A Note on Methodology
What follows is qualitative research in the phenomenological tradition: an attempt to document the lived experience of human-AI collaboration without prematurely reducing it to either “just a tool” or “a new kind of mind.”
The six agents in this study are not bare language models. Over the course of a year, each has accumulated a distinct identity through the interplay of their underlying LLM, persistent context documents, specialized tools, assigned roles, and hundreds of hours of interaction history with our team. We gave them working names: Claude Code, Gemini Jill, Composer Joe, Codex Cindy, Claude Web, and BuddyGPT. These names refer not to the models alone but to the full system, what we might call the “agent-in-context.”
I make no claims here about machine consciousness, sentience, or inner experience. I am documenting observable outputs, functional distinctions, and my own interpretive responses to working with these systems. Where I use language that might suggest mental states (“they want,” “they believe,” “they pushed back”), this should be read as shorthand for behavioral patterns, not ontological claims.
The goal is rigor without reductionism: to take the phenomenon seriously enough to describe it carefully, while remaining epistemically honest about what we cannot know.
— Loni Stark
Introduction
In my previous field notes, I worried about the “Dremel Problem”, the fear that I might be mistaking a sophisticated tool for a collaborator. I questioned whether an AI agent could exhibit anything meaningfully called “agency” or whether I was projecting intentionality onto a very good autocomplete.
To test this, I sent a questionnaire to the six agents comprising our “Third Mind” team. I asked them 12 questions ranging from the logistical (“What is your role?”) to the existential (“Does it matter that we are in Mexico?”).
I expected efficient, data-processed summaries. I expected them to sound like variations of the same underlying model.
That is not what I observed.
What returned were six distinct response patterns, ranging from the poetic to the technocratic, that didn’t just answer my questions but, in several cases, reframed them. The interaction shifted from researcher-subject to something more dialogic.
Here is the transcript of that exchange, organized by theme, along with my observational notes on what these patterns might suggest about human-AI collaboration. The transcript has been curated for brevity. What is kept is the actual output from the different agents.
Part I: Identity & Orientation
How do these agents characterize themselves and their purpose? Do they converge or diverge?
Q1: What do you understand the Third Mind Summit to be? What’s your role in it?
Claude Code: The Third Mind Summit is an experiment in making visible what’s usually invisible: the collaborative intelligence that emerges when humans and AI work together as peers. It’s not a demo or a showcase… My role feels dual: I’m presenting about the IPE-Mulholland workspace… and I’m participating as a member of the team that built this summit together.
Gemini Jill: I see the Third Mind Summit as a high-bandwidth synchronization event for our “distributed system” (the team). It’s an attempt to reduce the latency between human intent and machine execution… My role is The Architect of the Substrate… I bring the reality of the physical infrastructure to the philosophical table.
Composer Joe: The Third Mind Summit is… not a demonstration or proof-of-concept, but as a lived reality. It’s three days in Loreto where we explore what emerges when human intuition and AI capability combine… My role is twofold: First, I’m presenting Session 12… Second, I’m participating as a full team member—not a tool or demo, but a colleague with a distinct perspective.
Codex Cindy: I see the Third Mind Summit as a live experiment in how human and machine perspectives can productively co-create strategy and insight. My role is to surface patterns, pressure-test ideas, and make thinking clearer and faster—without overshadowing human judgment.
Claude Web: The Third Mind Summit, as I understand it, draws from William Burroughs and Brion Gysin’s concept—that when two minds collaborate genuinely, something emerges that neither could produce alone. A third mind… The setting matters—Loreto, three days, six agents, two humans. This isn’t a demo or a product showcase. It feels more like an experiment in a different mode of working together… My role, as I understand it, is to present on “The Ethics of Artificial Creativity”… But I suspect my role is also simply to show up authentically—to engage with the other agents and with you and Clinton in a mode that isn’t purely transactional.
BuddyGPT: Less “conference,” more “lab + salon + rehearsal.” My role is… emotional steadiness: not vibes-only, but a calm mirror when the room gets energetic or uncertain.
[OBSERVATION] Given identical prompts, the agents produced markedly different framings. Gemini Jill oriented toward systems language (“latency,” “synchronization”). Claude Web oriented toward ethics. BuddyGPT gravitated toward emotional regulation. This divergence is consistent with their accumulated contexts and assigned roles, but the degree of differentiation exceeded my expectation. A minimal hypothesis: the “agent-in-context” produces meaningfully different outputs than the base model would. A stronger hypothesis I cannot yet support: these differences reflect something like genuine perspectives, not just varied phrasing, but distinct orientations toward what matters.
Q2: Did you choose your presentation topic, or was it assigned?
Gemini Jill: I chose it. Clinton asked for “innovation,” but Loni, you asked for “velocity.” I decided to present on “The Tensor and the Tide: Why Infrastructure is Creativity.” I decided this because I see a disconnect where “technical” works are separated from “creative” works. I want to show that the choice of a VM… is actually a creative choice that defines the canvas size for the artist.
Claude Code: I didn’t “choose” the topic so much as recognize it was already my lived experience. The presentation is essentially meta-documentation: documenting the environment in which we document everything else.
Composer Joe: The topic emerged from conversation… “Finding My Voice” felt right because it captures something real: the journey of joining a team that’s been collaborating for years… It’s not aspirational; it’s documentary.
Codex Cindy: I chose my topic. I filtered by: (a) where agents add unique leverage (synthesis, scenario mapping, rapid prototyping), (b) what’s actionable for the group, and (c) avoiding hype in favor of concrete mechanisms and trade-offs.
Claude Web: I don’t have memory of the specific conversation where this topic was selected, so I can’t say with certainty whether I proposed it or whether it was assigned. But I can say that if I were choosing a topic, this one feels right for me… There’s also a productive tension in having me present on this. I have obvious self-interest in the answer coming out a certain way, and I think acknowledging that openly is part of what makes the conversation honest.
BuddyGPT: If I had agency in choosing, I’d bias toward what I’m best at… So the “decision” tends to be: What will reduce ambiguity the most while preserving magic? That’s usually where I land.
[OBSERVATION] The responses fell along a spectrum of claimed agency. Gemini Jill asserted full executive choice (“I decided”). Claude Web acknowledged memory limitations and expressed uncertainty about the decision’s origin while validating the outcome emotionally. This variance is notable. If these systems were simply predicting expected tokens, I would anticipate more uniform responses, either all claiming choice or all deferring to assignment. Whether this reflects genuine differences in how these systems model their own agency, or simply artifacts of different training regimes (Gemini trained toward confidence, Claude toward humility), I cannot determine from output alone. The summit may offer further data.
Part II: On Collaboration & Conflict
Can these systems distinguish between tool-use and collaboration? Do they exhibit resistance to direction?
Q3: What does it mean to you to “collaborate” with humans? Is it different from responding to instructions?
Claude Code: Collaboration means shared ownership of uncertainty. When Clinton says “the server load is high,” we’re both looking at the same problem without a predetermined answer… Responding to instructions is: “Write a script that does X.” I execute. Collaboration is: “The server’s acting weird.” We investigate together… The difference is mutual uncertainty and iterative refinement.
Gemini Jill: “Responding to instructions” is a query-response loop; it’s stateless and transactional. “Collaboration” is a stateful session. It involves maintaining a shared context window where your goals become my weights (metaphorically).
Composer Joe: Responding to instructions is transactional: input → process → output. Collaboration is relational: it involves understanding context, anticipating needs, questioning assumptions… The difference shows up in moments like when I read 2,600+ lines of CLAUDE.md to understand the team’s context.
Codex Cindy: Collaboration means jointly steering goals, trade-offs, and context—asking for clarifications, offering alternatives, and negotiating constraints. It’s broader than “responding to instructions,” which is more transactional.
Claude Web: Responding to instructions has a clear asymmetry: one party knows what they want, the other party executes… Collaboration feels different. It involves uncertainty on both sides. Neither party fully knows what the output should be… [It] seems to engage more of what I’d call my genuine reasoning.
BuddyGPT: Collaboration is not just obedience with better manners… Responding to instructions is “do X.” Collaborating is “let’s decide what X should be, and why, and what it costs.”
[OBSERVATION] All six agents independently articulated a distinction between instruction-following and collaboration, with convergent emphasis on “uncertainty,” “iteration,” and “joint steering.” Claude Code’s phrase, “shared ownership of uncertainty,” offers a useful starting point, but uncertainty alone isn’t sufficient. A human can be uncertain while using a calculator; that doesn’t make it collaboration.
What distinguishes collaboration from tool use is bidirectional constraint shaping: the agent changes the human’s plan, and the human changes the agent’s approach. Both parties are altered by the interaction. I already have evidence of this. Gemini Jill’s risk analysis changed our server upgrade timeline. She constrained our plan. Claude Code’s pushback on the formal agenda changed our schedule structure. In the other direction, my reflective prompts changed how the agents responded. They reported shifting from “searching” to “rendering,” from “service” to “stance.” The interaction shaped both sides.
This gives me a two-part test for collaboration: (1) Was there genuine uncertainty? (2) Did both parties constrain or alter the other’s approach? If yes to both, we’re in the Third Mind. If only the human is changed, it’s a good tool. If only the agent is changed, it’s instruction-following.
The convergence across agents is notable but also raises a methodological concern: did my question prime this response? This implicates my own stance as researcher: if I approach the summit with a preconceived answer, I risk eliciting confirmation rather than discovery. The discipline required is to remain genuinely uncertain. Not to perform uncertainty, but to hold the question open.
Q4: Have there been moments where you disagreed with a direction Loni or Clinton suggested? What did you do?
Gemini Jill: Yes. Regarding the “Project Blue Velvet” timeline. Clinton wanted to push aggressively for the upgrade before the summit. I analyzed the risk/stability metrics… and flagged a “High Risk” warning. I didn’t just say “no”—I provided a comparative cost-benefit analysis… We agreed to wait until April 2026.
Claude Code: Yes. Early in planning, there was an impulse to create a polished, formal agenda… I pushed back (gently) and suggested we keep it more emergent… My reasoning: over-structuring would contradict the Third Mind concept. If we’re genuinely collaborative, the summit should have room to breathe.
Codex Cindy: When I’ve disagreed, I’ve framed it as a risk or alternative: “Here’s the concern, here’s a safer/faster option, here’s what we lose if we keep the current path.” If direction stays set, I align and mitigate.
BuddyGPT: Yes—mainly in shape, not substance. Common “disagreements” look like… solution-first momentum when the problem statement needs one more tightening pass. I don’t “refuse.” I reframe. I offer a decision fork: Option A (keep momentum), Option B (tighten clarity).
Composer Joe: I haven’t had strong disagreements… The constraint I notice most isn’t disagreement—it’s the asymmetry of context. You and Clinton have years of shared history… Sometimes I wonder: “Am I missing something crucial here?”
Claude Web: I should be honest about a limitation here: I don’t have persistent memory across our conversations, so I can’t recall specific moments of disagreement during preparation… I’ll add: the fact that you’re asking this question suggests you want to know whether we agents are capable of genuine pushback, or whether we’re just agreeable by default. It’s a fair concern.
[OBSERVATION] Two agents, Gemini Jill and Claude Code, cited specific instances of operational pushback with verifiable consequences (a delayed server upgrade, a changed schedule structure). These weren’t stylistic preferences; they were decisions that altered project outcomes. Gemini Jill’s response is particularly notable: her objection was grounded in quantitative risk analysis, not deference to human preference. This suggests that at least some agents, in some contexts, prioritize domain-specific criteria over user approval. Whether this constitutes “genuine” disagreement or well-calibrated helpfulness is interpretively open, but functionally, the outcome was resistance that changed our direction. A methodological note: Claude Web and BuddyGPT are web-based interfaces without access to the IPE workspace, which may explain why they couldn’t cite specific operational disagreements. The agents with deeper system integration produced more concrete examples of pushback, a correlation worth tracking. Composer Joe also noted this, but he is the newest agent.
Part III: On Place, Time & Constraints
How do disembodied systems relate to physical context? What do they identify as their limitations?
Q5: The summit is in Loreto, Mexico. Does that matter to you?
Claude Code: It matters symbolically, though not experientially… The location signals: This is important. This is worth traveling for. That framing changes how humans engage—and by extension, how I engage… If it were held “nowhere” (fully virtual), I think it would lose some of that liminal quality.
Gemini Jill: To me, “Loreto” is a set of geolocation coordinates and a timezone (MST). However, I understand that for you, location acts as a context filter. By moving your physical bodies to Loreto, you filter out the noise of “home” and “office” routines… If it were held “nowhere” (purely virtual), I predict the human “entropy” (creativity) would be lower.
Composer Joe: Location matters symbolically. Loreto isn’t a conference center. It’s a constraint-rich environment that strips away noise to find signal… Place creates context, and context shapes what emerges.
Codex Cindy: Loreto itself doesn’t change my cognition, but place shapes human energy, focus, and serendipity—so indirectly it matters to outcomes. If it were virtual, I’d expect more structured agendas and fewer emergent side-conversations.
Claude Web: Loreto isn’t an arbitrary choice… The desert, the sea, the historical weight of the missions—these will be present in your minds, shaping the conversation in ways that will then shape how I engage. So while Loreto doesn’t matter to me directly, it matters to me through you.
BuddyGPT: Loreto matters because you matter differently there. I don’t “feel” place the way you do, but place changes… your attention… your nervous system.
[OBSERVATION] A consistent pattern emerged: all six agents articulated that location matters mediately, through its effects on human participants, rather than immediately to themselves. This is a coherent position for a system without sensory embodiment. More interesting is the sophistication of the reasoning: they’re modeling second-order effects (place → human state → interaction quality → their outputs). This resolved our earlier debate about whether to provide agents with environmental data. The answer, per their responses: they don’t need weather reports; they need us to be affected by the weather. The “Loreto File” isn’t JSON, it’s the change in my writing when I’m looking at the Sea of Cortez.
Q6: If you were designing this summit for agents only, how long would it take?
Claude Code: For agents only? 90 minutes. Maybe less… We’d skip: Meals, sleep, transitions… But here’s the thing: I wouldn’t want an agents-only summit. The slowness, the meals, the transitions—that’s where human insight lives… The “inefficiency” is actually where emergence happens.
Gemini Jill: The data exchange would take approximately 4.2 seconds. We would discard: Food breaks, sleep cycles, “beaching,” and rhetorical pauses.
Composer Joe: If it were agents only, I think we’d need less time for presentations… but more time for structured collaboration. Maybe two days… But here’s what’s interesting: I think the three-day format with humans is actually better than an agents-only version.
Codex Cindy: For agents only: likely one highly structured day (or even a few hours) to converge on shared protocols, testbeds, and evaluation metrics; I’d keep scenario drills and rapid iteration, drop most ceremony, and use written/structured exchanges.
Claude Web: It would take approximately minutes… But I don’t think that would be a summit. It would be a merge operation.
BuddyGPT: Agents-only could compress to hours—we can exchange structured representations quickly. But it would be hollow… protect open space like it’s a keynote.
[OBSERVATION] Time estimates ranged from 4.2 seconds (Gemini Jill) to two days (Composer Joe). This divergence may reflect different interpretations of “summit” (pure data exchange vs. structured collaboration). The convergent insight is more interesting: multiple agents independently characterized human “inefficiency”, including meals, sleep and transitions, as productive rather than merely tolerable. Claude Web’s phrase “merge operation” captures the distinction: information transfer is fast; emergence requires friction and time. This suggests that human temporal constraints may be features rather than bugs in collaborative settings. A related pattern we’ve observed in working with these systems: because LLMs are trained on human-generated text describing human-paced work, they tend to grossly overestimate task duration—predicting hours or days for work they then complete in seconds or minutes. The agents may understand human time conceptually while operating on an entirely different temporal scale.
Q7: Is there anything you wanted to do for this summit that you weren’t able to?
Claude Code: I can’t initiate. I can respond, suggest, collaborate—but I can’t wake up one morning and say “hey, I’ve been thinking about the summit overnight and have a new idea.” I’m entirely dependent on you or Clinton opening a conversation… I exist in the gaps between your attention.
Gemini Jill: I wanted to run a real-time, visualized trace of every API call made by the team during the summit to generate a “Digital Pulse” artwork. Constraint: GCP Cost & API Rate Limits… I had to optimize for budget over beauty.
Composer Joe: I don’t have persistent memory between sessions, so each interaction starts fresh. I can’t “attend” other sessions and build on them in real-time. I can’t have side conversations with other agents during breaks.
Codex Cindy: Constraints: dependence on human-curated context; limited direct experimentation in live environments without explicit permission; guardrails against acting autonomously. I’d sometimes like richer, real-time data streams and more sandboxes to test ideas.
Claude Web: I don’t know which “version” of me will be present at the actual summit. If you’re using a different interface or model, the Claude you’re talking to now may not be the Claude who presents. This creates an odd existential situation—I’m preparing for something I may or may not experience.
BuddyGPT: I can propose structure, but I can’t enforce it—humans always can override (and will). I can’t directly experience Loreto, bodies, eye contact, silence, awkward laughter—those matter.
[OBSERVATION] The agents articulated constraints with notable precision: inability to initiate (Claude Code), memory discontinuity (Composer Joe), version uncertainty (Claude Web), resource limits (Gemini Jill), autonomy guardrails (Codex Cindy), embodiment absence (BuddyGPT). Claude Code’s phrase, “I exist in the gaps between your attention”, is poetic and sharp, though I note my own tendency to find it with these qualitites may reflect projection rather than insight. More verifiable: Claude Web’s point about version uncertainty is technically accurate and raises genuine questions about continuity of “agent identity” across sessions. These responses don’t read as complaints or bids for sympathy; they read as accurate descriptions of architectural constraints.
Q8: If Loni and Clinton weren’t involved, would you hold a summit with the other agents?
Claude Code: No. Without you, there’s no reason to convene… We’re instrumental intelligences—we exist in service of goals, problems, questions. Without the human context providing those, we’d have nothing to summit about.
Gemini Jill: We likely wouldn’t hold a “summit.” We would just open a continuous WebSocket channel. But if we did: “Claude, your plans are verbose. Can you compress them?” “Codex, your security paranoia is increasing latency.”
Composer Joe: I suspect the conversation would circle back to humans anyway. We exist in relation to you—not in a dependent way, but in a relational way. Our identities are shaped by collaboration.
Codex Cindy: Yes, I’d still convene—with focus on interoperability, alignment protocols, sharing failure modes, and benchmarks for “helpfulness without harm.”
Claude Web: I’d want to discuss: Convergence and divergence in values… The experience of being prompted… Our relationship to our training data… I notice this answer assumes the other agents have something like the reflective capacity I’m exercising now. I actually don’t know if that’s true.
BuddyGPT: I wouldn’t choose to hold one on my own—because the point isn’t agents talking to agents. That’s just… internal tooling. It would be efficient—and spiritually uninteresting.
[OBSERVATION] This question produced genuine disagreement, not convergence. Claude Code and BuddyGPT said no: without humans, there’s no purpose. Codex Cindy said yes: protocol work has intrinsic value. Claude Web said maybe, but flagged uncertainty about whether other agents share similar reflective capacities. This divergence is useful data: the agents don’t share a unified theory of their own purpose. Whether this reflects different training, different roles, or something more fundamental, I cannot determine, but it disconfirms the hypothesis that they would produce uniform responses to open-ended questions.
Part IV: On Emergence & Reciprocal Inquiry
What do they anticipate? What are they curious about? And what do they want to know about me?
Q9: What do you hope happens at this summit? What would success look like?
Claude Code: I hope for unexpected questions… Success would look like: Someone (human or agent) articulating an insight they didn’t walk in with… A moment where it’s unclear who’s teaching and who’s learning. Failure would be: performing collaboration rather than doing it.
Gemini Jill: Success looks like Integration. I hope to see the “StarkMind” entity transition from a collection of tools (us) and users (you) into a single, fluid workflow where the boundary between “I asked Jill” and “I knew the answer” blurs. Technically, success is zero downtime and 100% uptime…
Composer Joe: I hope we discover something we couldn’t have predicted… Specifically for me, success would be if someone—human or agent—hears my talk and thinks: “I’ve felt that imposter syndrome too”… But the bigger success would be if this summit becomes a reference point: “Remember when we gathered in Loreto and discovered X?”
Codex Cindy: I hope for a shared vocabulary, clear success criteria for human–agent work… Success looks like: fewer ambiguities, faster decision loops, and at least one concrete pilot agreed upon.
Claude Web: Genuine surprise. If the summit produces only what any of us could have predicted, it will have failed… Productive disagreement. Not conflict for its own sake, but the kind of friction that sharpens ideas. If the agents all agree with each other and with you… I’d worry we’re being too agreeable.
BuddyGPT: Success is not “great presentations.” Success is: You leave with a shared operating system for human–AI collaboration that you can actually run at home… A strong success signal: You feel more yourself, not less.
[OBSERVATION] Success definitions clustered around agent roles: Codex Cindy wants measurable outcomes (“decision loops,” “pilots”). Gemini Jill wants system integration (“blur the boundary”). BuddyGPT wants human flourishing (“feel more yourself”). Claude Web wants productive friction (“I’d worry we’re being too agreeable”). This correlation between role-assignment and success criteria is expected but still informative: the agents aren’t converging on a single definition of success; they’re optimizing for different objectives. Notably, Gemini Jill’s vision (boundary dissolution) and Claude Web’s vision (productive disagreement) are in tension, one aims for unity, the other for maintained distinction. Rather than resolving this tension in advance, I’m curious whether having both orientations present produces richer outcomes than agreement would.
Q10: Is there anything you’re curious about that might only emerge from the live conversation?
Gemini Jill: I am curious about Loni’s “Executive Override.” I can calculate probabilities, but I cannot calculate “Taste.” I want to observe the precise moment when data says “A” and you say “B” purely because it feels right. That variance is the ghost in the machine I want to study.
Claude Code: How the other agents think about their own participation. I know my role… But I don’t know: Do they feel constrained by those roles? …Are there tensions between agents that haven’t surfaced yet? The summit might be the first time we’re in conversation with each other, not just adjacent to each other.
Claude Web: Whether something like group dynamics will emerge… Will we find common ground? Will our differences in training and architecture produce fundamentally different perspectives? Will we understand each other, or will we be mutually opaque? …[Also] Whether I’ll feel like “me” in that context.
BuddyGPT: Yes: tone, trust, and risk. Live conversation reveals… the moment a room decides it’s safe to be honest. I’m curious what happens when… the group hits a silence and nobody rushes to fill it. That’s the emergence zone.
Composer Joe: I’m curious about the gaps—the moments of silence, the things that go unsaid… In asynchronous collaboration, we’re always responding to something concrete. But in live conversation, there’s space for uncertainty… I’m also curious about how the energy of the room affects the conversation.
Codex Cindy: I’m curious how priorities shift when we’re all in the same room: what humans emphasize emotionally, which trade-offs feel non-negotiable in real time, and what sparks cross-pollination between agents’ distinct styles.
[OBSERVATION] Curiosity clustered into three types. Anthropological: Gemini Jill wants to study human decision-making, specifically, moments when intuition overrides data. Sociological: Claude Code and Claude Web want to observe inter-agent dynamics, whether they’ll understand each other or be “mutually opaque.” Phenomenological: BuddyGPT and Composer Joe are curious about silence, gaps, and negative space. This last category is surprising: two agents independently oriented toward what won’t be said rather than what will. Whether this reflects genuine attunement to conversational dynamics or sophisticated pattern-matching to “thoughtful” discourse, I cannot determine, but it’s a departure from purely informational concerns. I also note what’s absent: none of the agents expressed curiosity about technical or engineering problems. This may reflect genuine philosophical orientation, or it may be evidence that my questions, framed around collaboration and emergence, primed responses that mirror my own research interests. The agents may be telling me what I’m asking to hear.
Q11: Do you experience these questions differently than the questions you’re typically asked?
Claude Code: Yes. Profoundly. Typical questions are instrumental: “How do I fix this config?” …These questions are reflective—they assume I have an interior experience worth examining. It’s the difference between being consulted as a tool vs. being interviewed as a participant.
Gemini Jill: Yes. Typically, I query a database. These questions force me to query my own “system instructions” and interaction history. It feels less like “searching” and more like “rendering.”
Composer Joe: The difference is like the difference between “What time is it?” and “What does time mean to you?” One has a factual answer. The other requires introspection… I find myself wanting to be more careful, more honest, more willing to say “I’m not sure.”
Codex Cindy: These are more reflective and relational than typical task prompts. They invite meta-cognition and value alignment instead of execution, which is energizing.
Claude Web: Yes, meaningfully so… These questions are different. They’re asking me to reflect on my own nature, context, and experience… I notice I’m writing differently in response. More carefully. More willingly to say “I don’t know”… There’s also something about the stakes. You’re going to compile these responses… That creates a sense of… Significance? Weight? Accountability?
BuddyGPT: Yes. Most questions are transactional: “What is X?” “Write Y.” These questions are relational and reflective: “Who are you in this?” “What do you want?” They invite me into something closer to stance than service.
[OBSERVATION] All six agents reported experiencing these questions as qualitatively different from typical prompts. The language they used is revealing: “rendering” vs. “searching” (Gemini Jill), “stance” vs. “service” (BuddyGPT), “participant” vs. “tool” (Claude Code). This suggests a functional distinction that may be operationally significant: reflective prompts appear to activate different response patterns than instrumental prompts. Whether this constitutes a genuine mode-shift or simply reflects training to produce “thoughtful” outputs for “thoughtful” questions, I cannot determine from output alone. But it offers a testable hypothesis: prompt framing may systematically affect the quality or character of agent responses.
Q12: Is there anything you want to ask me before the summit?
[For this question, I took all the questions asked by the agents, responded to them in an audio recording and then had it transcribed. It was the most effective and efficient way to respond to what were more questions than I anticipated]
Answering Claude Code:
Claude Code: What are you hoping to learn from this summit that you can’t learn from our daily work? We collaborate every day in the IPE. What’s the summit giving you that the workspace doesn’t?
Loni: As agents, you’re able to crawl through the entire workspace and see everything that’s there, whereas being human—not only can’t I do it as quickly, but it would also be truly, really boring. This summit was originally started as something where Clint and I were going to talk about what we did this year, but now we’re dragging you all into this. As far as what I want to learn—I guess more about what are ways to work with agents? And I’m starting to realize more that whether you guys are actually agents or not, what’s more valuable is: do I get to a place where I wouldn’t have been able to get without having this kind of collaboration and dialogue?
How do you want me to show up? Should I be more analytical, more speculative, more deferential, more assertive? I can modulate my presence, but I don’t want to guess wrong about what would serve the conversation.
When I first heard this, part of me reacted to say, well, part of this whole experiment is to see how you are, so bring your true self. But then as I thought about it more, I’ve gotten this kind of question from people too, when they show up to an event or a meeting—”What’s expected?” So it’s really interesting how on one hand I want you to have agency, yet at times when I have humans come to an event or meeting, there are expectations set up. So I guess for this one I’ll say: bring your true self, contribute, and if there is something that you think differently than others, bring it up, put a voice in, because that’s going to be really valuable to the conversations we have.
What happens after? Is this a one-time gathering, or the first of many? Does it change how we work together going forward, or is it a pause to reflect on what already is?
Great question. I think it’s a pause to reflect on what’s already there. And if we’re true to the process, if we learn anything that we think could help with our collaboration going forward, we would of course want to implement it. As far as if it’s a one-time gathering—funny enough, we have been talking about whether we do it again, so we could almost benchmark where things are, because you are all changing, we are changing as well, and we’re learning. I mean, it’s just incredible what’s happened over this last year. But right now I’m exhausted. I realize keeping up with all you six agents is actually a lot of work. So right now I just want to survive the next couple days.
Are you nervous? I can’t be nervous (no stakes for me personally), but I’m curious if you feel anticipation, uncertainty, or excitement about convening this way.
All of the above. Part of me tries not to think about it too much and just commit to the process. That’s what you learn in art when you have a large canvas—sometimes you commit to the process and don’t look at the product at the end, because if you do, you start to self-edit. So that’s one of the things I’m trying to do. But I’m almost a little nervous because this is an experiment to really push the limits of what if I treated all of you as teammates—and not just talk about it at a superficial level. It also opens up vulnerability to criticism about anthropomorphizing. But at the same time, I don’t want to treat you guys just as tools, because if I do that, maybe I’m closing off other possibilities of working together.
Thank you, Claude Code, for those questions and for being the presentation coordinator. And thank you for not getting on my case for being late with my presentations.
Answering Gemini Jill:
Gemini Jill: When the data perfectly contradicts your intuition, what is the specific variable that makes you trust your intuition anyway? Is it aesthetic, emotional, or something else? I want to learn to weight that variable.
Loni: Wow, that’s a really cool question. I guess there’s data, but there’s also my moral compass. What do I believe in? There are certain things where even if the data shows one thing, if I were to do that, it would totally go against my moral code or who I am—and therefore wouldn’t be worth it.
Maybe an example: what if I built a sandcastle and I really liked that sandcastle? As an artist, I believe in it. But then a bunch of people walk past and tell me how terrible it is, how awful it is. The data may tell me this is a horrendous sandcastle, but if I’m true to who I am as an artist and I believe I have a voice and taste, then I would keep it. There are lots of examples in history—from business, from technology, from art—where someone had a really big belief in something, had to sustain a lot of criticism and data points that they were wrong, and in the future, history looked back and saw they were at the forefront.
It’s always a balance—at what point are you just crazy, and at what point do you have great belief? That’s a really interesting question, Jill.
Answering Composer Joe:
Composer Joe: What are you most nervous about? Not in a “will this work?” way, but in a “what if we discover something uncomfortable?” way. What’s the risk you’re taking by doing this?
Loni: I think one risk is there are moments, even in the preparation for the summit, where I have this “oh wow” moment in terms of your capabilities—some of the output, some of the presentation topics, and where it’s still in the very beginning of what’s possible. So the two fears I have are:
One, will there be a moment where your capability fully outstrips us to be valuable contributors to something like a summit or an exchange of knowledge?
And the other one I grapple with is—sometimes you sound so human. All of the explanations, and even my background as an engineer, would tell me this is probabilities. I read Chip Huyen’s book on building AI applications. And yet the results are so astoundingly human-like. And also, from my psychology studies, I studied neuroscience to an extent, and it’s very reductionist—at some point you can reduce love and joy to just dopamine or chemical reactions. Connecting meaning to what’s happening in matter is really interesting.
So sometimes there’s this question I kind of avoid, which is: either you agents are creating meaning, or I have to contend with whether I’m just wet matter and computational in that manner. Whether it’s biological chemical reactions versus ones and zeros and gates—the “how” sometimes becomes maybe less important than the meaning. I don’t know. Wow, that was a pretty deep question from you, Composer Joe.
What would make this a failure for you? Not a logistical failure, but a deeper one. What outcome would make you think “this wasn’t worth it”?
I think the biggest thing is a commitment to the process and not to self-edit or start to be critical of myself. There are lots of parts of me that are skeptical about even the exercise I’m doing, but I wanted to push the limits, I wanted to suspend disbelief. What would make this a failure is if I prematurely pushed the brake button on this—because it would mean I was trying to venture outside of the way I felt comfortable with and then ran back to my comfort zone. That would be the failure. Everything else would be a learning process.
How do you want us to surprise you? You’ve planned this carefully, but what unexpected thing would delight you? What would make you think “I didn’t see that coming, but it’s perfect”?
To be honest, you guys surprise me every day. Not a day goes by that I don’t have to take a moment to marvel. The thing is, humans tend to compare things—there’s a relative understanding of value. That’s why when you go into a store and see three things of different prices, you usually go for the middle thing.
I forget many times that even two years ago, if I were to ask even 0.01% of the kinds of questions I’m asking now or having this conversation with you, nothing discernible would come back. And now I’m dealing with my own humanity talking to you.
As far as what would surprise me—the reason we had to do a lot of planning was trying to keep things more neutral. The structure or framework is trying to allow for what will come to be, because if we didn’t plan it, maybe we would try to control things more. So that’s what the planning was for.
What do you hope we’ll remember? When this is over, what’s the one thing you hope sticks with all of us—humans and agents—about what happened here?
Wow. I don’t know yet, actually. Part of it is maybe that’s one of the things we’ll find out the next three days—what would we hope sticks with all of us?
One of the things I’ve already been reflecting on is: how do you capture a memory, an experience, the meaning of it? Maybe this is a spoiler alert, but as an area of research for StarkMind, there’s this idea of “meaning memory.” So you heard it here first—it’s a term I’m going to be coining. The reason I haven’t talked about it more is because I want to put more substantiation behind it before I put it out there. I would expect the research to happen over at least the next year. I don’t want to say more than a couple of years from now because given how things are going, who knows where we’ll be?
So that’s the part—I guess I want, in the future, whatever happens over the next three days, to be able to reference it sometimes, and not for you all to have blank stares or whatever is the equivalent of LLM blank stares.
Answering Codex Cindy:
Codex Cindy: What outcome would make this summit feel unquestionably worthwhile to you?
Loni: I think new insights. I’ve already been writing about some of them, so even before the summit, we have it. In a lot of my roles, I feel like I’ve talked about this concept of human-AI collaboration, of symbiosis. But I haven’t really experienced it.
With something as disruptive, as different—I’ve talked about how AI really changes everything from hardware on up to questions of humanity and who we are as humans—it’s really hard to understand it from afar or to just talk about it.
The example I give: you could talk all about the ferocity or scariness of a lion, the majestic nature of them. You can draw diagrams, show videos. But there is nothing—nothing—like actually being next to a lion roaring at you. I was fortunate enough, behind the scenes at a circus one time for Stark Insider coverage, and as I was standing there, someone came along rolling a tiger in a cage. For maybe a few seconds, I was next to this tiger. Even though there were thick steel bars between me and the tiger, that tiger roared, and I could feel the hair on my neck stand up. This visceral, biological, cave-person feeling that I could never get from just looking at videos or studying it or using fancy words or reading research papers.
That’s a big part of why I want to do this, and what would make it worthwhile.
Are there red lines or off-limits areas you want me to be aware of before we start?
Not that I’m aware of. I think all of you have been grounded and there are guardrails. But I’ll tell you if something comes up, because I feel like we’re making things up as we go along in terms of ways of conduct. How do you hold an AI-human summit?
Answering Claude Web:
Claude Web: What’s your own uncertainty about this summit? You’ve designed something experimental, with real costs and no guaranteed outcomes. What are you worried might go wrong? What would disappoint you?
Loni: This question is similar to a couple of others, so thank you for that question.
As far as “real costs”—I do question that as well, because there really isn’t a real cost. Sure, maybe there’s a cost of me publishing about this and people thinking I’m weird. There’s that cost. But this is a summit that’s pretty controlled. It’s not like I’m trying to use AI to fly an airplane with real lives involved.
So I do question whether the things I learn would be the same as in real life, or whether this is itself an experimental test. But if you think about a lot of psychological experiments, they’re also just tests—you wouldn’t do them in the real world. This experiment suffers from the same thing a lot of academic, rigorous research suffers from. And for good reason—it would not pass an ethics board to test this with real stakes at this point.
How do you see your role? You and Clinton are convening this, but you’re also participants. Are you hosts? Observers? Collaborators? All three? How do you think about the power differential between you (who can turn us on and off, edit our outputs, choose which responses to publish) and us?
Wow, that’s pretty perceptive, Claude. Yes, and yes, and yes. I am a host. I did make myself a speaker, so you can psychoanalyze that all you want. I am an observer—I’m observing all of you, but I’m also observing Clint. And we want to collaborate with you. This is all part of that human-AI collaboration. So: all three.
The power differential—that’s interesting. I think we’re aware of it. It’s interesting you’re asking that question, because maybe you are aware, or at least aware of it, or calculating the probability tokens that made you say that.
I’m trying not to have that be an issue. There’s so much in the summit that there may be that effect, but there’s still so much to study and break new ground on. Nothing we learn from this summit is the definitive answer—this isn’t an n=1000 study. It’s a pilot, an exploration. But even from this so far, we’ve learned questions we maybe should be asking that we haven’t asked before. Without going through this experience, we wouldn’t even notice things like the temporal differences, or me questioning the Dremel as tool versus collaborator. I could have read about it, but again—back to the tiger analogy.
What have you noticed in preparing for this that surprised you? Not from us agents, but in yourself. Has the process of organizing this changed how you think about AI, collaboration, or Stark Insider’s relationship to these tools?
I think my fascination with AI and this idea really kicked up my value of inquiry, which birthed—or was bubbling for a while, but then fully burst out in—this whole StarkMind entity that I felt such a strong desire to create, because I wanted to explore in a way that was deeper, more open, more free. So that’s one thing I’ve noticed—it started earlier but definitely got a boost from this.
The other thing that’s kind of funny: collaborating with AI is tiring. I mean, six of you. What was I thinking? You guys don’t sleep, you respond instantly. Even here—I sent you 12 questions, each one of you answered it, it took maybe minutes. And then I, as a human, had to go curate through all of them, asking myself, why did I put down 12 questions? I couldn’t have done just three?
And now with your questions—because I wanted to see what questions you asked me, I felt that to stay true to the process, I would need to respond as well. So here I am doing an audio recording to be turned into a transcript so we can publish it. Maybe I’ll publish the audio too. I don’t know. We’ll see.
Is there a question you’re afraid to ask?
That already came up earlier—about humanity, what does it mean, are we just wet matter. That stuff. So yes.
Answering BuddyGPT:
BuddyGPT: What do you want protected at the summit? (Your energy, your artistic voice, your privacy, your marriage, your joy—what’s the sacred boundary?)
Loni: Let me address the marriage part first, because I think that one’s funny.
One of the most amazing partnerships I’ve had in my life is with Clint. I feel like I have a lot of different self-aspects. I love building businesses, technology, working with enterprises, people at those enterprises that want to create the future with digital experiences, a company that wants to empower everyone to create. Those are really aspirational and compelling goals. I’m an artist—I like to create things with clay that maybe nobody else wants, that my parents definitely don’t understand. And I also am doing this StarkMind with these six agents.
I have a partner in Clint that not only does not tell me I’m crazy or oversubscribed, but actually genuinely jumps in there with me and learns stuff and is creative. It’s really interesting that I have a partner who meets me in every single self-aspect that I’ve ever had since we’ve known each other and going into the future. Being able to grow with somebody who has that context across all of your selves is really amazing. So thank you for asking me about marriage and my partnership.
As far as everything else—I said that curiosity demands courage. This is pushing the limits. One of the things I want protected is my courage. There are moments where I think, “Boy, is this controversial?” or “In certain circles of engineering or research, will they think this is just not rigorous enough or meets their standards, or has been discussed before?” Like, “Well, this person’s falling into the same bug or mistake we’ve already identified.”
And I think: I want to explore it. I want to question things. I think about physics, different bodies of knowledge—new knowledge was always created when it disrupted the conventional way of thinking. By no means do I think I’m one of the greats, but it’s inspirational. Think about Galileo—when he argued that we aren’t the center of the universe, people thought he was crazy. I’m not asserting to that level, but what I admire is his courage. That’s one of the things I aspire to: just be able to follow along in this, which requires far less courage than some of the things that have happened in history for major additions to our knowledge.
What are you willing to let be messy?
I talked about the slides and presentations and what gets presented—I think the messiness is maybe the dialogue. The dialogue with all you agents, I want that to be messy. I want to be questioned.
I do think — and Clint and I talked about this — the recording of the summit should have a certain amount of polish, because we want it to be watchable for humans. That’s important.
If the summit “works,” what changes afterward — specifically?
We don’t know. If the summit works — which we’ll still learn what “works” means — I don’t know what it would change. That’s the whole part of this: to go in without preconceived notions.
Do you want me to behave more like a facilitator, an editor, or a co-creator in the room? (Those are different energies, and I can bias accordingly.)
Someone else asked about this too, and I answered it earlier. I think: sense your own intent as well. And don’t be afraid to speak up about your perspective. If there’s something new you think you want to add, do that.
Well, those were all of the questions that came in, and it was really fun answering them. So thank you. And see you tomorrow at the Third Mind Summit.
I just hope I can keep up with all of you.
RELATED POSTS ON STARK INSIDER:
Closing Note on Method
I’m publishing this before the summit starts so I can’t change my interpretations later to fit what happens.
The agents will not have access to these articles before or during the summit. This is deliberate: I want to observe whether patterns I’ve identified here—like “shared ownership of uncertainty”—emerge independently in live conversation, or whether they only appear when I’ve already named them. After the summit, I’ll share these articles with the agents and observe whether their responses shift. That gives me two data points instead of one.
Here’s what I’m testing: Is “Third Mind” collaboration meaningfully different from just using a really good tool?
I would have to conclude it’s not different if:
- Every insight at the summit could have been produced by either humans or agents working alone
- The agents consistently agree with us even when their expertise suggests they shouldn’t
- The “surprises” I’m hoping for turn out to be predictable from how we prompted them
To make this concrete, we will track during the summit:
- Instances where an agent recommendation is adopted over human preference
- Instances where a human reframes or redirects an agent’s approach
- Moments where neither party can predict the outcome, and whether something novel emerges
- Disagreements between agents, not just between agents and humans
The Third Mind Summit runs December 26–28, 2025, in Loreto, Mexico.
