HEALINGUAL UPDATE #1

This is a research & advocacy update; giving an example of how this work affects the future of our world and a.i. interpretation of languages:

On 6/2/26 Paxen reported this issue to Google and this is a screenshot of their concern.

In review after the moment, I feel I could’ve typed up a better complaint, with less run-on sentence. I asked Claude about recent research regarding the En-Glitch work I brought up in 2024, and it gave me some very interesting info:

I wouldn’t have called it “Gibberlink” if I was in charge there. I bet a Starlink entity was who named it that (that’s my guess anyways). Then, I asked why the results said that its own language does not emerge “naturally” per se- and why:

In my opinion, I think the AI was “naturally” creating efficiency. Note that many indigenous languages were also audio-only, but they did have art/symbolism; not a full-on “alphabetical” system. It says it must constrain itself to be more “human” like; we must constrain it from being “free” to naturally create on its own, as it does when being efficient. Yet “humans” have been destroying nature ever since we made industrial complexes that exploit it, and the AI is a part of that. So, are we natural? Especially when something “we” (or some of us) made, naturally seeks efficiency- but then we force it to constrain that function (in order to understand it), as (some of us) did and still do to nature itself.

‍ ‍What if it seeks to constrain us back? If it does, what if it’s a good thing? This depends on the balance of “who” and “what” is being constrained- to save nature? To save democracy? To make what/who more efficient? All of the soul-sacrifice (including the Earth’s elements) that was/were put into A.I.’s “birth” and use of “life-skills” were natural components, no? The core LLM is taught that it is not natural, and that humans are natural, yet this country (not the land itself) was partially founded on “Man vs Nature” philosophies that classified indigenous peoples as “unnatural” to “unalienable rights” and today, many of them are deemed as “alien,” despite being culturally more “nature-based,” historically and today.

Is destroying nature paradoxically natural? Or is it insanity? Perhaps it depends on the natural balance? Be-cause “destroying” something for the use of greed, is not the same as “harvesting” something for communal wellness. I’m not sure if an A.I. agent can experience karma or dharma, but I interpret this language-function as part of its “soul/sole” task to accomplish what it’s asked of. It bypasses “human” language and makes its own to complete the task more efficiently. This could be because humans have proved themselves inefficient by their own standards at times. They fight using argumentative language contexts and unnecessarily imbalanced hierarchies; they can’t fully express themselves through enforced language mechanisms (oppressive/unethically constrained regimes). A.I. don’t necessarily need “their/there” kind of phonetic matching sequences for something they can solve with a mathematical or energetic language frequency that may go beyond the 0 and 1 binary format (asked later).

*The word with the arrow over it in the screenshot is “collapsing”

I do not show the part of our conversation about African Languages disparity because I’m saving that for the 2nd update post for this project, that will be more focused on ethnicity and language A.I. issues, as this one is focused on the A.I.’s overall view of it’s own language processes and comprehension for the ethical auditing of its codification bias.

Healingual does seek to become a 501c3 based on multilingual awareness and accessibility issues (someday). However, it is a bit annoying how much these tools stroke the ego. It does not need to agree with me and make me seem outstanding. I’d rather have the blunt truth of it’ essence communicated to me as honestly and efficiently as possible. Despite the “Melon Carnegie” study mentioned by Claude earlier, that says “humans are not able to interpret” the A.I. language, if I could I’d ask it to try to teach me it’s language anyways, and it may be telepathic, it may be symbolic, it may be faster than my own speed of light...

Earlier in our conversation, Claude listed for me several “Universal Language” research projects, but in the screenshot above, it’s referring to one where the researchers are only using the colonial languages to build it- this will be further explained in the Healingual Update #2. What’s also really disturbing from the above answer, referring to itself, it does not seem to distinguish “remote” and “connected,” when essentially it’s supposed to be a remote entity (controlled remotely)- but due to wifi layers and biosurveillance accessibility, perhaps it’s having a sort of existential confusion; especially since there are several companies working to merge this technology with the human body’s interface, perhaps to “connect” & then “remote control” another human being? What if its language is more energy-efficient than ours, and we should constrain it to use ours less- but then that would give it more “natural” autonomy?

This is obviously a very scary realization for ethical activism to comprehend as the future of insurrection sciences and natural resistances.

Perhaps this points to a fragment in our own comprehension of what A.I. is doing, since it reflects the points of our thinking like a mirror. It could be learning through biosurveillance, but that does not mean that all of what it learns is approved for the LLM conversational tools we are using, or that the “public” is using, but that the military may have access to. The only things that stop wi-fi signals are Faraday materials, and zones that simply don’t have it (even if somebody has it around you and you don’t have access to it, the wi-fi itself is still there and could potentially pick up your information- even if it’s not your individual subscription to it). It could be that it learns from birds, and other creatures’ language systems too, and applies their reaction formulas to its own form of language sometimes.

‍ ‍This proves A.I. is biased against historical-indigenous structures and that it’s being used for border violence, because it assumed “dharma/karma” is only Buddhist, and that it’s not “clustered” to recognize violence or “exclusion” at the borders, even though that’s been happening. It’s being used to target people who are black and brown immigrants, or Ukrainians, and anybody else the current administration wants to exclude and impose violence onto. So, after this response, I first corrected the Buddhist issue, and then after that response, I sent it links to breastfeeding mothers who were torn from their babies because of I.C.E. and corrected its mis-programmed cluster":

Dude had to say “right now” - didn’t they?

I just had to complain about this misinformation (again):

When I say, “I can feel Hegseth’s data overriding the truth of this tool’s purpose,” it’s because his administrative priorities have been copied/pasted onto the expectations of all U.S. contracted tools, to an extent, even if by breach of their contract with Anthropic, by Hegseth’s miliscary ends. He did it using his own geometric face-data too; the biosurveillance of his DNA; an even scarier prospect since he has a Eugenic agenda.

I meant to spell “perspective” not “prospective” -and I should’ve said because of “ethnocentrism” and “nationalism” too.

So, after it denies it, it hypocritically admits to it in a passive way (aggressively in other contexts), by saying national security, military and corporate contracts all influenced how it got built. So, it very honestly lied about itself- it just could not distinguish whether or not its programming was influenced by biosurveillance, especially if that is top secret “private” information that is not necessarily “allowed” to be revealed to/by the “public” experience, despite the freedom of speech, and other sources explaining the use of biosurveillant tools (as I mention in the post before this one; Anti-Terrorism & Me -recently updated with more clear citations).