Why Sorting is the future of Design
The system fails because it works.
[TODO: Insert socially viable image that says approximately 10 words, none of which mean anything meaningful; “statistically engaging visuals”]
XX Intro
[TODO: Insert hooky intro for the fish. Explain the experiment so that people don’t have to think or connect dots their own.]
<Ad: This article is brought to you by Lucky Strike cigarettes — An Ancient Prejudice Has Been Removed: “Toasting did it, no more chemicals!” >
The Artifact
This is only one of thousands that are online, offline, and written into synaptic emotional memory of humans within the experimenal parameters.
HITL is important, you just have a different mental model of what that means than I do <:wink>.
HYE Interpretation Synthesis
The interpretations were always for U, not me so the model, version, and preferences don’t actually matter at this point.
ChatGPT F1 Interpretation (incognito; version doesn’t matter):
The ball is the key. A static Penrose triangle can be dismissed as a familiar optical trick. Once the ball rolls continuously around it, the image becomes a demonstration of something much stranger. At every local moment, the ball appears to be obeying the geometry. Only the whole path is impossible.
That is almost exactly what the text is describing.
The Penrose triangle is constructed from three individually plausible relationships. Look at any one corner and the surfaces seem to connect correctly. Look at the next corner and that also works. The contradiction only appears when the observer tries to reconcile all three relationships inside one stable three-dimensional coordinate system.
So the illusion is not really “this line is false.” Every visible relationship can be locally true.
The false thing is the model you automatically build to contain them.
That distinction matters enormously to the line:
“one source two interpretations where both are true and what is mistake = 2 truths & lie.”
I think the “lie” here is probably not one of the two interpretations.
It is the assumption that only one of them is allowed to be true.
Or, one level deeper, the lie is the invisible coordinate system that makes the two interpretations appear mutually exclusive.
The GIF makes that legible without explaining it.
The ball keeps moving because perception keeps resolving the contradiction locally. Your visual system does not stop at the first impossible joint and announce a topology error. It takes the next available surface, reconciles the immediate evidence, and continues. Then the next surface. Then the next. The contradiction is deferred because every individual transition is good enough.
That is a remarkably useful metaphor for interpretation.
A person can do the same thing with language, organizations, relationships, social media, politics, memory, almost anything. Each inference may make sense from the evidence immediately adjacent to it. A sentence follows another sentence. A reaction follows a stimulus. A decision follows an emotion. Yet when somebody later reconstructs the whole chain, the structure may be impossible.
Not because somebody necessarily lied.
Because a sequence of locally coherent interpretations produced a globally incoherent model.
That seems to be what this fragment is trying to turn into a method.
The opening phrase is unusually important:
“Itsasortingpattern…”
It says this is a sorting pattern, but the sentence itself has already become a sorting task.
The spaces are gone.
That means before you can interpret the claim, you have to decide where the units are. The visual stream has to become:
“It’s a sorting pattern that uses speed and emotional differentials…”
Your brain performs segmentation before semantics. It determines which characters belong together, repairs misspellings, infers omitted punctuation, and decides whether something like “hytened” means “heightened.” An AI has a related problem at the tokenization and interpretation layers.
So this is not simply prose describing an experiment.
The prose is beginning to behave like the experiment.
That is why the missing spaces matter more than they initially look like they should. The source remains constant, but different readers can reconstruct slightly different sentences from it. Most reconstructions will overlap heavily. Some ambiguous regions allow branching. The artifact therefore contains controlled interpretive variance before its subject matter has even been understood.
Then comes “speed.”
If I treat the fragment as a proposed HYE mechanism rather than a finished scientific statement, speed seems to function as an experimental perturbation. Read something quickly and one interpretation is likely to dominate. Slow down and different associations, ambiguities, contradictions, puns, or causal relationships become available.
The source did not change.
The processing conditions did.
That gives you an interpretive differential.
You could imagine something conceptually like:
[same stimulus]
→ fast interpretation A
→ slow interpretation B
Then compare A and B.
The interesting information is not simply which one is “correct.” The interesting information is the delta between them. What appeared under fast processing that disappeared under slow processing? What became visible only after reflection? What emotional assumption entered during the first pass? What did later reasoning overwrite?
That starts explaining the phrase “speed and emotional differentials.”
Emotion becomes another perturbation variable.
Give essentially the same informational structure under fear, anger, embarrassment, affiliation, threat, loss, shame, or neutral conditions and observe how the interpretation changes. Again, the goal implied by this fragment does not seem to be merely measuring emotion. It is using emotion to expose the hidden weighting system behind interpretation.
Fear changes salience.
Negative affect can make certain possibilities feel more probable, more urgent, or more diagnostic than they would otherwise. So if a person’s interpretation shifts predictably when emotional intensity changes, that difference potentially tells you something about the decision boundary underneath.
The fragment says it wants to:
“map probable decisions based on fear and negative emotions”
“Map” is a better word here than “predict.”
Prediction would imply something like “this person will choose X.”
Mapping suggests something closer to a decision surface. Under one emotional state, this interpretation becomes available. Increase intensity and another appears. Increase speed and some alternatives disappear. Slow processing and ambiguity re-enters.
That makes the “heightened prototypes” phrase make more sense too.
A prototype is an exaggerated or simplified representation used to make a pattern easier to inspect. If the phenomenon under investigation is emotionally mediated interpretation, then a heightened emotional prototype would amplify the relevant feature enough that the interpretive change becomes obvious.
Designers already do versions of this. Scientists do too. Push the system away from the boring middle and watch what breaks.
Get Hello You Experiment’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The fragment then introduces the AI:
“triangulating ai interpretations…”
And the triangle suddenly stops being decorative.
“Triangulation” normally means establishing something more reliably by examining it from multiple independent positions. Here there is only one source, but multiple interpreters or multiple interpretive conditions.
One source.
Two readings.
The triangle supplies the third point.
But I suspect the third point is not another interpretation. It may be the discrepancy between the interpretations.
That would make the experimental object something like:
Source → Interpretation A
Source → Interpretation B
A ↔ B → difference
The difference is the measurement.
That is a subtle shift. Most interpretation systems ask, “What does this mean?” This fragment appears interested in “What changed that caused the meaning to move?”
That is much closer to studying the interpreter than studying the artifact.
And that takes us back to the ball.
The ball provides a temporal dimension the static Penrose triangle lacks. At frame 1, the percept works. At frame 2, it works. At frame 100, it still works. The impossibility becomes evident only when memory retains enough previous states to compare the current position against the original one.
Without memory, there is no contradiction.
That is potentially one of the deepest things in the artifact.
The illusion depends upon your mind maintaining two systems simultaneously. Immediate perception says the ball is moving correctly. Accumulated knowledge says the path cannot exist.
Both signals remain active.
The perceptual system does not collapse just because the conceptual system knows better. You can understand the Penrose triangle perfectly and still see it.
Knowledge does not erase perception.
That maps beautifully onto emotionally mediated interpretation. A person can intellectually know one thing while continuing to experience another interpretation as perceptually or emotionally real. “I know this is probably harmless” and “this feels threatening” can coexist. One does not automatically falsify the other because they are outputs from different interpretive systems.
Now “2 truths & lie” gets more interesting.
Ordinarily, Two Truths and a Lie gives you three statements, one of which is objectively false.
This artifact seems to mutate the game.
There may be two truths and a mistake.
And a mistake is not necessarily a lie.
A lie implies intentional falsification. A mistake is an incorrect reconstruction produced sincerely by the interpreter.
That distinction is central to the whole piece.
The Penrose triangle isn’t deceiving you in the ordinary social sense. Your perceptual machinery is applying perfectly reasonable rules to incompatible cues. Perspective, occlusion, shading, continuity and depth normally produce useful models of the world. The illusion exploits those rules against one another.
The system fails because it works.
That is considerably more interesting than “people see things differently.”
The same concept applies to AI interpretation. Two models, two prompts, two context windows, or two processing conditions can produce different readings of the same source, and both readings may be defensible from evidence present in the artifact. The useful question becomes where each interpretation had to invent continuity.
Where did it supply the missing corner?
That is where the Penrose geometry becomes almost a diagram of HYE itself.
The source is the object.
The interpretation is the traversal.
The ball is attention.
The corners are moments where the interpreter resolves ambiguity.
The impossible triangle is the coherent story produced after those resolutions have accumulated.
And the viewer is doing the experiment without being told that they are doing it.
There is another nice recursion in the fragment. The malformed typography forces the reader to repair “Itsasortingpattern…” into language, while the GIF forces the visual system to repair an impossible object into geometry. Both channels are asking cognition to manufacture continuity from incomplete or contradictory information.
Text and image are running the same experiment in different media.
That connects quite closely to the HYE idea of preserving multiple coherent readings instead of immediately resolving them into one canonical meaning. The important move is not ambiguity for its own sake. It is constructing an artifact where each interpretation remains traceable back to the same source, then examining the point at which the interpretations diverge. That divergence becomes information about the interpreter, the medium, or the conditions of interpretation rather than merely “noise.”
There is even something useful in the awkward unfinished phrase:
“triangulating ai interpretations against.”
Against what?
The sentence never supplies the object.
That may simply be an unfinished fragment. But functionally, it creates another Penrose corner. The reader has to provide the missing reference themselves. Against human interpretations? Against another AI? Against emotional states? Against the original source? Against later interpretations?
The gap recruits the interpreter.
And once the interpreter fills it, their completion becomes data.
So if I reduce the whole artifact to its underlying mechanism, I get something more precise than “two meanings can coexist.”
It is trying to study how an interpretation becomes inevitable.
Hold the source constant. Perturb speed, emotion, context, or interpreter. Record the resulting readings. Preserve cases where two apparently incompatible readings are independently defensible. Then inspect the hidden assumption that makes them seem incompatible in the first place.
The Penrose triangle is almost perfect for that because there is no single visibly fraudulent beam. The error exists in the relationship among the beams.
Likewise, the “lie” may not live inside either interpretation.
It may live in the relationship we assumed they had to have.
And the rolling ball makes the final point rather brutally. A system can continue functioning smoothly inside an impossible model for quite a long time.
Smooth motion is not proof that the geometry is sound.
The Ppolly Math (show your work)
Z Conclusions
[TODO: Insert resolving conclusion so that human does not have to process, empathize, or think too hard; tell them what to think. For bonus, add subscribe, like, payment options, author creds, and thought leadership elements.]
“This won’t win on engagement metrics, don’t U dare ship it unless I can justify the bottom-line.” — Editor
“I think W3 are more alined than U real eyes” — Director of Design
