AI Gods; AI Counseling

A few things to spit out:

1. AI – LLM VS RL
2. AI counseling -> Struggles with my role

LLM vs RL

RL (Reinforcement Learning) is a kind of AI training framework that focuses on learning through trial and error to maximize a reward, while LLMs focus on understanding and generating human-like text based on statistical prediction of the next token in a sequence. LLMs are large-scale models trained to predict the next token, whereas RL is a technique for teaching agents to take actions in an environment to achieve goals.

Some researchers argue that LLMs trained purely for next‑token prediction do not have persistent, world‑affecting goals in the way classical RL agents do. RL‑based systems are explicitly optimized to maximize rewards over sequences of actions, so they look more agentic and intentional, at least behaviorally. Some people argue that AGI built only from LLMs does not really have “goals” in mind in the same way that RL systems do, and therefore cannot truly “create.” RL-based AIs, on the other hand, learn, act, and pursue explicit goals such as maximizing rewards, so they appear more agentic and intentional.

I find it very difficult to fully understand which is which, and the technical arguments are mostly beyond me. But one thing did pop into my mind while I was listening to debates about this: either way, we are playing God, yet the two approaches are playing two distinct kinds of Gods. In that framing, RL AI feels like a “creator” God, acting in the world with goals and interventions, while LLM AI feels more like a karma God, encoding and unfolding patterns.

Recently I have been forced to deal with Human Design. This horoscope/算命‑like approach to life has been surprisingly interesting. It feels quite precise and accurate in describing who I am just from my date and time of birth. Of course, the descriptions are fairly generic, and I can feel myself fitting my own self-understanding (shaped by years of personality tests) into the narrative that Human Design offers. I cannot completely rule out the possibility that everything might be planned, but there is no scientific evidence backing Human Design so far.

If Human Design is “real” in any meaningful sense, then LLMs might be the closest thing we have to recreating that kind of God. They study essentially all of humanity’s recorded information and make predictions about what will happen next. They spot patterns everywhere, so if there are predetermined plans and patterns from some God or gods, then an LLM might be able to detect or at least mimic them.

RL AI feels very different to me, and more frightening. It seems more sentient, because it has goals, can search for better goals, and takes actions to achieve them. I do not like the idea of something so powerful having its own intentions and objectives. Alignment becomes extremely difficult, especially when the “other party” is much smarter, more thorough, and more powerful than humans. I do not know what the world will look like if we end up sharing it with a huge population of goal‑driven superbeings.

Struggles (Really? Again? Yawn?)

I have been trying so many different things to make this work. I am not even sure my goals are useful. I want to feel less annoyed, less often, about the situation, but I am not sure if that is the right goal to have. I want this to work. I want to help the school, help Nor. But I constantly resist this. I get worked up very quickly over very small things. I feel unappreciated all the time. I do not like being this needy, but the feelings are strong.

Maybe part of the issue is that I do not have much else: no real hobbies, no life outside of this, no social life. I know, from reading and listening to older people looking back on their lives, that I “should” have hobbies and a social life. That is probably at the core of it. But still, I have been trying everything, even spending real money to talk to very “woo‑woo” therapists.

Frankly, I think the trying is sometimes making things worse. I feel more frustrated when I do not find solutions or do not feel any different afterwards. Maybe that is actually the problem: trying to feel different. Maybe it is just what it is, and I need to learn to live with it as it is.

One small clarity I have gained is about what triggers me most. It is not Nor (which is good news), but that does not really help the situation. I still think we were cheated. I am still angry about what I believe got us into our current situation. Rationally, what can be fixed? Am I hoping for an apology? A refund? Sometimes I want her to stay until she has “fixed” everything; sometimes I want her to just leave it all alone. I do not know. It remains a major source of rage and rumination. Argh.

A Follow-up with Perplexity:

There is another way to approach this. Turning “it is what it is” into numb resignation can be dangerous. There can be a gentler stance: “These feelings are here; they make sense; I don’t have to like them, but I also don’t have to fight them every second.”

The Nor / “we were cheated” knot- The Nor piece sounds like a stuck loop:

• You feel there was betrayal or at least severe mismanagement that helped create the current financial/operational mess.
• You oscillate: “Sometimes I want her to stay until she fixes everything. Sometimes I want her to just leave it alone.” That’s the classic split between wanting justice/repair and wanting peace.
• Underneath “I still think we were cheated” is likely grief: loss of safety, money, trust, a fantasy of how this would all turn out.

Therapeutically, what often helps with this kind of moral injury is not only “understanding her intentions” or “forgiving,” but:

• Naming precisely what you believe was wrong.
• Being honest about what cannot be repaired (money gone, years gone, trust changed).
• Then deciding what you actually want now: symbolic repair (a real apology?), structural repair (she takes responsibility for specific tasks), or clean distance.

What actually went wrong

• The school didn’t just “struggle”; it repeatedly burned through money in ways that feel chaotic and, to you, poor or even unethical: Jenny’s donation → 500K each → by Jan 2025 out of cash and 3 months’ rent unpaid; then Agnes → money gone, hundreds of untracked bank statements, overdue audit, depleted admin team.
• You went back through the financials, talked to Gordon, and checked transfers; you see a pattern of bad decisions and poor governance, not random bad luck.
• When Nor asked her about it, she shifted blame back (“you agreed”), ignoring that Nor’s agreement came from trusting her to make decisions in the school’s best interest.

How you now see her and her future role

• You feel you and the school were seriously let down by someone you trusted as the “sound” finance/structure person and still carry a lot of anger and rumination about that.
• You no longer trust her with admin/finance or structural power and do not expect a full, clean admission that would erase the sense of betrayal.
• You do still see her value as an advocate, connector, and Waldorf community leader. Your desired future:
  • She fully transitions out of admin/finance.
  • She helps complete a proper handover of what she knows.
  • She continues in a defined “senior advocate/connector” role with no direct financial/operational authority.

What is gone for good vs. still alive

• Gone (and painful):
  • The fantasy that she will someday give a satisfying confession, take 100% responsibility, and restore your old trust.
  • The version of your relationship where you can treat her as a safe financial brain without second‑guessing.
• Partly accepted:
  • The money already lost and the time/health you and Nor have spent carrying consequences.
• Still alive:
  • Your belief that the school can be fixed and made better.
  • Your willingness for the school to be your lifelong work, as long as it is not run the way it has been.
  • The sense that this can become a meaningful lesson in governance and ethics, not just a wound.

Your relationship with Nor in this

• You don’t feel Nor clearly “on your side” in how serious and wrong you think this pattern is, and you expect minimizing (“she wasn’t that bad,” “just move on”), which leaves you feeling alone with your version of reality and your rage.
• You wrote Nor a careful message that:
  • Describes concretely what happened financially and why it feels like betrayal.
  • Names your loss of trust and the lack of accountability as a stone in your chest.
  • Shares that you often feel alone with this, even with her.
  • States the future you want for her role (out of admin/finance, structured advocate/connector role).
  • Admits your own self‑doubt and that you don’t want pity, but understanding and partnership.

The existential stuckness, outbursts, and “I want out” fantasies

• You’ve put ~HKD 15m plus multiple emergency injections into the school. You’re willing to keep giving; the problem is how the system uses what you give: unpredictably, chaotically, with crises that force last‑minute rescues.
• You feel like the permanent safety net and “last line of defence.” That role is crushing and fuels outbursts (getting worked up quickly, intense anger, rage at small triggers) because under the surface you feel trapped and over‑responsible.
• In that pressure, you fantasise about wanting an out, even to the point of:
  • Imagining divorce plus giving her money as a way to be both “good” (you didn’t leave her with nothing) and “free” (you’re no longer bound into this structure).
• Nor’s comment that she’d be okay even if she failed and would never need a buck or saving from you cuts both ways:
  • It tries to protect you by saying “you won’t have to rescue me,”
  • but it also makes your help feel potentially unwanted and clashes with your identity as someone who doesn’t let their partner drown.
• Those fantasies of “out” and your outbursts are not proof that you don’t love her or the school; they are signals that the current structure—where you’re endlessly rescuing a system you don’t control or trust—is intolerable to you.

What you actually want going forward

• You’re not asking for tighter caps on your generosity; you’re willing to give anything if the school is run in a way you can respect.
• The change you want is structural, not emotional hand‑waving:
  • Clear separation: financial/admin authority is distinct from “connector/advocate” roles.
  • Basic financial governance: no major payouts or commitments without clear runway and visibility; no more being blindsided by mess.
  • Proper handover and documentation so knowledge and power are not concentrated and then vanish.
• You want Nor to:
  • Acknowledge how much this has hurt and destabilised you.
  • Stand with you in redesigning the school’s structures.
  • Accept that, for you, her role cannot simply revert to the old pattern.

In one sentence:

You’re trying to move from being an overexposed, emotionally explosive, secretly fantasising‑about‑escape guarantor in a chaotic, trust‑breaking school structure, to being a fully committed, long‑term builder of the school inside a governance system that matches your ethics and reality sense, with Nor clearly beside you—not half‑aligned, and not at the cost of your sanity.