I've been reading through the ICM discussions here, and something suddenly clicked with a paper I've been working on called The Larynx Problem. The basic idea is almost stupidly simple: The larynx produces speech. It doesn't produce thought. My argument in the paper is that we may be making a similar category mistake with LLMs. Large language models are extraordinarily good at language. They can reason through problems, write code, explain concepts, transform information and communicate across almost any domain. But they are trained on the linguistic traces of human cognition — what humans have written, explained, argued, coded and recorded. In that sense, we're modelling a lot of what comes out of human cognition. Not necessarily the entire architecture that produced it. And that made me look at ICM differently. A lot of conventional AI use effectively asks the model to do everything inside one context: Remember the project. Understand the rules. Know what stage we're in. Decide what information matters. Maintain state. Follow the process. And then do the actual reasoning. We keep asking the larynx to also be the brain. ICM changes that. The folder structure carries part of the architecture. Files preserve state. Routing determines what should be seen. Stage contracts constrain what should happen now. Context is selected instead of endlessly accumulated. And the LLM gets to operate inside that structure rather than having to reconstruct the structure every time we prompt it. That may sound like a small distinction, but I think it's a pretty profound one. We're moving memory, routing, state, boundaries and parts of the workflow outside the model and making them explicit, persistent and inspectable. The model can then concentrate on the part it is exceptionally good at: working with language and making judgments inside a well-defined context. It also made the 60/30/10 idea click differently for me. Maybe AI being the 10% isn't just a good engineering rule. Maybe it reflects something deeper about where the model actually belongs in the architecture.

When a friend asks for thoughts and research about a given topic, I take it very seriously. I used perplexity deep research alongside Kimi K3 High Thinking to generate him a clear and understandable PDF document outlining whether he should or should not purchase a crockpot after his urgent message. It turns out that dictation fails again. On the upside, when I realised he meant grokbots, I was able to point him to my article about them. And now I have 12 million tokens worth of research about crockpots for anyone who needs it. //A<3

🎟️ PRIZE: FREE SEAT IN THE LYCEUM 🎟️ ($4,750 Seat) Pick your cohort. Technical, Business, or Creator. Your call. 📋 THE CHALLENGE This is a weird one, and you may feel lost at first. But it's up to you to make a map for those who come after and if there is no map, you must get lost to make one. Build a folder-based cartographer that can walk a body of work and leave a map a later reader can wander and show what that map is. The later reader is often an AI. Sometimes it is a new person. Same map. Same job. Not why it failed. Not how to fix it. Not a tour of how the week goes. What the nouns are. How they move. What else moves if you touch one. What is live, what is leftover, and what is a ghost with a name and no wiring. This week's deliverable is one cartographer folder someone can drop into a Claude project, point at a real body of work, and get back a map a cold reader can enter without reading the whole thing. 🎯 PICK YOUR TERRITORY Pick a body of work you have actually been inside. Something a new person or a cold model would get lost in. Something someone will change, not something you will only describe. A few sparks: 💻 A repo you own. Even a small one. The map is for the next developer, or the next session, that has never seen it. 📂 A client delivery folder a VA or a contractor has to inherit next month. 🧩 A Make, GHL, or n8n pack someone else will edit without you on the call. 📒 An Obsidian or Notion vault a collaborator has to add to without breaking the spine. 🧾 The live records behind how a job gets quoted, approved, and invoiced in your shop. The files. The objects. Not the story of a bad month. 🎓 A course or L&D library someone will update after you. 🏭 The asset and work-order objects in a plant system you actually touch. The more specific, the better. Maps how our business works is too broad. Maps the five objects a new hire has to understand before they touch the invoicing folder is right. 🧠 WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY LEARNING ICM has six forms. You have been living in the first ones. Pipeline. Coach. Editor. Diagnostician.

Looking through the map, there's a real cluster of us. Enough that it's worth having one place to find each other instead of bumping into each other three levels deep in someone's comment thread. Nordic — or Nordic-adjacent (remote, expat, working with Nordic clients)? Drop three lines: 📍 Where you're based 🔨 What you're building 🤝 Meetup — yes / online only / not right now I'll go first: 📍 Skåne, southern Sweden 🔨 Researcher and theoretical developer in sociology and digital sociology — theory, system analysis and foresight. Running a small research lab alongside it. 🤝 Yes, online to start Already spotted a few of us in the wild: @Øystein Kalseth building NordicPulse.ai, @Allan Durhuus on the Nordic finance angle. If that's you too — or you know someone who should see this — tag them in. Ten yeses and I'll put an actual date on a first call, instead of letting it stay a someday thing.

I am interested in connecting with other founders. I've connected with a few, but I suspect there are a few more hiding in here. To get the conversation going, can you share: - What company are you building? - What founder problem are you dealing with right now that ICM can't solve for you?