Luck3333

Ekosystem kryptowalut Trumpa jest pod ostrzałem, ale walczy z powrotem! Oto co się wydarzyło w ciągu ostatnich 48 godzin:
🛡️ 1. Atak na Stablecoin USD1 powstrzymany
World Liberty Financial (WLFI) właśnie przetrwał skoordynowany atak w mediach społecznościowych. Hakerzy przejęli konta współzałożycieli, aby szerzyć FUD i krótko sprzedawać stablecoin USD1.
Wynik: USD1 chwilowo spadł do 0,997 USD, ale natychmiast się odbił. Fundusze są SAFU.
🏦 2. "World Liberty Trust" nadchodzi
Trump nie zamierza ustępować. $WLFI oficjalnie złożył wniosek do OCC o utworzenie World Liberty Trust Company. Ten ruch ma na celu wprowadzenie ich usług stablecoin bezpośrednio do amerykańskiego systemu bankowego. Ogromne dla adopcji!

Wprowadzenie: Zmiana w rozumieniu
W świecie Qubic często słyszymy terminy takie jak AI, ANNA i Aigarth używane zamiennie. Jednak według wizji CFB musimy spojrzeć głębiej. Jeśli obecny przemysł AI buduje "narzędzia", Qubic buduje nowy paradygmat. Jak słynnie stwierdził CFB: "Aigarth nie jest AI; to projekt mający na celu znalezienie nowych paradygmatów dla tworzenia AI."
1. ANNA: Żyjący Silnik Neuronowy
ANNA (Sztuczna Sieć Neuronowa) to surowa, rozwijająca się inteligencja w ekosystemie Qubic. Jest aktywną siłą szkoloną przez globalną sieć za pomocą uPoW (Użyteczny Dowód Pracy).

Abstract
The transition from predictive text models (Large Language Models) to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) requires a fundamental shift from disembodied algorithms to physically interactive entities. The recent experiment by David Vivancos and Dr. José Sánchez—transplanting the Neuraxon v2.0 bio-inspired brain into a Sphero Mini robot—marks a critical milestone in #AliveAI. This article breaks down the theoretical framework, the hardware architecture, and the methodology for replicating this experiment.
1. The Theoretical Framework: Trinary Logic and Neural Growth
Traditional Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) operate on binary logic, using continuous calculations that ultimately simulate "on/off" states. Neuraxon v2.0 completely departs from this by utilizing Trinary Logic, a system specifically designed to mimic the biological reality of human synapses.
In a biological brain, neurons do not merely excite one another; they also actively suppress signals to filter out noise and focus on important tasks. Neuraxon introduces this explicit third state: Inhibition. In this system, every artificial neuron can exist in one of three distinct conditions:
Excitation (+1): Actively passing the signal forward.Rest (0): Remaining neutral and conserving energy.Inhibition (-1): Actively blocking or suppressing the signal path.
How does a neuron make a decision? Instead of relying on rigid, pre-programmed rules, each Neuraxon neuron calculates a "weighted score" based on all incoming signals from its neighbors. If this combined signal is strong enough and surpasses a specific activation threshold, the neuron fires an Excitatory signal. If the incoming signals are overwhelmingly suppressive, it fires an Inhibitory signal. Otherwise, it stays at Rest.
Unlike static LLMs, Neuraxon employs a "Neural Growth Blueprint." This means the "weight" or importance of these connections physically alters its own network topology based on real-world feedback. When the Sphero Mini robot hits a wall, the negative physical feedback literally rewires the network's connections for the next attempt.
2. Hardware Architecture: Why the Sphero Mini?
To test physical cognition, the AI requires a "body" with sensory input and motor output. The Sphero Mini, despite its accessible ~$50 price point, serves as a perfect minimally viable organism.
It is equipped with an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), which is crucial for the AI to understand physics (gravity, momentum, and spatial orientation).
Sensory Input (Afferent Pathways): The 3-axis gyroscope and 3-axis accelerometer feed real-time spatial data back to the Neuraxon brain.Motor Output (Efferent Pathways): The AI calculates the required trinary signals to drive the internal dual-motor system, dictating speed and heading.
3. Experimental Methodology: Replicating the Setup
For researchers looking to experiment with open-science #AliveAI, the protocol is straightforward:
Step 1: Hardware Preparation
Acquire a Sphero Mini robot. Ensure it is fully charged and Bluetooth is enabled on your host machine.
Step 2: Access the Neuraxon Brain Interfaces
Navigate to the open-source Hugging Face spaces provided by David Vivancos:
For Locomotion (Neuraxon2MiniControl): This interface acts as the motor cortex, allowing you to observe how the neural network calculates basic navigation paths based on spatial input.For Fine Motor Skills (Neuraxon2MiniWrite): This requires higher-level cognitive processing. The AI must calculate the exact physical trajectories, accounting for physical friction and momentum, to draw specific letters or words on a surface.
Step 3: The Feedback Loop
Connect the Sphero to the interface via the Web Bluetooth API. Do not simply execute commands; observe the neural growth. When the Sphero attempts to write a letter, monitor how the Neuraxon code (available on GitHub) processes the physical drift and attempts to correct its trajectory in subsequent movements.
4. Analytical Implications
This experiment proves that intelligence cannot be fully realized in a vacuum. By forcing the AI to interact with physical laws, Qubic and the Vivancos team are building the foundational nervous system for future robotics. Today, it drives a sphere; tomorrow, this exact trinary, bio-inspired architecture could regulate the complex kinematics of a humanoid robot.
Key Takeaways: The Future of #AliveAi
From "Dead" to "Alive" AI: Moving beyond static Large Language Models (LLMs), Neuraxon v2.0 introduces embodied cognition, allowing AI to learn and adapt through real-world physical interaction and failure.Trinary Logic Superiority: By utilizing a -1 (Inhibit), 0 (Rest), and 1 (Excite) framework, Neuraxon mimics true biological brain efficiency, drastically reducing the computational waste seen in traditional binary systems.Accessible Open Science: The integration with a $50 Sphero Mini robot democratizes AI testing. It proves that developing physical AI doesn't require multi-million-dollar robotics labs.The Blueprint for AGI: Powered by the decentralized Qubic network, this "brain transplant" experiment lays the foundational nervous system for the complex kinematics of future humanoid robotics.
#Qubic #AGI
Neuraxon2MiniControl 👉https://huggingface.co/spaces/DavidVivancos/Neuraxon2MiniControl

Finality. A simple word that carries immense weight in the blockchain space. It’s the point where a transaction is locked, beyond tampering or doubt. For most blockchains, this isn’t as immediate or certain as one might think. Bitcoin? You’re counting six blocks deep, holding your breath. Solana? Validators have to agree and then execute - quick, but not instantaneous. But Qubic? Qubic redefines this process entirely, delivering instant finality in a system where forks don’t exist.
What Traditional Blockchains Get Wrong
In most blockchains, finality is far from straightforward. Forks - branching pathways created when competing chains temporarily exist - trap transactions in limbo. Users must wait for confirmations, wait for chain disputes to be resolved, and hope their transaction makes it onto the “main” branch. It’s a cumbersome process.
Take Bitcoin, for example. You send a transaction, but the process isn’t instantaneous. One block passes, then two, then six - only then does the transaction feel secure. Why? Because forks can override earlier blocks, potentially reversing your transaction.
Even faster systems like Solana aren’t immune to bottlenecks. Validators must reach agreement, a process that slows when network traffic surges or disagreements arise. The result? "Instant" finality that’s not quite instant.
Qubic’s Rewrite of Finality
Qubic’s approach is different. It eliminates forks entirely and slashes waiting times to virtually zero. Its tick-based architecture removes the inefficiencies baked into traditional blockchain designs.
Tick-Based Processing
Imagine time segmented into fixed, immutable slices called “ticks.” Each tick represents a brief processing interval. Transactions submitted during, for example, Tick 100 are evaluated and finalised by Tick 101. If your transaction is valid, it’s confirmed. If not, you’ll know immediately - it’s as simple as that. No waiting, no ambiguities.
A Forkless Highway
While traditional blockchains navigate complex branching paths, Qubic moves in a straight line. Transactions flow through a single, unbroken sequence, with no forks to manage or resolve. This streamlined approach eliminates the need for redundant confirmations.
Deterministic Finality
In Qubic, once a transaction is processed within its tick, the outcome - whether successful or not - is final. There’s no need for validators to reach additional agreements or for users to wait for multiple confirmations.
Clarifying Success and Finality
It’s important to note that Qubic guarantees the finality of valid transactions. However, not every transaction will succeed. If a transaction fails - perhaps due to insufficient funds, conflicting requests, or invalid inputs - the network will reject it during the tick processing, and you’ll know immediately. This transparency allows users to act quickly without the uncertainty of delayed rejections.
Why Does This Matter?
It’s not just about speed. It’s about confidence - knowing that what you send is final before the thought of doubt even creeps in.
Finance
Cross-border payments processed in under a second. No intermediaries, no reversals, just frictionless commerce. 
Gaming
Imagine in-game transactions - buying items, trading assets, earning rewards - all processed instantly. No lag, no waiting, no broken immersion.
Supply Chains
A factory ships a product. The transaction logs instantly, providing real-time visibility to suppliers, shippers, and buyers. The chain of custody is secure, final, and transparent.
A Walkthrough: Qubic’s Simplicity in Action
Let’s break it down. Say you’re sending $QUBIC coins:
At Tick 100, you initiate the transaction.By Tick 101, the network processes it. If it’s valid, it’s finalised. If not, you’ll know instantly why it failed.
The result? A seamless user experience.
The Forkless Advantage
Forks complicate things. They demand extra resources, complicate consensus, and inject uncertainty into every transaction. By eliminating forks entirely, Qubic reclaims all that wasted energy and delivers a system that:
Reduces wasted computational resources.Simplifies transaction flow.Delivers a seamless and reliable experience.
Ready to Explore the Next Evolution in Blockchain?
Qubic is making a statement. A statement that finality should be instantaneous, that confidence should be absolute, that innovation should never come at the cost of usability. 
Whether you’re a developer, gamer, or business leader, Qubic’s instant finality provides the reliability, speed, and confidence you need to build innovative systems. From high-speed financial applications to gaming platforms to supply chain systems, Qubic’s instant finality transforms the possibilities.
 Want to know more? Take a closer look and discover the future of blockchain technology.
 Join the Community on Discord and Telegram.
Explore Qubic Docs.

The crypto market is screaming this week! With the Fear & Greed Index hitting a bone-chilling 7 (Extreme Fear), the air is thick with panic. But as the old saying goes: "Be greedy when others are fearful." Is this the ultimate "Buy the Dip" moment or a trap before a total meltdown? Let's dive into the chaos.
⚡ The "State of the Union" Rebound
Just when Bitcoin was flirting with disaster at $63,000, President Trump’s State of the Union address injected a shot of adrenaline into the charts. BTC and ETH jumped 3% instantly as the market bet on macro strength. However, the "Trump Pump" is facing a massive wall of resistance.
💎 Hot Coins to Watch: The Winners vs. The Survivors
$BTC : Currently fighting for its life around $65,000. Institutional outflows from ETFs are heavy, but whales are quietly accumulating at the $63k support. Watch out: A break below $60k could trigger a liquidations bloodbath.$SOL : The "Institutional Darling" of 2026. While others bleed, SOL saw $13.17M in ETF inflows this week. Breaking $80 was a statement—SOL is leading the relief rally.$XRP : The CLARITY Act is the only thing investors are talking about. Ripple CEO hints at a massive bull run if the bill passes. Is XRP the "safety play" of the year?The Alpha Movers: Keep your eyes on Bittensor (TAO) and Mantra (OM). These projects are defying gravity with 30-40% gains while the rest of the market stalls.
⚠️ The Risk: "Extreme Fear" for a Reason
Don't be fooled by the green candles. With the Fed staying hawkish and global trade tensions rising, the "Double Bottom" theory is being tested. If the $60,000 support fails, we are looking at a fast slide to $55,000.
🔥 ACTION PLAN FOR YOU:
Don't FOMO: The volatility is insane. Use Limit Orders, not Market Orders.Watch the $64.5K Pivot: If BTC holds this today, the weekend could be explosive.Diversify into DePIN/AI: The money is rotating out of memes and into utility (TAO, FIL).
🚀 Are you Bullish or Bearish? Drop your price prediction for BTC this Sunday in the comments!
==========
🚨 FLASH UPDATE: BTC RECLAIMING $66K? THE WHALES ARE MOVING! 🚨
Great summary! But look at the charts RIGHT NOW – something big is brewing.
BTC Breakout: In the last 4 hours, Bitcoin has pushed back above $65,800. We are seeing massive "Buy Walls" appearing on the order books. Is the $64.5k pivot holding? It looks like the "Weak Hands" have been shaken out!The "CLARITY" Effect: XRP is starting to decouple from the market. The volume is surging – insiders might know something we don’t about the bill's progress.Liquidation Heatmap: Over $150M in Shorts are sitting just above $66.2k. If we hit that, expect a "Short Squeeze" that could catapult us to $68k by the weekend.
⚠️ URGENT: Don't get caught sleeping on this move. The "Extreme Fear" is exactly when the biggest gains are made.
What’s your move? Are you adding more to your bags or waiting for a confirmation? Let’s talk below! 👇

Od 14 stycznia 2026 roku kontrakty płacą teraz za zasoby obliczeniowe, które faktycznie konsumują.
Aktualizacja została najpierw zweryfikowana w środowisku testnet, a następnie wdrożona na mainnet, wprowadzając organiczne spalanie proporcjonalne do pracy, jaką wykonuje kontrakt.
Dlaczego opłaty za wykonanie mają znaczenie
Każdy inteligentny kontrakt na Qubic utrzymuje rezerwę opłat za wykonanie, zasadniczo jest to z góry opłacony bilans, który pokrywa jego koszty obliczeniowe.
Kiedy ta rezerwa zostanie wyczerpana, kontrakt nie znika, ale staje się uśpiony. Może nadal otrzymywać fundusze i reagować na podstawowe zdarzenia systemowe, jednak jego podstawowe funkcje nie mogą być ponownie wywoływane, dopóki rezerwa nie zostanie uzupełniona.

AMA na koniec roku dostarczyło kompleksowego spojrzenia na postępy 2025 i plan na 2026. Przekaz był jasny: budowanie zdecentralizowanej infrastruktury AI na długą metę, a nie pogoń za rynkowym szumem.
2025: Budowanie przed Skalowaniem
Qubic osiągnął poważne kamienie milowe techniczne w 2025. Sieć działa teraz z prędkością dwóch sekund z wsparciem pamięci 2TB. Ta podstawa umożliwia Qubic wspieranie obliczeń na dużą skalę, zaawansowanych modeli AI i aplikacji na poziomie infrastruktury. Integracja wydobycia z zewnętrznymi projektami, takimi jak Monero, udowodniła, że Qubic może działać jako uniwersalna warstwa obliczeniowa.

Analiza informowania głębokich sieci neuronowych na podstawie zasad multiskalowych
W mózgu neuromodulacja to zestaw mechanizmów, za pomocą których niektóre neuroprzekaźniki modyfikują funkcjonalne właściwości neuronów i synaps, zmieniając sposób, w jaki reagują, jak długo integrują informacje oraz w jakich warunkach zmieniają się w wyniku doświadczenia.
Te efekty są wytwarzane głównie przez neuroprzekaźniki, takie jak dopamina, serotonina, noradrenalina i acetylocholina, które działają na receptory znane jako receptory metabotropowe. W przeciwieństwie do szybkich receptorów, te nie generują bezpośrednio sygnału elektrycznego, lecz aktywują komórkowe szlaki sygnalizacyjne, które modyfikują dynamiczny reżim neuronu i obwodu.

Written by Qubic Scientific Team

How does a neuron function over time?
Biological neurons do not function like a bedroom light switch being turned on. They are a continuous dynamic system. The neuronal state evolves constantly, even in the absence of external stimuli.
How does a neuron function over time?
Basically, by moving electrical charges (ions) in or out of its membrane, that is, by changing its electrical potential. Ions enter or leave (mainly sodium and potassium) through the different gates of the neuron with a certain intensity, modifying the potential. There are some gates, called leakage gates, where ions are always entering and leaving.
Time is implicit. The electrical potential changes constantly, over time.
The change in a neuron’s electrical potential over time depends on:
The external current applied + the balance between the flows of sodium ions (which increase it) and potassium ions (which decrease it) through the gates that open and close.
Don’t panic with the graph. Positive and negative electrical charges (ions) flow through the gates causing depolarization (so current moves along to the end of the neuron) or hiperpolarization (so it comes back to a neutral state). 

The potential (V) changes over time, that is mathematically, dV/dt, as a function of the sum of the input and output gates.
This is the fundamental model of computational neuroscience, which expresses that the state of the neuron depends both on current signals and on its immediate history. There is no “reset” between events, since each stimulus falls onto a system that is always running.
Now let’s move to Neuraxon, which is a bio-inspired model.

We want it to be alive, an intelligent tissue. It cannot have discrete states, but continuous ones.
In Neuraxon, instead of ion gates that open and close and move charges with a certain intensity, changing voltage, we have dynamic synaptic weights. But the model equation maintains a clear and direct similarity with the biological neuron.
What does this mean?
Instead of V, voltage in biological neuron, the state of Neuraxon, is s. And it changes over time too, therefore ds/dt is a function of the weights and activations and the previous state.
Unlike a classical AI model, where the synaptic weights of a network represent stereotyped outputs to an input, in Neuraxon the weights are not static.
Imagine, for example, an “email inbox” automatic response mechanism.
In classical AI, the rule does not adjust or change over time or context.
In Neuraxon, it is taken into account whether the “email input” comes from the same person (which could indicate urgency) or whether it arrives on a weekend (which may generate a no-response output). In other words, the rule remains, but when and how the response is given is modulated.
Do LLMs compute time?

Large language models appear to show deep understanding in many contexts, but they operate under a logic different from biological systems (Vaswany, 2017). They do not function based on an internal temporal dynamic, on a “change in potential” or on “synaptic weights” that modulate response, but rather process discrete sequences.
In LLMs, “time” does not exist, which makes it difficult for them to simulate biological behavior (such as intelligence). LLMs know how to distinguish which word comes before and which comes after, but they do not grant an experience of duration or persistence. Order replaces time.
Unlike Neuraxon, they do not possess internal rhythms that speed up or slow down, nor do they show progressive habituation to repeated stimuli, nor can they dynamically anticipate based on an internal state that changes over time.
The LLM model computation would be something like:
output = Fθ(input)
so outcomes are fixed solutions from a function (combination) of inputs.
There is no state as a function of time. These are data that form huge matrices and change their value through a specific function, which, as in the example cited, restricts the possibilities: email input → automatic response.
Wrapping up. The distance between bio-inspired models such as Neuraxon and large language models should not be explained in terms of computational power or data volume. There is a deeper difference.
The brain is, in itself, a continuous temporal system. Its functioning is defined by dynamics that unfold over time, by states that evolve, decay, and reorganize permanently, even in the absence of external stimuli (Deco et al., 2009; Northoff, 2018).
Neuraxon deliberately positions itself within that same logic. It does not attempt to imitate 1 to 1 the biophysical complexity of the brain, but it explicitly incorporates time as a computational variable. Its internal state evolves continuously, carries the past, and modulates the present, allowing adaptation without the need for a reset.
LLMs, by contrast, operate very differently. They manipulate symbols ordered in discrete sequences without their own temporal dynamics. There is no time, only order. There is no adaptation, only pre-defined responses.
As long as time does not form part of the state governing computation, LLMs may be effective, but they will hardly be autonomous in a strong sense.
Future artificial intelligence aims to operate in dynamic environments. This is the reason why Neuraxon includes time as a fundamental variable.
A living intelligence tissue…
How This Relates back to Qubic?
Qubic provides the continuously running, stateful computational environment required for time-aware intelligence.
It is the natural substrate on which models like Neuraxon - adaptive, persistent, and never “resetting” - can exist and evolve.
Addenda
Take a look at the equations. Don´t panic!
1 Biological neuron, V potencial, “sum of gates flux in & out”

2 Neuraxon model equation - clear and direct similarity with the biological neuron.
s state, wi & f(si) dynamic synaptic weights 

3 LLM model equation. Inputs (ordered in a matrix) create matrix outputs through a fixed function 
p (xn+1 | x₁, …, xn) = softmax (Fθ (x₁, …, xn) )

References
Deco, G., Jirsa, V. K., Robinson, P. A., Breakspear, M., & Friston, K. J. (2009). The dynamic brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(8), e1000092.Northoff, G. (2018). The spontaneous brain. MIT Press.Vaswani, A., et al. (2017). Attention is all you need. NeurIPS.Vivancos, D., & Sanchez, J. (2025). Neuraxon: A new neural growth & computation blueprint. Qubic Science.rint. Qubic Science.
#Qubic #Neuraxon

Napisane przez Zespół Naukowy Qubic
Neuraxon Inteligencja Akademia — Tom 3

1. Neuromodulacja w Mózgu: Podstawa Inteligencji Adaptacyjnej
Neuromodulacja odnosi się do zestawu mechanizmów, które regulują, jak system nerwowy funkcjonuje w danym momencie, nie zmieniając jego podstawowej architektury. Dzięki neuromodulacji mózg może uczyć się szybko lub wolno, stać się eksploracyjny lub konserwatywny i pozostawać otwarty na nowości lub skupiać się na tym, co już jest znane. Okablowanie się nie zmienia; to, co się zmienia, to sposób, w jaki to okablowanie jest używane. Ta koncepcja jest kluczowa dla zrozumienia inspirowanego mózgiem AI oraz architektury stojącej za Neuraxonem Qubic.

Written by Qubic Scientific Team

The brain is dynamic and non-binary
Biological brain networks do not operate as a decision switch between activation and rest. In living systems, inactivity itself implies dynamism. Absolute “rest” would be incompatible with life. As we saw in the first chapter, life unfolds in time.
An individual neuron may appear as an all-or-nothing event, transmitting electrical current to another neuron in order to inhibit or excite it. However, prior to that transmission, the action potential, the neuron continuously receives positive and negative inputs in a region called the dendrites. If the global sum of these inputs exceeds a certain threshold, a physical conformational change occurs, and the electrical current propagates along the axon toward the next neuron. For most of the time, neuronal processing takes place below the action threshold, where excitatory and inhibitory currents are continuously integrated. 
In computational neuroscience, it is well established that the brain is a continuous dynamic system whose states evolve even in the absence of external stimuli (Deco et al., 2009; Northoff, 2018).
There are no discrete events or resets in the brain. Each external stimulus acts upon a living system that already has a prior configuration. A stimulus may bias an excitatory or inhibitory state, but never a static one. It is like a ball on a football field: the same trajectory triggers different outcomes depending on the dynamic positions of the players. With an identical path, the play may fail or become a decisive assist.
The mechanisms that keep neurons active independently of immediate stimuli are well known.
One of them consists of subthreshold inputs, which alter the membrane potential without generating an action potential. 
Others include silent synapses and dendritic spines, which preserve latent connectivity between neurons or promote local activation. 
The most important mechanism involves metabotropic receptors linked to neurotransmitters, which organize context. They don't directly determine whether an action potential is triggered. Instead, they define what is relevant or not, what reward prediction a stimulus carries, what level of alert or danger is present, how much novelty exists in the system, what degree of sustained attention is required, what balance between exploration and exploitation is appropriate, what should be encoded versus forgotten, how the internal state is regulated, and when impulse control or temporal stability is advantageous.
In other words, metabotropic receptors implement a form of wise metacontrol. They are not data, but parameters! They function as dynamic variables that adjust system behavior. They allow the system to become sensitive to the functional meaning of a situation (novelty, relevance, reward, or threat) without requiring immediate responses. 
Returning to the football metaphor, metabotropic receptors correspond to team tactics: deciding when to attack or defend, that is, deciding how the game is played.
From a computational perspective, these mechanisms operate through intermediate states. They are not binary (active/inactive). The system operates in three modes: excitatory, inhibitory, and an intermediate state that produces no immediate output but modulates future dynamics.
When we speak of ternary in biological brain networks, we are not referring to a mathematical abstraction or calculus but to a literal functional description of how the brain maintains balance over time.
For this reason, computational neuroscience does not primarily study input–output mappings, but rather how states reorganize continuously. These states are fundamentally predictive in nature (Friston, 2010; Deco et al., 2009).
LLMs are binary computations.
In large language models, the concept of ternarity does not make sense. Learning is fundamentally based on error backpropagation. That is, once the magnitude of the error relative to the expected data is known, an optimization algorithm adjusts parameters using an external signal.
How does this work? The model produces an output, for example the prediction of the most likely next word: “Paris is the capital of …”. If the response is Finland, this is compared with the correct word from the training set (France). From this comparison, a numerical error is computed. This error quantifies how far the prediction deviates from the expected value. The error is then transformed into a gradient, namely a mathematical signal that indicates in which direction and by how much the model’s parameters should be adjusted to reduce the error. The weights are updated backward only after the output has been produced and evaluated.
The error is computed a posteriori, the weights are adjusted so that the correct response becomes France, and the system resumes operation as if nothing had happened.
In large language models, the separation between dynamics and learning is especially pronounced. During inference, parameters remain fixed; there is no online plasticity, no habituation, no fatigue, and no time-dependent adaptation. The system does not change by being active.
In the football metaphor, LLMs resemble a coach who reviews mistakes after the match and adjusts tactics for the next one. But during the match itself, the team plays the full ninety minutes without any possibility of technical or tactical modification! 
There is pre-match strategy and post-match correction, but no dynamism during play! 
LLMs are therefore not ternary in a functional sense. They are matrices of “attention” (transformers) trained offline (Vaswani et al., 2017). This is not a quantitative limitation but an ontological difference.
Neuraxon and Aigarth trinary dynamics
Neuraxon introduces a fundamentally different framework. Its basic unit is not an input–output function, as in LLMs, but an internal continuous state that evolves over time. In Neuraxon, excitation is represented as +1, inhibition as −1, and between these two states there exists a neutral range represented by 0.
At each moment, the system integrates the influence of current inputs, recent history, and internal mechanisms in order to generate a discrete trinomial output (excitation, inhibition, or neutrality).
The relationship between time and ternary is central. The neutral state does not represent the absence of computation or inactivity but a subthreshold phase in which the system accumulates influence without producing immediate output. It is comparable to a dynamic tactical shift in a football team, regardless of whether it leads to a goal for or against.
Aigarth expresses the same logic at a structural level. Not only are the units themselves ternary, but the network can grow, reorganize, or collapse depending on its utility, introducing an evolutionary dimension that reinforces continuous adaptation. The Neuraxon–Aigarth combination (micro–macro) gives rise to computational tissues capable of remaining active (intelligence tissue units), something impossible for architectures based exclusively on backpropagation.

The hardware question cannot be ignored. At present, there is no general-purpose ternary hardware, but there are active research lines in ternary logic, including multivalued memristors and neuromorphic computation based on resistive or spintronic devices (Yang et al., 2013; Indiveri & Liu, 2015). These approaches aim to reduce energy consumption and, more importantly, to achieve ternary computation aligned with physical, living, and continuous dynamics.
Does a ternary architecture make sense even without dedicated ternary hardware? Despite this limitation, it does, because architecture precedes physical substrate. By designing ternary systems, we reveal the inability of binary logic to reflect a dynamic world. At the same time, ternary architectures such as Neuraxon–Aigarth can already yield improvements on existing binary hardware by reducing unnecessary activity.
References
Deco, G., Jirsa, V. K., Robinson, P. A., Breakspear, M., & Friston, K. J. (2009). The dynamic brain: From spiking neurons to neural masses and cortical fields. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(8), e1000092.
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.
Indiveri, G., & Liu, S.-C. (2015). Memory and information processing in neuromorphic systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 103(8), 1379–1397.
Northoff, G. (2018). The spontaneous brain: From the mind–body problem to a neurophenomenology. MIT Press.
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., et al. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
Yang, J. J., Strukov, D. B., & Stewart, D. R. (2013). Memristive devices for computing. Nature Nanotechnology, 8(1), 13–24.
#aigarth #trinary

Napisane przez Zespół Naukowy Qubic

Akademia Inteligencji Neuraxon — Tom 4

Słowo sieć pojawia się nieustannie zarówno w neuronauce, jak i sztucznej inteligencji. Mimo że dzielą tę samą nazwę, biologiczne sieci neuronowe i sztuczne sieci neuronowe to zasadniczo różne systemy. Aby zrozumieć, co każdy z nich właściwie robi i gdzie mieści się trzecie podejście, musimy przyjrzeć się architekturze i zachowaniu sieci na każdym poziomie.
Biologiczne Sieci Neuronowe: Jak Mózg Przetwarza Informacje