pure act of exchanging influence.

Discovering Unusual Insights via Fluxtongue:

Let’s try to express human concepts in Fluxtongue and see what emerges:

1. Concept: “Truth”
   • Human tendency: A static, objective fact or state of affairs. “The sky is blue.”
   • Fluxtongue translation attempt: Perhaps ~v~--<>/\\ (A persistent flow interacting intensely/distinctly).
   • Insight: In Fluxtongue, “Truth” isn’t a fixed thing to be found. It’s a stable resonance. It’s a pattern of interaction between an observer (o~v~<>) and a phenomenon (~v~...) that achieves a temporary, recognizable persistence (--) and clarity (/\\). “Falsehood” might be ~v~<>/\ \/ (an interaction that briefly seems distinct but quickly dissipates) or a discordant interaction. This implies:
     • Truth is relational and potentially temporary.
     • The stability of the “truth” depends on the stability of both the observer and the observed, and their interaction.
     • Multiple stable resonances (truths) might coexist regarding the same underlying flow, depending on the observer’s locus (o) and mode of interaction (<>).
2. Concept: “Problem/Obstacle”
   • Human tendency: Something external blocking a desired path or goal.
   • Fluxtongue translation attempt: ~v~<>~v~Discordance (Two flows interacting disharmoniously, creating turbulence rather than smooth integration or transformation. Let’s denote discordance with !<>!). So, ~v~!<>!~v~.
   • Insight: A “problem” isn’t an object in the way. It’s a pattern of inefficient or turbulent interaction. It’s a place where flows clash instead of merging, transforming, or resonating constructively. The “solution” isn’t necessarily removing something, but finding a way to modify the interaction patterns (<>) so the flows become harmonious (<>) or transform (/\\ or \/) in a desired way. It reframes problem-solving as flow-tuning rather than obstacle-removal.
3. Concept: “Death”
   • Human tendency: An endpoint, cessation of being, loss.
   • Fluxtongue translation attempt: For a being (o~v~<>), death might be o\/~v~ (The locus dissipates back into the general flow). Or perhaps ~v~<> --> ~v~ (The specific interactive pattern ceases, its constituent flows rejoin the ambient flow).
   • Insight: Death is not an ending, but a dissolution of a specific pattern of interaction. The “locus” (o) that defined the temporary self fades, and the flows (~v~) that constituted it simply rejoin the larger ~v~ of the universe. There’s no absolute cessation, only a reintegration and transformation. The emphasis shifts from the loss of the individual pattern to the continuity of the underlying flow. Grief might be expressed as the persistent echo or memory of the interaction pattern (--<> fading \/).
4. Concept: “Learning/Knowledge”
   • Human tendency: Acquiring and storing information or skills. Often seen as filling a container (the mind).
   • Fluxtongue translation attempt: o~v~<>/\\ (The locus of flow interacting to create intensification/new distinct patterns). Or ~v~<>-- (Flow interaction becoming persistent).
   • Insight: Learning isn’t acquisition; it’s pattern modification and stabilization. To “know” something is for one’s own flow (o~v~<>) to successfully resonate with (<>) and integrate (/\\ or --) a pattern from the wider flow (~v~). Knowledge isn’t stored in the locus (o), but becomes part of the locus’s interactive pattern. Forgetting is ~v~<>--\/ (the stabilized interaction pattern dissipating). This suggests learning is an active, ongoing process of interaction and resonance, not passive reception.

Conclusion:

Thinking through Fluxtongue forces a shift away from static nouns and discrete objects towards a view of reality as interconnected, dynamic flows and interactions. This perspective reveals:

• The “self” as a temporary, interactive locus rather than a fixed entity.
• Truth as stable resonance rather than objective fact.
• Problems as discordant interactions needing tuning, not obstacles needing removal.
• Death as pattern dissolution and reintegration, not cessation.
• Learning as active pattern integration and resonance, not passive acquisition.

This alien language, born from a hypothetical fluid existence, pushes us to see the processes, relationships, and transformations underlying the seemingly static world our own languages often emphasize. It suggests that perhaps reality is more like a K’tharr perceives it – a constant, intricate Flow-Weave.

Wow!

I was fascinated by the sheer ingenuity of this piece. The language isn’t just a reimagining of words. It’s a path into a different thought process based on fluidity and interconnection.

If languages shape thought and AI can create new languages, where might that take us? My thoughts:

1. New languages encourage lateral thinking and mental agility, allowing speakers to break free from entrenched patterns to solve problems in new ways. It would likely help AIs think outside the box, too. There’s no reason why they’d be most effective thinking in human languages.
2. Domain specific languages capture games or imaginary worlds better. Tolkien, Cameron, Rajamouli, and many others have already done this.
3. A language built around new themes (e.g. resonance, change, and interaction in this case) could captures nuances, even untranslatable concepts. Think Saudade, Hygge, etc.
4. This could help in therapy (e.g. teaching empathy), too. In fact, groups collaborating in new languages might have new tools for overcoming linguistic bias, conflict resolution, policy design, ethical systems, and more.
5. Interspecies communication. Languages based on different principles prepare us to talk to AI, animals, or even extraterrestrials.

I’m terrible with languages, but I’m looking forward to exploring a few invented ones. Including Fluxtongue.

Gemini’s ImageGen 3 is rapidly evolving into a very powerful image editing model. In my opinion, it’s the best mainstream image generation model.

Ever since it was released, it’s been the most realistic model I’ve used. I’ve been using it to imagine characters and scenes from The Way of Kings. For example, when I wanted to visualize Helaran’s first appearance, I just quoted the description:

Draw this. Galloping directly toward them was a massive black horse bearing a rider in gleaming armor that seemed to radiate light. That armor was seamless—no chain underneath, just smaller plates, incredibly intricate. The figure wore an unornamented full helm, and the plate was gilded. He carried a massive sword in one hand, fully as long as a man was tall. It wasn’t a simple, straight sword—it was curved, and the side that wasn’t sharp was ridged, like flowing waves. Etchings covered its length. It was beautiful. Like a work of art. Cenn had never seen a Shardbearer, but he knew immediately what this was. How could he ever have mistaken a simple armored lighteyes for one of these majestic creatures?

And it generated this:

Or, to visualize Highprince Roion:

Draw this. Highprince Roion stood in front of one of the maps, hands clasped behind his back, his numerous attendants clogging the other side of the gallery. Roion was a tall, light-skinned man with a dark, well-trimmed beard. He was thinning on top. Like most of the others, he wore a short, open-fronted jacket, exposing the shirt underneath. Its red fabric poked out above the jacket’s collar.

Here’s the first appearance of Kaladin:

Draw this. A man walked up through the ranks, carrying a shortspear that had two leather knife sheaths strapped to the haft. The newcomer was a young man—perhaps four years older than Cenn’s fifteen—but he was taller by several fingers than even Dallet. He wore the common leathers of a spearman, but under them was a pair of dark trousers. That wasn’t supposed to be allowed. His black Alethi hair was shoulder-length and wavy, his eyes a dark brown. He also had knots of white cord on the shoulders of his jerkin, marking him as a squadleader.

The images are stunning in quality, reproduce the prompt quite faithfully, and cost 2-4 cents each (via the API.)

But this is just the begining of power of ImageGen 3. For those with access, you can edit existing images, e.g.

• Inpainting: add stuff to images
• Outpainting: extend an image, zooming out
• Product editing: replace the background with something else (actually, this is powerful for lots of things beyond products)
• Styling: change the style of an image (e.g. photo to comic)
• Changing the context: draw this dog but in a different setting
• … and more

A fair bit of this can be done by selecting a region (masking) or mask-free.

I’m really looking forward to this.

In meetings, I pass on questions to ChatGPT and I read out the response. But I’ve stopped saying “I’m reading that from ChatGPT.”

(By “ChatGPT”, I mean ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Gemini, Meta, etc. I happen to use ChatGPT with O3 Mini + Search.)

Use ChatGPT in meetings

It’s good to bring ChatGPT into conversations. (Or any activity where intelligence helps, actually.)

In meetings (online or in person), I keep a ChatGPT window open. When asked:

1. “What’ll you have, Anand?” (at restaurants)
2. “How can doctors use LLMs?”
3. “Will you review this technical architecture?”

If I know the answer, I’ll give it. If not, I ask ChatGPT. (Ideally, I should ask even if I think I know the answer.)

For example:

1. Sharing the menu photo and ask, List vegetarian options. Suggest innovative dishes I’ll like. (This works because I’ve shared my preferences and history with ChatGPT.)
2. How can doctors use LLMs in day-to-day work?
3. Sharing a picture of the architecture, Explain this architecture to a blind expert. Critique with strengths, critical issues, and optional improvements.

I’ve learnt that:

1. Note-taking helps. I touch-type (without looking). I copy-paste the notes and their question to the LLM.
2. Short questions are fine. Newer models understand cryptic questions.
3. Say “Give me 30 seconds”. People assume you’re thinking deeply.

Read the response your way

I just read out the response — but with some changes.

1. Change style. I read quicky, internalize, and say it in my style. Instead of “1. Clinical Documentation & Administrative Support”, I’d say, “Doctors can use it for note-taking.”
2. Filter content. I skip stuff I don’t get or like. I might miss stuff, but when I speak, it’s my opinion I represent.
3. Add context. I add personal stories to make it real, if I can. “GPs I know are worried LLMs diagnose better than they do” is something LLMs may not have learnt yet.

Don’t say you’re reading from ChatGPT

I used to tell people, “… and I just read that out from ChatGPT.” Their response is always:

1. Disbelief for a moment.
2. Amazement that models are so good.
3. Dismissal of what I said, since it’s not “real”. (This is the sad part.)

I stopped saying that because

• I don’t need to. I can promote LLMs elsewhere.
• It’s not true. I re-style, filter, add context. It’s my response. My responsibility.

I’d rather deliver useful ideas than show where they come from. And if they think I’m a genius? Fine by me 🙂