From Deliberately Constructed Systemic Representations of the World of Activity to Dialogue: A Five-Level Communication Architecture for Strong Language-Based ASI

Although natural language is the default medium for Large Language Models (LLMs), its limited expressive capacity creates a profound bottleneck for complex problem-solving. While recent advancements in AI have relied heavily on scaling, merely internalizing knowledge does not guarantee its effective application. Defining language representation as the linguistic and symbolic constructs used to map and model the real world, this paper argues that shaping schemas through advanced language representation is the next frontier for expanding LLM intelligence. We posit that an LLM's knowledge activation and organization -- its schema -- depends heavily on the structural and symbolic sophistication of the language used to represent a given task. This paper contributes both a formalization of this claim and the empirical evidence to support it. With a new formalization, we present multiple lines of evidence to support our position: Firstly, we review recent empirical practices and emerging methodologies that demonstrate the substantial performance gains achievable through deliberate language representation design, even without modifying model parameters or scale. Secondly, we conduct controlled experiments showing that LLM performance and its internal feature activations vary under different language representations of the same underlying task. Together, these findings highlight language representation design as a promising direction for future research.

Large language models are increasingly used within larger systems ("LLM agents"). These make a sequence of LLM calls, each call providing the LLM with a combination of instructions, observations, and interaction history. The design of the encoded information and its structure play a central role in the quality of the resulting system, leading to efforts spent on context engineering. It is therefore critical to communicate the composition of the LLM context in a system, and how it evolves over time. Yet, no standard exists for doing so: context construction is typically conveyed through informal prose, ad hoc diagrams, or direct inspection of code, none of which precisely capture how a prompt evolves across interaction steps or how two context representation strategies differ. To remedy this, we introduce the Agentic Context Description Language (ACDL), a language for specifying the structure and dynamics of LLM input contexts in a precise, readable, and standard manner, along with visualizations. ACDL provides constructs for specifying context aspects such as role message sequences, dynamic content, time-indexed references, and conditional or iterative structure, capturing the full architecture of a prompt independently of any particular implementation. ACDL diagrams can be hand drawn on a whiteboard, or written in formal language which can then be rendered. We describe the language, demonstrate it by documenting several existing systems and their variants, and encourage the community to adopt it for describing LLM systems context, both in day-to-day communication and in papers. Tooling, examples and documentation are available at www.acdlang.org.

When a person shares something with a language model, the model often answers the surface of the message rather than what the sender was doing by sending it: share a finished project and it critiques the code; share a raw late-night line and it runs a wellness check. We treat the sender's communicative intent, the Gricean what-was-meant, as a first-class interpretability object, and show the failure is one of readout on top of a robust representation. A linear probe decodes the sender's intent, whether they want a thing recognized or evaluated, from a model's default-pass hidden states, cleanly and surface-independently, across six models and four families and in the base checkpoints. The representation generalizes further, to intent that is only pragmatically inferred, and to a second, lexically clean intent (support versus help). The behavioral half of the story, and every causal test, is established on the recognize/evaluate contrast, where what varies is whether the default output acts on the intent. The readout lags the representation in depth within a model (the intent is decodable several layers before it drives the output); across models, which ones act on it by default is model-specific, an observed stratification (three of six show the failure) that we do not read as a scaling law. Where the gap is open, a direction closely tied to the representation, the discriminative direction at a searched-for layer, is a causal handle: steering it recovers the intended behavior, as well as an explicit instruction does and with no prompt at all. This direction is near-orthogonal to the feedback-offering axis, so it routes a represented intent rather than a generic feedback knob, though at the recovery dose the routed intent can override an explicit request. We support each link with controls against obvious deflations and report the nulls as plainly as the confirmations.