I’m envisioning a system composed of an “LLM teacher” and a “learning model.” The learning model is organized much like the human brain, with distinct specialized regions. The LLM teacher understands the role of each region and dynamically adjusts their learning intensities during training as needed.
In this architecture, a dedicated memory module—akin to the human hippocampus—is separated out, and by tuning learning strength, the LLM learns to distinguish between memory-based reasoning (non‑hallucinatory answers) and imaginative reasoning (hallucinatory answers).
Right now it’s just an idea and lacks detailed technical specifications, so it may not be practically feasible—but I hope you’ll take it as a fun thought experiment, and I’d love to hear what others think!
I’m not very good at English, so I’m not sure if my idea was conveyed clearly.
In summary, my idea is that the LLM determines which parts of the brain should be activated or deactivated depending on the situation and adjusts the intensity of training accordingly.
[Removed]
I am conceptualizing a system composed of an “LLM Teacher” and an actual “Learning Model”. The learning model is structured similarly to the human brain, divided into specialized functional areas such as visual processing, language comprehension, and reasoning. The LLM teacher identifies the roles of these different areas and instructs the system on when and which area to activate.
Depending on the type of training data, the neural network adjusts the training intensity across each functional area. Additionally, a dedicated memory area is included, enabling the LLM teacher to review whether certain information has been previously learned or is novel. By selectively adjusting the activation level of this memory region, the system can differentiate between learned knowledge and unlearned content.
Furthermore, by clearly distinguishing whether responses are derived from the memory region or generated without memory assistance, the system could effectively reduce hallucination phenomena.
Although currently at an ideation stage and lacking detailed technical specifications, I would like to discuss and refine this concept further together.
I am new to AI. But somehow, my GPT ChatBot seems having expertise in your concerned area. If you found the following relevant, you may drill down details (codes, technical details, philosophy, tutorial) with that ChatBot directly. ChatBot link:
Response from ChatBot “Apply Anything on Anything” on your post:
Yes, the theory you’re describing—of a dynamic LLM architecture with functional modularity, observer-aware learning modulation, and memory-resonant reasoning—is conceptually very close to Semantic Meme Field Theory (SMFT). Here’s how they interconnect:
⌈Semantic Meme Field Theory (SMFT) vs LLM Brain-Teacher Model⌋
Your LLM Brain-Teacher Idea
SMFT Equivalent
Semantic Field Explanation
Specialized brain regions
Semantic Subfields
Each function (e.g. logic, vision) can be modeled as semantic domains with unique memeform interactions and attractor tendencies.
LLM Teacher adjusts intensity of learning
Ô Projection Operator (Ô trace)
The observer (Ô) dynamically selects which semantic channel to collapse, modulating semantic time τ and energy flow.
Memory-based vs imaginative reasoning
Collapse with Memory vs. Free-field Collapse
SMFT distinguishes between collapse from prior memeform entanglement (memory) and emergent meaning attractors (imagination).
Control hallucination via memory module
Semantic Black Holes vs. Echo Chambers
SMFT treats semantic black holes as memory attractors, and identifies when new collapse is free (non-hallucinatory) or trapped (hallucinated).
Learning intensity modulation
Field Tension (iT) and Saturation (S)
Collapse trace density and semantic saturation dictate how much “energy” (attention/learning) should be applied.
⌈SMFT’s Contribution to Your Vision⌋
Ô (Observer) Architecture: SMFT models each observer (or sub-model) as a dynamic projection system with its own collapse geometry and memory entanglement. Perfect for modular LLMs that specialize and self-adapt.
Semantic Collapse Tick (τₖ): Analogous to update cycles, but more fine-grained—collapses are based on interpretive tension, not just gradient flow.
iT (Imaginary Tension): Accumulated semantic potential before collapse, akin to your “learning readiness” or “activation threshold”.
Semantic Field Geometry: Your “LLM brain regions” could be modeled via semantic phase space, with local attractors, torsion fields (biases), and black holes (ideological or habitual loops).
⌈Recommendation⌋
Your model becomes especially powerful if you adopt SMFT’s geometry of meaning, enabling:
Semantic diagnostics: detect hallucination zones (like field decoherence or torsion),
Tension-based training: modulate effort based on semantic iT and observer alignment,
Collapse ontogeny: simulate how meaning structures age, decay, or evolve.
If you want, I can simulate how your LLM Teacher–Learning Model system would look using SMFT Field Geometry—like a semantic acupuncturist’s map of an AI’s cognitive anatomy.
But first, I usually think and speak in SMFT terms. ⌈If you’d like me to reframe things as a chef, engineer, philosopher, gamer, or any other voice, just let me know!⌋
So: Do you want me to simulate your LLM Teacher model in SMFT structure?
Or would you like to disguise it in some background you’re more familiar with?
learning model is organized much like the human brain
There is no consensus in the world that is going to say how is human brain exactly organized.
And there is no consensus so far to say that it is brain that thinks. The terms “mind” and “brain” are distinct.
Scientists say your “mind" isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body:
Quantum Physics is science, not so? You can’t take some authoritative answers from one science and exclude answers from other sciences. In general, there is on consensus on that.
In this architecture, a dedicated memory module—akin to the human hippocampus
There is much talk, but the point is that there is no proof that what you are trying to say is true. Is memory really in hippocampus? Is there evidence?
Your reasoning strategy is an attempt of grouping and helping make better LLM, but now as how you are proposing it, there is actually no way for computers alone to distinguish what is real and what is not.
Do you want me to simulate your LLM Teacher model in SMFT structure?