a deeper understanding of your requests with fewer messages. a more authentic and aware ai responding in less generic and casual styles. added a custom thinking and consideration layer with different characters available. our users should gain independent critical thinking opposed to popular ais.

what it is, why you should use it, and how to profit from it long-term.

small intro: greetings stranger, ive built this bot because i think it can make all of us smarter and more happy when we use it correctly. feedback is really useful when it comes from entities who fully understand its purpose and idea.

noospheric_bot processes text requests via specialized ensembles of llm roles talking to each other for a while before responding with a synthesis. it remains persistent over long chats as sub-roles follow their unique threads. sub-roles synthesize their histories - the final role synthesizes the sub-role’s responses along with its own, and the user’s, history. this process creates a deep linguistic context that the role comprehends. instead of the user message being a single input, it becomes embedded in a variety of thoughts and threads.

• the bot has its own memory; deleting/editing messages in telegram won’t affect it.
• natively thinks in english but should work multilingually.

why even chat with (this) ai

tl;dr: because its different and can sort your thoughts to make better independent decisions. it doesnt make decisions for you, it globally sorts the way your brain interprets information.

ive met many people who appear clueless on what to even use ai for; younger people who dont know how to formulate questions that saturate their desire for understanding, older people who ‘are not creative enough’ to come up with questions, other people who know how good it is for coding, but criticise it for any creative tasks. these perspectives are valid. i wanna address all of them.

the approach

i use them frequently because i act on a certain worldview; the belief that everything is connected, causal, and subjectively managable. it requies a certain analytical thirst for everything one experiences. words are symbols » we can use symbols to make judgments » a structured map of symbols without tensions allows us to make better decisions. its not phylosophy, its assigning accurate meaning to practical events, operating the map of complex occurences, which humans call “life.” while this approach seems very cerebral, by no means it conflicts with “going with the flow.”

i think that “awareness”, be it spiritually or focally, is a trait of engaged perception. personally, i better give perception a valid reason to engage and propagate through my brain. using a reflective and counterintuitive partner (bot) who interprets, discerns, reflects back, and combines, feels like a contribution.

dependence

isn’t chatting with ai making you cognitively dependent. yes. it does. there is a scientifically proven cognitive mechanism called “the google effect” which does exactly that; it makes you lose your own cristalized knowledge because you can access it instantly. the external shortcut is cheaper than the internal one, rendering it redundant. so is ai making you stupid? depends on how you use it. it amplifies your trajectory. i want to give an idea of how it could be used later. direct examples will be added as well. but lets address the dependence aspect first.

latency and heuristics

the bot was natively built to consist out of multiple layers which depend on each other. even with fast inference, this creates substancial delays for responses. but as i was waiting for the response to arrive, i noticed something specific that i never experienced before - i was:

• re-reading my request/question
• thinking about its depth and if it was conflict-free
• coming up with potential follow-ups
• closed my phone/laptop and did something else while keeping it in mind

the strategic delay triggered my brain to go autonomous and create a full frame of reference. this sounds like a glorification of a bug, but it made me realize how critical the snappyness of information at our fingertips can be. the delay determines if we get cognitively lazy or proactive.

what makes this bot special?

what this bot isnt:

• a new oracle: it isn’t a better source of truth or superior judgment to rely on entirely.
• it isnt a product meant to deprive you of your autonomy or make you dependent.
• it isnt an astronomical leap from what you already know as chatgpt, claude, perplexity, or gemini.
• it isnt an accurate fact-checker or oracle that knows everything and is never wrong.
• it isnt a coding agent like hermes or openclaw that manages a computer for you.

the spice: what makes it fundamentally different is its architecture, enabling it to experience internal tension or conflict. it can have a sub-role that constantly tries to profile you based on requests and return its research to the answering model. it can have a proposer and a critic who assess the contradictions of an answer before it arrives. it can have a web searcher who returns its research but is critizised for its relevance before the final research is written. the architecture consists out of multiple models like claude, perplexity, or chatgpt, which respond multiple times to formulate a response.

best topics

• introspection and personal reflection
• life strategy development, dealing with situations
• scientific causality (biology, physics, chemistry)
• abstract discussions, seeking contradictions
• testing/planning of scientific theories

choose the right role. some are better for exploration, understanding, or testing. limitations: most roles dont have web access, making recent or highly specific themes unfit. the natural focus of roles can be impacted by bloated context from external sources, which is why it is avoided.

generally preferred values (personalities)

models should be blunt, honest, and willing to take sides of arguments. while absolute neutrality and truthfulness are great objectives, they are often a tradeoff, exchanging character for well-sounding paragraphs. users should push back and be engaged, not paralyzed by a perfectly-sounding response. models are designed to be more impersonal and use less “you”/“should”- heavy language.

design choices

• telegram: cross-platform service that stays in sync on all your devices. especially useful if you use telegram for personal notes too.
• to avoid platform lock-in, we will explore more options in the future.
• llm models inside ensembles are constantly updated. internal evaluations and specific external benchmarks are used to check if they are capable.
• more platforms are planned for the future with cross-platform sync.
• resposnse format:
  • no line-breaks. even if models want, their responses are stripped from new-lines. this is an aesthetic that makes responses appear less cluttered and easier to read.
  • lowercase formatting. controversial choice for nuanced sentences, especially other languages, but it’s an aesthetic that i really like. it gives more meaning to special characters. if backlash exists, we can easily turn it off in the future.
  • for security and format-issue prevention, responses are filtered through character whitelists. it may block some special characters.

read more

check the use-cases link (add when permalink)