When analysing the orientation of something like the internet, depending on your perspective, anything can be correct.
What this means for designers, is that at the peak of understanding or education, there is always the other side of the market to analyse.
And in terms of the net, eventually after hemispherical analysis, there are multitudes of other organisations, which explain truthfully, which way is up.
Having worked in architecture (mostly information architecture), within competitive innovation, there are essentially two modern pathways of architecture.
In essence, there is the scientific methodological approach to architecture, and then there is the more glamorous form, typically arriving in starchitecture.
There isn’t anything wrong with non scientific architecture, but as major global conditions change and become more extreme, the science of architecture prevails against vanity architecture.
Readers here, may determine that the programming nature used widely is full of atypicalities.
This is intentional, historically, so that the underpinnings of the IP, remains relevant and evergreen, and secure.
While not as accessible as some parts of the web, but definitely as locatable, if not, more innovative.
When analysing the health of a technologic application like a LLM, it is important to look at this like an accessibility right.
This is because of the natural language processing heritage, a LLM has, and the type of programmer whom gets involved with such a model.
For WXV, the tech stack right has been leading itself towards crystallising itself from being an intraweb(s), into being comprehensible, also, as being a LLM.
When translating the tangible to intangible, is it possible that the translation is one hundred percent?
With technology like holographics and augmented reality, the intangible can in many cases be a complete translation.
Although, the tangible tools needed to create the intangible do also outweigh these intellectual properties, over time, which happens when you are replacing tech.