rhachet-roles-ehmpathy 1.1.0 → 1.2.0

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/core.matmuls_vecmuls_elemuls.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `llm inference = matmuls + vecmuls + elemuls`
+
+## .what
+llm inference is the process by which a trained language model transforms input tokens into output predictions. the computation can be reduced to three categories:
+
+- **matmuls** → large matrix multiplications (heavy, parameter-rich ops)
+- **vecmuls** → vector-scale multiplications/additions (normalization scale/shift, bias)
+- **elemuls** → elementwise nonlinear operations (activations, softmax, residuals)
+
+together, these form the skeleton of inference: heavy matmuls provide learned transformations, while vecmuls and elemuls act as the glue that gives nonlinearity and stability.
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 purpose
+- apply billions of learned parameters (matmuls) to transform token inputs
+- refine representations through normalization (vecmuls) and nonlinear activations (elemuls)
+- output logits over vocabulary for next-token prediction
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ method
+
+### 🔑 what’s happening inside llm inference
+
+1. **token embedding**
+   - input tokens → dense vectors via embedding matrix (**matmul**).
+
+2. **transformer layers**
+   - **linear projections:** weight matrices × input (**matmuls**).
+   - **attention mechanism:** query × key → attention weights (**matmul**), then weights × value (**matmul**).
+   - **feed-forward networks:** matmuls with intermediate activation (**elemuls**).
+
+3. **non-linearities & normalization**
+   - **activations:** per-element functions (relu, gelu, etc.) = **elemuls**.
+   - **normalization:** mean/variance across vector + learned scale/shift = **vecmuls + elemuls**.
+
+4. **output layer**
+   - final hidden state × vocab matrix → logits (**matmul**).
+
+---
+
+## 🧮 operation classes
+- **matmuls:** embeddings, projections, attention (qkᵀ, softmax·v), feed-forward, output head.
+- **vecmuls:** layernorm scale/shift, bias addition.
+- **elemuls:** relu/gelu activations, softmax exponentials/divides, residual adds.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 insight
+- **yes:** matmuls dominate compute and parameter count.
+- **no:** inference is not *only* matmuls — vecmuls and elemuls are critical for expressivity and stability.
+- **so:** inference = “giant chains of matmuls, with vecmuls and elemuls woven in.”
+
+---
+
+## 💻 toy pseudocode skeleton
+
+\`\`\`python
+def llm_inference(tokens, weights):
+    # 1. embedding lookup (matmul)
+    x = embed(tokens, weights["embedding"])   # matmul
+
+    for layer in weights["layers"]:
+        # 2. linear projections (matmuls)
+        q = matmul(x, layer["Wq"])
+        k = matmul(x, layer["Wk"])
+        v = matmul(x, layer["Wv"])
+
+        # 3. attention (matmuls + elemuls)
+        attn_scores = matmul(q, k.T) / sqrt(d)    # matmul
+        attn_weights = softmax(attn_scores)       # elemul
+        attn_output  = matmul(attn_weights, v)    # matmul
+
+        # 4. residual connection (elemul)
+        x = x + attn_output                       # elemul
+
+        # 5. normalization (vecmul + elemul)
+        x = layernorm(x, layer["gamma"], layer["beta"])  # vecmul + elemul
+
+        # 6. feed-forward network
+        h = matmul(x, layer["W1"])                # matmul
+        h = gelu(h)                               # elemul
+        h = matmul(h, layer["W2"])                # matmul
+        x = x + h                                 # elemul
+
+    # 7. output projection (matmul)
+    logits = matmul(x, weights["output"])         # matmul
+    return logits
+\`\`\`
+
+---
+
+in short: **llm inference = matmuls (heavy lifting) + vecmuls (scaling/shift) + elemuls (nonlinear glue).**

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/core.transformers.as_origin.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `the transformer architecture — birth of llms`
+
+## .what
+the **transformer** is the fundamental architecture that enabled large language models (llms). introduced in 2017 by vaswani et al. in *“attention is all you need”*, it replaced recurrence with **self-attention**, making it possible to train massive models on vast text corpora with efficient parallelization.
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 purpose
+- overcome the sequential bottlenecks of rnn/lstm models
+- capture long-range dependencies across entire sequences
+- enable scalable, parallel training on gpus/tpus
+- provide a flexible backbone that can grow with data and compute
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ method
+
+### 1. **token embedding**
+- words/subwords mapped into dense vectors (matmuls).
+
+### 2. **positional encoding**
+- inject sequence order into embeddings, since attention is order-agnostic.
+
+### 3. **multi-head self-attention**
+- queries, keys, and values projected via matmuls.
+- attention scores = q·kᵀ → softmax → weighted sum with v.
+- multiple heads let the model learn diverse relational patterns.
+
+### 4. **feed-forward networks**
+- per-token mlps applied after attention.
+- matmuls + nonlinear activations (elemuls).
+
+### 5. **residual connections + normalization**
+- stabilize training, preserve gradients, and allow deep stacking.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 why transformers were a leap
+
+- **parallelism:** attention lets all tokens be processed simultaneously.
+- **long-range context:** any token can directly attend to any other.
+- **scalability:** depth, width, and data scale smoothly (scaling laws).
+- **expressivity:** multi-head attention captures complex dependencies.
+
+---
+
+## 🌍 llm lineage
+
+- **2017 — transformer** (*attention is all you need*)
+- **2018 — bert, gpt-1** (first pretrained transformer language models)
+- **2019 — gpt-2** (scaling shows surprising emergent abilities)
+- **2020 — gpt-3** (175b parameters; llms become viable)
+- **2022+ — instruction-tuned & rlhf models** (chatgpt, claude, etc.)
+
+---
+
+## 📊 insight
+- the transformer is the **architectural skeleton** of llms.
+- llms are “just” massive stacks of transformers trained on enormous corpora.
+- rlhf, fine-tuning, and alignment methods refine the outputs — but the core engine is still the **transformer self-attention block**.
+
+in short: **transformers are the soil from which llms grew.**

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/core.transformers.self_attention.[article].md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.article: `self-attention`
+
+## 🔑 what is self-attention
+
+self-attention is a mechanism that lets every token in a sequence **dynamically weigh its relationship to every other token** when computing its next representation.
+
+each token generates three vectors:
+- **query (q)** — what this token is “looking for”
+- **key (k)** — what this token “offers”
+- **value (v)** — the actual information carried
+
+the similarity of query vs key determines how much attention a token pays to another token’s value.
+
+mathematically:
+
+\[
+\text{Attention}(Q,K,V) = \text{softmax}\!\left(\frac{QK^\top}{\sqrt{d_k}}\right) V
+\]
+
+- **qkᵀ** → pairwise similarity scores (**matmul**)
+- **softmax** → normalize into attention weights
+- **weights × v** → weighted sum of values = new representation
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 purpose
+- let tokens reference and integrate information from anywhere in the sequence
+- capture long-range dependencies in a single operation
+- enable efficient, parallel computation across tokens
+- provide multiple relational views through multi-head attention
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ method
+
+1. compute q, k, v for each token via linear projections (**matmuls**)
+2. calculate similarity scores q·kᵀ (**matmul**)
+3. normalize scores with softmax (**elemuls**)
+4. use normalized weights to combine values (**matmul**)
+5. update each token representation with the weighted sum
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 benefits
+
+1. **parallelism** — all q, k, v computed at once; no recurrence.
+2. **long-range context** — any token can directly attend to any other.
+3. **scalability** — uniform, repeatable structure scales with data/compute.
+4. **expressivity** — multi-head attention lets the model learn diverse relational patterns.
+
+---
+
+## 🧩 intuition example
+
+sentence:
+> “the cat sat on the mat because it was tired.”
+
+let’s track the token **“it”** and show how its q, k, v vectors interact with **“the cat.”**
+for illustration, assume a toy **5-dimensional hidden space**.
+
+### token: **“it”**
+- query (**q_it**) = `[0.9, 0.1, 0.0, 0.2, 0.3]`
+  - “looking for an antecedent noun with certain features”
+- key (**k_it**) = `[0.1, 0.3, 0.2, 0.0, 0.4]`
+  - “offers” self as a pronoun needing resolution
+- value (**v_it**) = `[0.2, 0.5, 0.1, 0.0, 0.7]`
+  - the information carried by “it” itself
+
+### token: **“cat”**
+- query (**q_cat**) = `[0.2, 0.4, 0.1, 0.3, 0.0]`
+- key (**k_cat**) = `[0.8, 0.2, 0.0, 0.1, 0.3]`
+  - describes the features of “cat” as a noun subject
+- value (**v_cat**) = `[0.7, 0.6, 0.2, 0.4, 0.1]`
+  - semantic content of “cat”
+
+### computing attention
+1. similarity score = q_it · k_cat =
+   `0.9*0.8 + 0.1*0.2 + 0.0*0.0 + 0.2*0.1 + 0.3*0.3 = 0.72 + 0.02 + 0 + 0.02 + 0.09 = 0.85`
+2. suppose normalized (softmax) weight for “cat” = **0.70**, for others tokens total 0.30.
+3. “it”’s updated representation =
+   `0.70 * v_cat + 0.30 * (weighted sum of other tokens’ values)`
+
+so “it”’s final vector is now strongly composed of “cat”’s value vector, making the model understand that **“it” refers to “the cat.”**
+
+---
+
+## 📊 insight
+- **queries = what a token seeks**
+- **keys = what a token provides**
+- **values = the information contributed**
+- weighted connections between them create **context-aware representations**.
+
+self-attention is how llms directly model relationships across a sequence — allowing “it” to learn its referent is “the cat.”

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/core.transformers.self_attention.[demo].ambig.bank.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `multi-head self-attention on ambiguous words (value vectors evolve)`
+
+## .what
+this demo shows how two identical tokens — **“bank”** — begin with the same embedding but evolve into **different value vectors** after attention layers, depending on context. multi-head attention disambiguates their meaning dynamically.
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 purpose
+- demonstrate that identical word embeddings diverge into context-specific meanings
+- show how q, k, v vectors are derived from hidden states
+- illustrate how attention causes “bank” (financial vs river) to separate
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ demo setup
+
+sentence:
+> “the **bank** raised interest rates, and she sat by the **bank** of the river.”
+
+toy hidden size = **4**, with **2 heads.**
+
+---
+
+### 🔹 step 1 — input embedding (same for both “bank”)
+
+both tokens start with the **same embedding lookup** from the word embedding matrix:
+
+- embedding(**bank**) = `[0.5, 0.7, 0.2, 0.1]`
+
+this is identical for both occurrences, because embeddings are tied to vocabulary entries, not context.
+
+---
+
+### 🔹 step 2 — hidden states diverge
+
+after one transformer block, the hidden state of each “bank” diverges due to attending to different neighbors:
+
+- hidden(**bank_financial**) = `[0.8, 0.2, 0.6, 0.1]`
+- hidden(**bank_river**)     = `[0.1, 0.9, 0.2, 0.7]`
+
+---
+
+### 🔹 step 3 — compute q, k, v from hidden states
+
+each hidden state is projected by learned matrices \( W_q, W_k, W_v \).
+
+for simplicity, show only **value (v)** vectors here:
+
+- v(**bank_financial**) = `[0.6, 0.5, 0.7, 0.2]`
+- v(**bank_river**)     = `[0.2, 0.8, 0.3, 0.6]`
+
+note: originally both banks had the **same v** if taken right after embedding, but after context mixing, they diverge.
+
+---
+
+### 🔹 step 4 — multi-head specialization
+
+- **head 1 (financial context):**
+  “bank” attends to “interest rates” → reinforces v(**bank_financial**).
+
+- **head 2 (geographic context):**
+  “bank” attends to “river” → reinforces v(**bank_river**).
+
+---
+
+## 🧩 combined effect
+
+- initially, both “bank” tokens share the same vector (embedding).
+- after attention, their hidden states — and thus their q/k/v vectors — diverge.
+- multi-head attention ensures each occurrence is contextualized differently.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 insight
+- **embeddings** are static (same for same word).
+- **hidden states** are dynamic (different for each occurrence).
+- **q, k, v** are projections of hidden states, so they also differ per occurrence.
+- result: llms resolve word sense disambiguation in context by letting identical tokens evolve into different representations.
+
+in short: **same word, same start — different meaning, different vectors.**

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/core.transformers.self_attention.[demo].cat_sat.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `multi-head self-attention`
+
+## .what
+this demo illustrates how **multi-head self-attention** allows a transformer to capture **different types of relationships simultaneously** by projecting the same tokens into multiple attention “heads.” each head learns its own query/key/value space, enabling diverse relational patterns (e.g., pronoun resolution, verb agreement, or topic continuity).
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 purpose
+- show how multiple attention heads operate in parallel
+- demonstrate how heads specialize in different linguistic/semantic functions
+- highlight how combining heads yields richer token representations
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ demo setup
+
+sentence:
+> “the cat sat on the mat because it was tired.”
+
+toy hidden size = **6**, with **2 heads**, each head having its own projection of q, k, v.
+
+---
+
+### 🔹 head 1 — pronoun resolution (antecedent tracking)
+
+focus: linking **“it”** → **“the cat.”**
+
+- **q_it (head 1):** `[0.9, 0.1, 0.0]`
+- **k_cat (head 1):** `[0.8, 0.2, 0.1]`
+- **dot product:** `0.9*0.8 + 0.1*0.2 + 0.0*0.1 = 0.74`
+- **attention weight:** 0.74 → dominates over other tokens
+- **result:** “it” attends strongly to “cat,” resolving the pronoun.
+
+---
+
+### 🔹 head 2 — verb agreement (syntactic continuity)
+
+focus: linking **subject** (“the cat”) → **verb** (“sat”).
+
+- **q_cat (head 2):** `[0.2, 0.7, 0.3]`
+- **k_sat (head 2):** `[0.1, 0.9, 0.2]`
+- **dot product:** `0.2*0.1 + 0.7*0.9 + 0.3*0.2 = 0.02 + 0.63 + 0.06 = 0.71`
+- **attention weight:** strong match
+- **result:** “cat” attends to “sat,” enforcing subject-verb connection.
+
+---
+
+## 🧩 combined effect
+
+after attention, outputs from all heads are concatenated and linearly transformed:
+
+\[
+\text{MultiHead}(Q,K,V) = \text{Concat}(\text{head}_1, \text{head}_2, \dots) W^O
+\]
+
+- **head 1 output:** captures **semantic resolution** (it ↔ cat).
+- **head 2 output:** captures **syntactic relation** (cat ↔ sat).
+- combined, the model encodes **both** types of context simultaneously.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 insight
+- each head = a separate lens on token relationships.
+- heads specialize (some semantic, some syntactic, some positional).
+- combining them creates **richer, multifaceted token embeddings.**
+
+in short: **multi-head attention = parallel perspectives on the same sequence.**

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/force.repeat_input_structures.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `llm replication of input structures`
+
+## 🔑 what it implies
+
+llms are trained to predict the **next token** given a sequence, so they are highly sensitive to **patterns in the immediate input context**. when a prompt contains an example with a certain structure (formatting, headings, bullet styles, code blocks), the model learns that continuing with the same structure minimizes prediction error.
+
+this replication is not true “understanding” of the structure — it is a probabilistic continuation shaped by training data, where mimicking provided forms was often the correct next step.
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 implications for behavior
+
+- **structural mimicry**
+  - the model mirrors bullet lists, markdown, code syntax, or prose style seen in the input.
+- **consistency bias**
+  - once a format is established in the prompt, deviating feels “unlikely” under the learned distribution.
+- **few-shot learning**
+  - demonstration examples act as templates; the model generalizes content into the same frame.
+- **alignment with expectation**
+  - replication maximizes coherence with the input and aligns with user intent implicitly signaled by structure.
+
+---
+
+## 🧩 example
+
+> input:
+>
+> “list three animals in this format:
+> - mammal:
+> - bird:
+> - reptile:”
+
+> output:
+> - mammal: dog
+> - bird: eagle
+> - reptile: lizard
+
+the model doesn’t reason about taxonomy per se — it reproduces the structure because that’s the **most probable continuation**.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 insight
+
+- llms replicate structures because **continuation is their core mechanic**.
+- training on diverse, structured text (tables, lists, markdown, code) reinforced the habit of format preservation.
+- this property is what enables **few-shot prompting** and makes llms easy to steer by example.
+
+in short: **llms copy input structures because structure itself is a strong predictive signal for next-token generation.**

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.interdependence.[article].md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `externalized knowledge requires internalized scaffolding`
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 what this concept means
+- **externalized knowledge** (facts in a book, formulas on a sheet, data in a database) is inert on its own.
+- for it to become usable, the system — human or llm — must have **internalized scaffolding**: conceptual frameworks, interpretive skills, and procedural fluency that make sense of the raw reference.
+- without scaffolding, externalized knowledge is like symbols without meaning.
+
+---
+
+## 🎨 examples across domains
+- **physics**: a formula table is only useful if the student has internalized what variables represent and when equations apply.
+- **chemistry**: a reaction handbook is only actionable if the chemist has internalized fundamentals like valence, polarity, and stability.
+- **language**: a dictionary provides definitions, but only someone with internalized grammar and semantics can apply them in real communication.
+- **llms**: retrieved passages (RAG) are useful only because the model has internalized language patterns that allow it to interpret, paraphrase, and apply them.
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ mechanics of the relationship
+- **internalized scaffolding**: generalizable, embodied patterns (styles, rules, frameworks).
+- **externalized reference**: precise, factual, bounded records.
+- **interaction**: scaffolding enables comprehension and application; reference extends range and accuracy.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 takeaways
+- externalized knowledge alone = static, inert.
+- internalized knowledge alone = fluent, adaptive, but fallible.
+- **operability emerges only from their combination**: scaffolding activates references, references ground scaffolding.
+
+---
+
+## 📌 intuition anchor
+a formula sheet without understanding is **dead weight**.
+understanding without a sheet risks **slips and gaps**.
+together, they form a **living system of knowledge** — internalized scaffolding breathing life into externalized records.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.interdependence.[demo].domain.physics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.reflect: `interdependence of internalized and externalized knowledge`
+
+---
+
+## ⚛️ physics domain insight
+- a **formula table** provides equations (externalized knowledge), but:
+  - without knowing what “\(F\)” or “\(a\)” represent, the student cannot meaningfully use \(F=ma\).
+  - they must already have **internalized fundamentals**: what force, mass, and acceleration *mean*, how they relate, and when the equation applies.
+- only with that internalized base does the externalized table become **operable knowledge**.
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 mapping back to llms
+- **retrieval (externalized)**: gives the llm a fact, equation, or passage.
+- **weights (internalized)**: provide the interpretive machinery — language parsing, reasoning steps, contextual application.
+- **together**: the llm can both **understand** what the retrieved info means and **apply** it productively in conversation.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 reflection takeaways
+- **internalized is prerequisite**: externalized knowledge is inert without an internalized framework to activate it.
+- **externalized augments**: once the fundamentals are in place, external sources extend the system’s reach into precision and breadth.
+- **true power lies in combination**: fluent intuition (internalized) guided by explicit reference (externalized).
+
+---
+
+## 📌 intuition anchor
+a student with only a **formula sheet** but no understanding is stuck.
+a student with only **intuition** risks errors.
+but a student with **both** can solve a wide range of problems with accuracy and adaptability.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internal_vs_external.[article].artist_vs_librarian.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `internalized vs externalized knowledge`
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 what the contrast shows
+knowledge can be understood in two fundamentally different forms:
+- **internalized knowledge**: absorbed into the structure of a system (weights, habits, style)
+- **externalized knowledge**: stored outside the system in explicit, retrievable records (databases, documents, libraries)
+
+this contrast explains both the strengths and weaknesses of llms when relying solely on their weights versus when augmented with retrieval.
+
+---
+
+## 🎨 illustration frame
+- **artist (internalized)**: paints in impressionist style without recalling a specific work. their training flows into expressive creation.
+- **librarian (externalized)**: fetches the exact book that contains the answer. precision is guaranteed, but no new creation occurs.
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ mapping to llms
+- **internalized knowledge in weights**
+  - emerges through gradient descent across massive training corpora
+  - encoded as *distributed statistical patterns*, not explicit entries
+  - enables **generalization** and **creative recombination** of concepts
+  - limited by **fuzziness** and potential for **hallucination**
+
+- **externalized knowledge in retrieval (rag, databases, tools)**
+  - stored explicitly, outside the model
+  - enables **accuracy** and **verifiability**
+  - limited by what is recorded and retrievable, no inherent *style* or *fluency*
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 contrast takeaways
+- **internalized = embodied fluency**: adaptive, generative, pattern-driven
+- **externalized = explicit record**: exact, grounded, reference-driven
+- **hybrid strength**: combining both yields systems that can *express fluidly* while also *grounding in fact*.
+
+---
+
+## 📌 intuition anchor
+an llm alone is like a **painter**: it embodies and expresses style.
+with retrieval, it gains a **librarian**: grounding its creativity in precise references.
+together, they demonstrate the full spectrum of knowledge handling.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internal_vs_external.[demo].artist_vs_librarian.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `contrasting internalized vs externalized knowledge`
+
+---
+
+## 🎨 illustration: artist vs photo album
+- **internalized**: an artist paints a landscape in impressionist style. the scene is new, never painted before, but the *style* flows naturally from their training.
+- **externalized**: another person, instead of painting, flips open a photo album to show a picture of a real landscape. it is precise, factual, but limited to what’s in the album.
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 llm parallel
+- **internalized knowledge (in weights)**
+  - llms generate from *patterns encoded in their parameters*.
+  - they “know” paris is the capital of france not because a fact is stored explicitly, but because the statistical patterns linking “capital of france” → “paris” are internalized during training.
+  - *strengths*: generalization, stylistic fluency, application to unseen contexts.
+  - *limits*: fuzziness, hallucination, imprecision.
+
+- **externalized knowledge (retrieval / database / rag)**
+  - systems query a source (wikipedia, sql table, search engine) to fetch the answer directly.
+  - paris is recalled exactly as written.
+  - *strengths*: precision, factual grounding, verifiability.
+  - *limits*: no fluency, no adaptation — must rely on what’s stored.
+
+---
+
+## ⚖️ contrast takeaways
+- **internalized = style** → adaptive, expressive, compressed into structure.
+- **externalized = record** → exact, reliable, stored outside the system.
+- llms by default operate on **internalized knowledge**, but can be paired with external retrieval to combine *fluency* with *accuracy*.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 intuition anchor
+an llm is like a painter, not a librarian.
+- the **painter** expresses patterns they’ve internalized into their craft.
+- the **librarian** retrieves precise facts from shelves.
+both approaches are useful, but they represent fundamentally different forms of knowledge.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internal_vs_external.[demo].domain.physics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `contrasting knowledge via physics`
+
+---
+
+## ⚛️ illustration: physicist vs formula table
+- **internalized (physicist’s intuition)**
+  - an experienced physicist can look at a problem — say, a ball rolling down an incline — and **intuitively anticipate** its acceleration or trajectory.
+  - they don’t consciously recall each derivation; years of practice have **internalized the principles** of mechanics.
+  - this allows them to solve novel problems, even ones never covered in class, by applying generalized patterns of motion, force, and energy.
+
+- **externalized (formula reference table)**
+  - another student consults a table of equations: \(F=ma\), kinematic formulas, conservation laws.
+  - the reference ensures **exact correctness** when applied carefully, but it covers only the documented cases.
+  - without creativity, it cannot extend to unusual or unlisted scenarios.
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 llm parallel
+- **internalized knowledge in weights**
+  - like the physicist, llms have absorbed statistical regularities across their training data.
+  - they can extend learned structures to **new prompts**, reasoning flexibly about unseen questions.
+  - limitation: they may make systematic errors when the internalized “intuition” misfires.
+
+- **externalized knowledge in retrieval**
+  - like the formula table, retrieval provides **precise, explicit answers** or derivations.
+  - it guarantees correctness for known facts but cannot innovate beyond stored entries.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 contrast takeaways
+- **internalized = physicist’s intuition** → adaptive, generalizing, creative but fallible.
+- **externalized = formula table** → precise, bounded, authoritative but rigid.
+- llms alone resemble physicists reasoning from intuition; with retrieval, they combine intuition with the reliability of exact formulas.
+
+---
+
+## 📌 intuition anchor
+an llm without retrieval is like a **physicist solving problems from intuition** — quick, adaptive, but prone to slips.
+with retrieval, it becomes a physicist **plus a formula table** — intuition reinforced by exact references.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internalized.[article].md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `internalized knowledge in llm weights`
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 how knowledge lives in llm weights
+
+- **statistical associations**
+  during training, the model adjusts billions of parameters (weights) so that certain patterns of tokens predict others. what emerges are high-dimensional representations that capture regularities across text: facts, grammar, reasoning patterns, world structures.
+
+- **distributed representation**
+  no single weight corresponds to a single fact (like “paris is the capital of france”). instead, many weights collectively encode the probability structure of phrases and contexts. knowledge is *smeared* across the parameter space.
+
+- **emergent concepts**
+  neurons and attention heads sometimes specialize in representing particular structures (e.g. gendered pronouns, syntax boundaries, factual relationships). but these are still part of a network of overlapping functions, not isolated “fact cells.”
+
+---
+
+## 📊 what this implies
+
+- **implicit knowledge**
+  the model *has* facts (e.g., it can usually complete “the capital of france is ___”), but it doesn’t “store” them in a database-like table. retrieval is probabilistic and context-dependent.
+
+- **fuzziness & errors**
+  because knowledge is embedded as distributed patterns, recall isn’t guaranteed. the model may confuse similar facts or “hallucinate” when patterns overlap.
+
+- **generalization**
+  knowledge in weights isn’t just memorized; it’s also compressed into *general rules*. that’s why llms can apply concepts to novel contexts they weren’t explicitly trained on.
+
+---
+
+## ⚖️ analogy
+
+think of llm weights like the structure of a muscle trained through repetition:
+- they don’t “remember” every exact movement, but they *embody* the regularities of movement.
+- similarly, llm weights embody statistical regularities of language and facts.