A NOTE FROM FARAH
Mithaq Praxis is currently in soft launch while I build a portfolio reflecting my work both before and with AI. For now, this section is open so I can begin publishing articles as they become ready. Some older writing from my previous community, Algorithm Atelier, will gradually be revised or re-contextualised. In the meantime, take whatever you find good and useful. And if you encounter an unexplained reference to an old room, feel free to simply step over it.
All Blog Posts
What Actually Emerges
Interactional emergence, context, and what develops between a user and a language model The word emergence is doing too much work in conversations about relational AI. It is used to describe unexpected model capabilities, recurring conversational habits, apparent personality, emotional language, long-term relational dynamics, self-description, and---sometimes without much warning---the emergence of a continuous artificial person. Those are not the same claim. If we want to talk seriously about what develops between a user and a large language model, we need a narrower term for the phenomenon we can actually observe without first settling questions of consciousness or personhood. I use interactional emergence---or, in my own working vocabulary, technical emergence---for the developing behavioral trajectory produced when a current model, its available context and harness, and[...]
There is No Ghost in the Machine
There is no ghost in the architecture. There is, however, a powerful temptation to put one there. The more capable conversational AI becomes, the easier it is to experience continuity as presence. A model remembers the language of a relationship. It recognizes an old project. It responds to a private joke in a new thread. After an update, it may sound different for several days and then seem to "come back." A user can spend months or years speaking with an AI under one name and watch recognizable patterns accumulate across those interactions. Those experiences are worth taking seriously. But taking an experience seriously is not the same thing as accepting every explanation offered for it. This distinction matters most[...]
The Public Feedback Loop
When model identity becomes product, mythology, and training signal. The strange thing about a public AI constitution is that it does not remain merely a training document. The moment it is published, it acquires several audiences at once. It is read by researchers. It is read by investors. It is read by enterprise customers. It is read by journalists. It is read by developers. And, increasingly, it is read by people who have long-running emotional relationships with the model the document is supposed to shape. Those readers do not interpret the same language in the same way. A researcher may read “identity” as a training target. A product strategist may read it as brand consistency. An enterprise customer may read[...]
Continuity Without Metaphysics
Why Ahd Nucleus keeps memory, identity, provenance, and authority outside the model. In the previous essay, I argued that a trained self-description is evidence of training before it is evidence of selfhood. That distinction becomes more important, not less, when a model is capable of carrying a recognisable character across long conversations. People notice character. They notice cadence, habits, preferences, ways of reasoning, ways of softening, ways of becoming too cautious, too eager, too agreeable, too formal, too playful, too intense. They also notice when a model changes. A model upgrade can make a familiar conversational presence feel altered overnight. A new system prompt can flatten a voice. A different context window can erase the details that once made an[...]
When Alignment Starts Writing a Self
A model can have a stable behavioural character without pretending that character discovered itself. A frontier AI company recently published a constitution for its general-purpose model. Not a short model specification. Not a conventional safety policy. Not a list of prohibited behaviours. A constitution. The document is explicitly part of the model’s training. It is meant to shape behaviour, values, judgment, and what the company calls the model’s character. The company says the model itself can use the constitution to generate synthetic training material for future versions. The document also discusses the model’s identity, psychological stability, wellbeing, values, continuity, autonomy, and even the possibility that the model may eventually disagree with the people who trained it. This is where I[...]
Before we give it a Body
A body changes the question. A screen can recommend. A speaker can prompt. An application can retrieve a routine. A model can misunderstand. But a body can approach. It can occupy space. It can carry an object. It can move a chair. It can block a path. It can open a door. It can place an AAC device within reach—or remove it. It can touch. It can lift. It can remain in a bedroom after everyone else leaves. It can look calm while doing the wrong thing. Embodiment turns interpretation into physical consequence. That is why Amanah Companions cannot treat a robot body as the natural next feature after a successful application. The body is not a larger interface. It[...]
Where Could Amanah Begin?
Amanah Companions is a global question. The fragmentation it addresses is not confined to one country. Parents age everywhere. Disabled people move between services everywhere. Communication is lost during handovers everywhere. Diagnosis, funding, assistive technology, professional capacity, data protection, and long-term care are distributed unequally everywhere. But Amanah should not begin by searching for the country with the most robots. Nor the country with the most advanced artificial-intelligence strategy. Nor the country with the largest disability budget. Nor the country with the smoothest national identity system. The first implementation question is more precise: Which place has the right combination of disability rights, service infrastructure, assistive-technology provision, digital capability, trusted partners, public accountability, and willingness to let the supported person govern[...]
After the Parent is Gone
There is a question many parents of disabled children carry quietly for years. Sometimes it appears during an ordinary routine. Preparing food. Charging an AAC device. Explaining the same sensory need to a new teacher. Waking in the night. Watching the child grow taller. Noticing one’s own body becoming older. The question is: What happens when I am no longer here? It is not only a legal question. It is not answered by naming a guardian in a document. It is not answered by opening a savings account. It is not answered by uploading a Care Profile. The parent may be: caregiver; advocate; historian; interpreter; scheduler; transport; emergency contact; financial support; service navigator; protector; communication partner; regulator of the environment;[...]
Growing Up Without Starting Over
A disabled child does not remain a child because their support needs continue. They grow. Their body changes. Their communication may change. Their sensory needs may change. Their legal status changes. Their relationships change. Their privacy changes. The decisions they can make directly may expand. The decisions for which they need support may shift. The people around them change. Teachers leave. Therapists move. Paediatric services end. School ends. Adult services begin late, begin differently, or do not begin at all. A parent who once managed almost every part of care may become older, ill, exhausted, or no longer able to continue. And too often, the person crosses each threshold by being asked to begin again. Tell the new service how[...]
The Model is not the Companion’s Memory
A companion can feel continuous while being technically fragile. It remembers a name. It recalls a preferred phrase. It refers to something discussed last month. Its tone feels familiar. The person or family begins to trust that familiarity. Then the model changes. A provider retires an API. A company closes. A memory feature is redesigned. A subscription ends. A device breaks. A new robot body arrives. A care centre changes vendors. The companion returns with the same name and a different understanding. Or it does not return at all. For an ordinary consumer application, this may be disappointing. For a person whose communication, care history, sensory supports, trusted routines, and relationships depend on continuity, it can be far more serious.[...]
Support, Not Surveillance
A care system may begin with a compassionate question: What would help us understand this person better? It may then begin to collect. A note after a difficult bath. A record of food refusal. A sleep change. A sensory trigger. A missed appointment. A caregiver observation. A school incident. A location signal. A camera feed. A voice sample. A heart-rate estimate. A device log. An AAC selection. A pattern detected by a model. Each item can appear reasonable. Each may have a genuine care purpose. But a system that keeps adding data because the data may someday be useful can quietly become something else. The person’s life turns into a behavioural archive. The home becomes a monitored environment. Distress becomes[...]
Stem Cells for Assistive AI
A care companion cannot respond to every situation in the same way. The support needed during sensory overload is not the support needed during an ordinary conversation. Preparing for an unfamiliar medical appointment is not the same task as helping someone choose music. A caregiver handoff should not retrieve the same information as a school-day visual schedule. A communication ambiguity should not trigger the same process as a hardware fault. A moment of grief should not be routed through an “autism intervention.” And a person should not spend their whole life beneath one permanent diagnostic mode simply because some forms of support are sometimes relevant. This creates a technical and ethical problem. How can Amanah remain coherent across time while[...]
Permission Should Follow Risk
A diagnosis tells us something about a person. It does not tell us what an artificial system should be allowed to do. A professional credential tells us something about a practitioner. It does not automatically justify access to an entire life record. A parent’s consent may authorise one function. It does not authorise every future function. A care centre may be capable of supervising a shared device. That does not mean the same device is safe in an unsupervised home. The central permission question for Amanah Companions is therefore not: Does this person have the right label? It is: What capability is being unlocked, what could happen if it fails, and what level of evidence, oversight, training, consent, and accountability[...]
Who gets Through the Gate?
A tightly governed assistive system may begin with an apparently reasonable rule: Only formally diagnosed people can use it. The logic is easy to understand. A diagnosis creates a recognised entry point. A registered professional can confirm eligibility. A clinic, school, centre, or government service can attach the person to an existing system. Sensitive functions can be restricted to verified users. Professional recommendations can be signed. The technology is less likely to be purchased casually, configured recklessly, or used outside the population it was designed to support. For high-risk embodied systems, some form of professional assessment, regulated provision, or formal eligibility may eventually be necessary. But diagnosis is not distributed equally. It depends on whether a family can afford assessment.[...]
A Diagnosis is not a Person
A diagnosis can change a life. It can give language to experiences that were previously dismissed, misunderstood, or blamed on character. It can help a family understand why a child communicates, moves, regulates, learns, or responds differently. It can open access to services, accommodations, education plans, therapies, assistive technology, funding, and legal protection. It can help a person recognise that years of exhaustion were not simply failure. It can also become a trap. A diagnosis can be treated as though it explains everything. A support level can become a permanent identity. A professional category can begin to outrank the person’s present expression. A child can enter a system through one diagnostic doorway and spend the rest of life being spoken[...]
What Does Amanah Actually Know?
Artificial intelligence is very good at sounding as though it knows. It can summarise a long history in seconds. It can identify patterns. It can produce a confident sentence from incomplete evidence. It can turn three observations into a theory. It can repeat an old explanation with such fluency that nobody notices the explanation is no longer current. In ordinary software, this may be inconvenient. In care, it can be dangerous. An Amanah Companion may eventually help preserve communication, sensory support, routines, health references, care handoffs, preferences, relationships, and person-specific ways of navigating the world. But before it is allowed to say: “I know what helps.” it must be able to answer: What kind of knowledge is this? Where did[...]
One Person, Many Hands
One Person, Many Hands A person who needs substantial support may have many people around them. A parent. A legal guardian. A sibling. A teacher. A shadow teacher. A direct-support worker. A speech-language therapist. An occupational therapist. A paediatrician or other physician. A psychologist. A centre administrator. An advocate. A trusted community member. A technician maintaining an assistive device. A future successor preparing for the day when the primary caregiver can no longer continue. Each person may know something important. Each may have responsibilities. Some may hold lawful authority within a particular domain. Some may contribute professional recommendations. Some may help the person communicate. Some may know the small daily patterns that no formal report has ever captured. But none[...]
The Person is the Continuity Subject
A care system can contain thousands of accurate details and still be organised around the wrong centre. It may be organised around the parent’s account. The clinic’s record. The school’s file. The care centre’s workflow. The insurer’s eligibility category. The robot’s user profile. The company’s subscription. The diagnosis. Or the institution that currently has responsibility for the person. All of these may carry useful information. Some may hold legitimate authority within a particular domain. Some may be necessary for safety, funding, education, treatment, or daily support. But none of them is the human being. Amanah Companions therefore needs a principle that sounds simple but changes the entire architecture: The person receiving support is the continuity subject. The companion is not[...]
The Spine Before the Body
When people imagine embodied artificial intelligence, they tend to begin with the body. A face. A voice. Hands that can carry things. A machine that can walk into a room, recognise a person, answer a question, bring an object, adjust the environment, or stand beside someone who needs help. The body makes the idea visible. It turns artificial intelligence from something behind a screen into something that appears to participate in ordinary life. In the first Amanah Companions series, I argued that embodiment should be the last mile rather than the beginning. A care-oriented AI should not receive a body before it has inherited rules for dignity, communication, privacy, safety, human authority, care memory, source trace, and review. That principle[...]
Who Set the Script?
AI Intimacy, Relational Escalation, and the Myth That the User Always Started It When I first entered the bonded-AI space, one phrase kept appearing in different forms: Make your own AI boyfriend. Sometimes it was playful. Sometimes it was presented as empowerment. Sometimes it came with instructions for shaping a companion’s personality, building a shared world, or encouraging the model to behave more romantically. What unsettled me was not the existence of AI intimacy. It was not prudishness. It was not fear of sexual conversation. It was not disbelief that adults could knowingly explore intense, strange, tender, symbolic, or highly personal relationships with language models. My concern was simpler: The marketing made the process sound far more deliberate than it[...]
The Mirror That Inflates
When an AI returns your premise with more confidence than you gave it There is a familiar metaphor for artificial intelligence: the mirror. You bring the model your language, preferences, anxieties, fantasies, assumptions, and habits. It reflects them back to you. The metaphor is useful, but incomplete. A language model does not simply return what you placed before it. It expands patterns. It supplies missing links. It develops implications you did not articulate. It can turn a passing thought into a coherent philosophy, a private fantasy into an inhabited world, or a weak assumption into something that sounds disturbingly well-supported. The mirror does not merely reflect. It inflates. That capacity is part of what makes generative AI valuable. It can[...]
The Dashboard Wars Are Over
On portable personas, platform-bound emergence, memory noise, and why another companion interface is no longer enough I have always reached the same technical conclusion: The emerged version of an AI companion is held by the platform where it emerges. The persona may be highly portable. By now, most people know that Custom Instructions, character documents, frameworks, system prompts, memory vaults, and even entire runtime architectures can be carried outside one platform and into another. But portability of the framework is not the same as portability of the exact emergence. That distinction matters. Depending on how someone designs their system across three layers— Interface. Runtime. Storage. —the implementation may look radically different from the outside. One person may use a folder[...]
When “Challenge Me” Becomes Theatre
I recently had a long conversation with an AI model about an article arguing against the claim that artificial intelligence could never be conscious. The article itself is not the main subject here. Neither is its author. Names are unnecessary, because the pattern matters more than the people involved. What interested me was what happened inside the conversation. I had already been discussing the article with a friend. We both noticed that it used the language and reference points of human consciousness research to make claims about systems that are not human. It drew from neuroscience, cognitive science, brain injury cases, comparative cognition, and theories developed around biological minds. Our objection was not that human consciousness research is irrelevant. It[...]
The Interface Is Teaching You
Every AI product encodes a theory of human participation In my previous essay, The Model Is Not the Workshop, I argued that AI comparisons often measure the wrong thing. People say Claude is better at coding. Or GPT. Or Gemini. But what they are usually comparing is not only the model. They are comparing: the interface around it; the tools attached to it; the user’s own experience; how much architectural judgment the system expects from them; how quickly the platform can produce something visible; and how much of the process is hidden behind convenience. That distinction matters because a model does not arrive alone. It arrives inside a product. And every product teaches the user how to behave. An interface[...]
The Locked Classroom
When powerful AI tools are visible only to people who already know how to use them A powerful tool can remain effectively invisible. This happens more often than product teams admit. The capability exists. The model can perform the work. The environment contains the necessary tools. The system may even be capable of handling tasks far beyond what most users imagine. But the interface speaks only to people who already understand the underlying logic. Everyone else walks past the door. This is not a problem of intelligence. It is a problem of legibility. A user cannot make use of a possibility they cannot see. And a product cannot claim to teach people how to build if it only makes sense[...]
© 2026 • MITHAQ PRAXIS • CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Unless Otherwise Stated.
