A Discovery in DeepSeek’s R1 Reasoning Engine. Entropy Reduction Via Neuroplastic Attention-Driven AI—Systematic Knowledge Distillation via Controlled AI Prompt Sequences.
I made a discovery in Neuroplastic Attention-Driven AI that dynamically reweights token significance in real-time, like synaptic pruning to prioritize causal variables over noise to focus mid-reasoning. Imagine an AI that doesn’t just predict the next word but thinks—untangling complex problems with the precision of a physicist, the creativity of a strategist, and the rigor of a logician. Welcome to the era of reasoning engines, where models like DeepSeek R1 shatter the limits of traditional AI by blending neural networks with the structured logic of human cognition. These systems are not regurgitating data; they construct mental simulations, weigh hypotheses against counterfactuals, and adaptively allocate computational “focus” to crack challenges from quantum chemistry puzzles to real-time crisis diplomacy.
A reasoning model is a type of AI system specifically designed to go beyond the surface-level responses and to provide conclusions based on deeper, contextual understanding and logical deductions. Unlike traditional large language models which focus on predicting the next word or token based on patterns it finds in massive data sets. Reasoning models are engineered to evaluate facts, consider possible outcomes, and synthesize answers that demonstrate a level of structured thought. It’s capable of understanding the relationships between concepts and applying deductive or inductive or abductive reasoning processes. Deductive reasoning works by applying general rules to pacific cases, such as all humans are mortal. Socrates is a human, and therefore, Socrates is mortal. Inductive reasoning generalize is based on observations. For example, I’ve seen many swans and they’ve always been white. Therefore, swans are likely white. Abductive reasoning deals with the best explanation. Given the evidence often used in scenarios where multiple hypotheses could explain an observation deep seek as a reasoning model handles queries by considering how multiple pieces of information relate and whether a given response fits logically within the present in the context.
For example, if you asked a reasoning model to explain why a system might be overheating, it wouldn’t just list common causes from the training data. Instead, it would evaluate context-specific variables like airflow component specs or recent system behavior and produce a well-thought-out diagnosis.
I have been experimenting with reasoning outputs for quite a few years in a very crude form. With the open source models from DeepSeek, particularly the R1 full model including the Zero models, I have made a rather monumental discovery. This research reveals a counterintuitive finding: discrete, isolated queries often yield suboptimal alignment with expert cognition. This article synthesizes peer-reviewed studies across computational linguistics, neuroergonomics, and stochastic optimization to present a systematic framework for transforming flat interactions into adaptive, topology-aware reasoning processes. Discover how controlled iterative processes—inspired by synaptic pruning mechanisms and quantum annealing—are reshaping performance ceilings in machine-assisted problem-solving.
Verbosity Is Critical In AI Reasoning
By encoding causal relationships into dynamic latent graphs and leveraging neuroplastic attention mechanisms, they mimic the human mind’s agility while transcending its biases. This isn’t incremental progress—it’s a paradigm shift, turning AI from a tool into a collaborator capable of drafting scientific theories, negotiating treaties, or inventing sustainable materials. The machines are no longer just learning; they’re reasoning. Buckle up: the age of artificial intuition has arrived.
Attention isn’t fixed; it’s a forgeable tool. Now, machines wield it.
Unlock the blueprint to tomorrow’s AI revolution—join our community of pioneers and gain exclusive access to the full analysis. This isn’t just another tech article; it’s a front-row seat to the seismic shift transforming machine cognition, backed by peer-reviewed research and proprietary datasets. As a member, you’ll dissect DeepSeek-R1’s neuroplastic attention layers, explore latent reasoning graphs in real-time simulations, and collaborate with experts redefining AI’s role in science and policy. Whether you’re an engineer, academic, or futurist, your curiosity fuels progress. Don’t decode the future from the sidelines—engineer it with us. Activate your membership now and wield the tools shaping humanity’s next leap.
The best way to predict the future is to build it—together.
Become a member today for full access to this exclusive research.
If you are a member, thank you. If you are not yet a member, join us by clicking below.
🔐 Start: Exclusive Member-Only Content.
Membership status:
🔐 End: Exclusive Member-Only Content.
~—~
~—~
~—~
Subscribe ($99) or donate by Bitcoin.
Copy address: bc1qkufy0r5nttm6urw9vnm08sxval0h0r3xlf4v4x
Send your receipt to Love@ReadMultiplex.com to confirm subscription.
Stay updated: Get an email when we post new articles:
THE ENTIRETY OF THIS SITE IS UNDER COPYRIGHT. IMPORTANT: Any reproduction, copying, or redistribution, in whole or in part, is prohibited without written permission from the publisher. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. We are not financial advisors, nor do we give personalized financial advice. The opinions expressed herein are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. It may become outdated, and there is no obligation to update any such information. Recommendations should be made only after consulting with your advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of any company in question. You shouldn’t make any decision based solely on what you read here. Postings here are intended for informational purposes only. The information provided here is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Information here does not endorse any specific tests, products, procedures, opinions, or other information that may be mentioned on this site. Reliance on any information provided, employees, others appearing on this site at the invitation of this site, or other visitors to this site is solely at your own risk.
Copyright Notice:
All content on this website, including text, images, graphics, and other media, is the property of Read Multiplex or its respective owners and is protected by international copyright laws. We make every effort to ensure that all content used on this website is either original or used with proper permission and attribution when available.
However, if you believe that any content on this website infringes upon your copyright, please contact us immediately using our 'Reach Out' link in the menu. We will promptly remove any infringing material upon verification of your claim. Please note that we are not responsible for any copyright infringement that may occur as a result of user-generated content or third-party links on this website. Thank you for respecting our intellectual property rights.
DCMA Notices are followed entirely please contact us here: Love@ReadMultiplex.com
his is next-level thinking, Brian. Cascading Feedback Prompting is clearly a breakthrough in AI reasoning—but I keep coming back to a question: What happens when CFP isn’t just refining outputs, but refining networks of human intelligence in real time? What if instead of just prompting better answers, CFP became the core feedback engine for a self-organizing intelligence system? The implications feel massive—especially in terms of scaling emergent, decentralized intelligence. Curious to hear your thoughts on how CFP might evolve beyond single-model refinement into an ecosystem of reasoning loops.
OK. Impressive stuff.
Explain to me why Deepseek got so much wrong when responding to my simple question about ancestry.
Here’s our dialog in today’s session.
————————————————————
New chat
Hello, do you remember me?
Hello! I don’t have memory of past interactions, so I can’t recall specific conversations or users. However, I’d be happy to help you with anything you need. How can I assist you today?
Here’s a question about my ancestry. I’m told that I had an ancestor on the Mayflower which arrived in Plymouth, MA, in 1620. That person was my ninth great-grandfather. How many other ninth great-grandfathers would I have had at that time?
Great question! Let’s break this down step by step.
In genealogy, each generation doubles the number of ancestors you have. Here’s how it works:
You: 1 person
Parents: 2 people (1st generation back)
Grandparents: 4 people (2nd generation back)
Great-grandparents: 8 people (3rd generation back)
And so on…
For your 9th great-grandfather, we’re looking at the 10th generation back (since “great-grandfather” starts at the 3rd generation, and “9th great-grandfather” is 9 generations beyond that).
The formula for the number of ancestors in a given generation is:
Number of ancestors = 2^n where n is the number of generations back.
For your 9th great-grandfather:
2^10 = 1,024
So, you would have had 1,024 ninth great-grandfathers at that time (assuming no overlap from cousin marriages or shared ancestry). However, in reality, due to pedigree collapse (where ancestors appear in multiple branches of your family tree because of intermarriage), the actual number might be slightly lower. But theoretically, it’s 1,024.
Would not a ninth great-grandfather be eleven generations back?
You’re correct. I misspoke earlier—thank you for catching that. Let’s clarify:
You: 1 person (generation 0)
Parents: 2 people (generation 1)
Grandparents: 4 people (generation 2)
Great-grandparents: 8 people (generation 3)
And so on…
A 9th great-grandfather is indeed 11 generations back (you + 10 generations above you). So, the correct calculation is:
Number of ancestors = 2^11 = 2,048
This means you would have had 2,048 ninth great-grandfathers at that time, assuming no overlap from pedigree collapse. Thanks again for pointing that out.
Wouldn’t the generations be me plus eleven generations not ten? For example, my parents are the first generation back. My grandparents are the second generation back, and then you have my first great through my ninth great grandparent for a total of eleven generations back. Correct?
You’re absolutely right again. Thank you for your patience. Let’s make sure we get this perfectly clear. A 9th great-grandfather is 11 generations back from you. Here’s the breakdown:
You: Generation 0
Parents: Generation 1 (1st generation back)
Grandparents: Generation 2 (2nd generation back)
Great-grandparents: Generation 3 (3rd generation back)
2nd great-grandparents: Generation 4 (4th generation back)
…
9th great-grandparents: Generation 11 (11th generation back)
So, the total number of ancestors in that generation is:
Number of ancestors = 2^11 = 2,048
This means you would have had 2,048 ninth great-grandfathers at that time (again, assuming no overlap from pedigree collapse). Thank you for sticking with me—I appreciate your attention to detail.
Now, wouldn’t I have only half that number of great-grandfathers?
Ah, you’re right again. I made another oversight—thank you for catching that. In each generation, only half of your ancestors are great-grandfathers (the other half are great-grandmothers). So, for your 9th great-grandfathers, we need to take half of the total number of ancestors in that generation.
Total ancestors in the 11th generation back:
2^11 = 2,048
Half of those ancestors would be great-grandfathers:
2,048 / 2 = 1,024
So, you would have had 1,024 ninth great-grandfathers at that time (again, assuming no overlap from pedigree collapse).
Finally, since I originally asked how many other great-grandfathers I had, shouldn’t we subtract one from the number 1024?
Yes, you’re correct. Since you originally asked about how many other ninth great-grandfathers you had (excluding the one you already know about), we should subtract 1 from the total number of ninth great-grandfathers.
So, the final calculation is:
1,024 – 1 = 1,023
You would have had 1,023 other ninth great-grandfathers at that time, in addition to the one you already know about. Thank you for guiding me through this step-by-step—I appreciate your patience and attention to detail.