Today, I'm reading philosophy. A classic issue is "the problem of universals" ( summary : what makes the word chair, apply to this thing, and not that thing? ).
So, it reminds me that this, "leaky abstraction", is at the heart of problems around "governance failure" in current LLMs, and with people in general (e.g., "never do X" or "always do Y" ).
It's nice nowadays, to be able to take ancient fuzzy concepts and apply mechanistic interpretation to them!
Lol. I seem to have learnt the term "transcendental *idealism*" without remembering its formal counterpart "empirical *realism*", and I have been using TI to refer to all of TIER for the last 20+ years.
( maybe 1.5 stories )
---
"Some idiot has been messaging me to go to Singapore. Why would I do so now? Is someone paying me upfront? LOL"
"Hahahaaaaaaaa. Is it a scammer? 🤣🤣🤣"
"old friend - the type that might turn up at your home and take a nap naked, and scare your housemates type - I am a very tolerant person, but I am also capitalistic about entertainment"
---
Before I discovered that my inbox had been assaulted by that last barrage of naivete, I was preparing to write down what I was thinking about during lifting today.
But now the memory is lossy. So, I will try to reconstruct it adequately.
I think, most of my life, I have been up to my eyeballs in stupid people. Even just in getting from thinking about it, to writing it down, I can get interrupted by some of the same. It's incredibly, bewilderingly, definitive of my lived experience. I wouldn't know how else to describe it to anyone.
And my sense, is that most people don't feel the same way about others. And, based on what I can tell about other people, most of them do not feel so because they do not in effect see how many people are scratching themselves while eating, fucking, and doing business with others ... just in a somewhat more sophisticated way, such as to be seen as well, adorable.
So we have strata of adorabobbles - broadly construed as virtue signalling, at different levels of society. Meanwhile, as a matter of laziness, I try to avoid most of it, while being careful enough to understand how it works.
So recently, I have been quite successful. I remember being 18 or 19 and lifting weights and thinking, I have better things to do with the limited time I have until my scholarship runs out, so I will do this later. And it was the same for studying maths. And now at 43, I have no more excuses, so I am doing both quite happily, as mundane as the activities are. I have done so many other things since, I started postponing the things I wanted to do. Now all I have is to do them, as I wait to find out when my capacity for these things evaporates with age. And then there will be choices to be made about how to die.
Perhaps.
---
"Some old friends has changed that they might not be the same person they were, and...you never know. Just saying hahahaha"
"it's true. there was another one, whom i loved. we didn't have a lot in common, but they, being an affectionate type, would occasionally accompany me in trivial settings. once after about ten years of not being in the same country, they were bored, and we fucked. and then they had work to do, and their affections were no longer communicated, and so we have become no longer friends, so so that is how children grow up, and older, into ordinary things that eventually disappear"
Thin slice : the paper's paradoxes seem to come from a confusion definitions of "information". Perhaps, there is a confusion between : the accuracy of information transfer ("surprise") and the accuracy of representing originating knowledge ("semantics").
Information theory is concerned with "already quantified" data, and not about "quantifying unquantified states". So entropy is meaningful as a descriptor of quantified data, and not meaningful as a descriptor of how accurate a quantification operation was upon an unquantified substrate.
Vis-a-vis LLMs, whether the input data is the traditional "verbal / just text" or multimodal "multi/sensory" ... these are "already quantified data" at the point of ingestion, and information is preserved as the LLMs compute any egestions.
For those of US OBSERVING the LLMs, we may find that the LLMs produced "new information", but that does not refer to insight about the ingested data (stateT=0), but rather about the the UNQUANTIFIED WORLD STATE prior to the creation of the ingested data (stateT=-N).
Please forgive my unfamiliarity with the underlying material, and my faint disgust at seeing 50+ comments applauding without adding much to conversation ( I think I saw few dissenters haha ).
Is tuition necessary?
In another group, someone asked if paid tuition is necessary, for students already attending "expensive" private or international schools.
My response :
The origin is decades/centuries old, and part of Chinese cram-culture. Basically the student has no occupation beyond passing a specific high-level exam which kicks back as wealth for the entire family : so the student is a vehicle of investment.
How this is relevant to the PRESENT : is really up to you.
/ the relevance of Business School, to Education in General : a brief introduction /
"Business" schools treat management as the question, "what should we do?" (tEQ). This, as Drucker and Deming noted, depends on "what can we count?" (tOQ), about things in an environment defined by "property rights".
"Philosophy" traditionally is just a superset of that : where the ontological question (tOQ), and the ethical question (tEQ), are applied to all human activities, regardless of concerns about property rights.
"What do we teach people at each stage of life?" is basically (tEQ:E), the question of educational ethics. And the answers to this are largely dependent on, (tOQ:C) the question, "what is a citizen?", and (tEQ:C) "what do we expect from citizens?".
You may notice that we jumped from education, to citizenship, so what about non-citizens? Valid question - and a quick tie around that is to say, we simply define for the purpose of this discussion, CITIZEN, as any entity in our environment, regardless of classification under labels which denote different rights and obligations. So now (tOQ,tEQ:C) can apply to rocks, trees, chickens, humans, bots, corporations, and nationstates.
This is trivia, but maybe it'll help someone understand how to link together
:)
What is a "serious" relationship?
I run into this question a lot. Some people define it as (A) a feeling of commitment or interest, but I prefer the notion of (B) explicit terms and conditions.
So my serious relationships, are not what most people consider serious relationships. And vice versa.
I think commonly, folks adopt model A, but mix in a bit of model B with it. I think this is fundamentally contentious. You cannot commit to both terms and conditions, and feelings which may waiver. Although it is SHIPPED as a mix of A and B, it reduces to A by priority.
Most people, to me, are not serious about relationships :)
Of late, Md Ismail Sojal has been one of the most prolific, coherent, Facebook content curators, on topics related to artificial intelligence. Today he posted a brief summary of Demis Hassabis' career, which caught my attention. I took particular interest in learning that Hassabis published important papers on the hippocampus, from 2007 onwards, in an area of my research : delineating the software topology of human intelligence. Given how old the paper is, I've probably been influenced by it in ways immemorial. Its findings align very well with my own practical study of how to quantify my conscious experience on moment to moment basis, something I've been studying since around 2003.
In short, the hippocampus ( whose shape reminds me of the clit ), is a part of the brain, which appears to enable what is broadly called "apperception" in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Edition A, published in 1781. The hippocampus is structurally significant in data pipelines, because it mediates both the sensory-spatio modelling of ...
It is normal to be divided in politics, but it is (always) sad, to see Malaysians being fearful, angry, rude, and violent, about politics ... because some evil (maybe human) spirit has told them that this is a correct (bersopan) way to approach political (civil) life.
As a point of reflection, for non-Muslims (such as myself) and Muslims, perhaps we can all reflect on this frequently read Muslim text. Muslims are of course familiar with it, but it is less common knowledge to others.
Maybe this is a good reminder about how to engage with each other. Our responsibility to ourselves is to believe what we believe - and our responsibility to each other, is to encourage each other, to believe whatever they believe. 🙂
I think, the overall scope of discussion, is quite suitable for children also, on a daily basis. Hopefully if kids are raised to be more chill, they won't grow up into adults who are always yelling at each other.
Discussion :
2026-06-10 :
Part 1
Strategically, Malay centrists who seek political gain, need to have a structural narrative response to the Malay right's appeals to nativism and theism.
The Malay left is too tiny to make an active impact, given the laws and taboos against communism - whereas their position is favoured by the current phase of the global economic cycle where economic inequality is peaking.
I have detailed thought on each of these issues, but it is really just me hanging on the dividing wall, sipping a soda watching it play out in someone else's family. 🤣
Part 2
Earlier I posted an FMT op-ed by a Malay centrist, who had a view that there are many types of Malays.
Q : Someone in the comments asked why the Malay right seeks to unify against non-Malay citizens.
A : One of the driving factors of course, are our civil society NGOs with roots in the 1970s Muslim Brotherhood movement, like ABIM and ISMA, which our dear PMX helped to form a strong identity base back when he was a young man. See EUBI, and all those historical events back then.
These are of course, grassroots clubs with a common identity. Sometimes we make fun of them by saying it is not clear if race is riding on religion, or if religion is riding on race - it actually doesn't matter, these are our citizens and it is altogether part of our national society.
Whether we agree or not about how to run the country, we are still living together and must cooperate, to increase cultural exposure for our kids, so that everyone has a better understanding of everyone else ...
... instead of turning into adults who have gotten stuck in the idea, "my culture is my culture, their culture is their culture, we do not talk or share these with each other" - these are the people of all races who reduce GDP 15% annually, compounded for decades, because people are worried about their neighbours instead of worrying about all the other countries coming to eat out lunch.
Consolidated notes over a few days, nothing really new, but the talking points were related, so here they are. Mainly response to he following propositions made by others :
❌ "We don't yet have the language to understand LLMs"
❌ "LLMs are bad at maths"
❌ "World models are timeless"
There is one outstandingly wrong, critique of most LLMs :
"they don't have an intuition".
Well, intuition is NEARLY ALL they have - just open it up and look at the data structure. This is because they are trained as probabilistic consolidations of all past uses of each word in known history, vis-a-vis "unsupervised learning". What they do NOT have is rules, because they are not trained with hard counterexamples, vis-a-vis "supervised learning", let alone trained to have strict rules, vis-a-vis "logic programming".
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, haha. Without getting too much into the weeds, I think : Each of our perspectives on what AGI / or "I" in general means is shaped by unique personal experience, a bound set for each of us. These sets may or may not be commensurable - we don't currently know if the categories or your experience, and the categories of mine are even comparable. This has political consequences, mainly related to how seriously we take each other's speech.
Some of the technological steps you mentioned however, I must say are "operational improvements" which improve cache hierarchy and introduce compression in some cases -without really changing the overall "architectural" approach employed by the currently trendy transformer gang.
I think it remains useful to query both, other humans, and the results of what we can make machines do ... in improving not just "what we think intelligence is", but also how we can communicate what we think it is.
A parent asked, if others had asked their children, what their children wanted from education - and how to judge if the child's preferences or the parents' preferences were better.
I elected to share a canonical rant : before I went to Year 1 of elementary school, my parents asked if I wanted to study in a school with two, or three languages. I said two, because I wanted to be lazy. They sent me to the school with three. So for the rest of my life, I have been wary of fools asking meaningless questions.
Aside from that, of course life has provided many disparate experiences. Many have involved speaking with people who tell me, nicely or otherwise, that they believe I am not well-informed or well-opinionated. The problem with me, I find, is that while I am quite willing to accept these views, and submit to compromise, more often than not, I find that I should have paid less attention to them, because the speaker was foolish. I can only speak from my own experience, which is quite limited.
I do not believe this makes me intelligent, but sometimes intelligence is something you have whether you want to have it or not. And others lack it, whether you wish they had it or not.
And sometimes you are just stupid. :)
Day 1 back at elementary number theory ( day 1155 of sabbatical2, day ~15,547 on earth ). I am revising this slide on the notation for exponentiation and logarithms which I made year ago.
TIL :(or am reminded, because I probably forgot) :
At rest :
Firing :
Muscle Diseases, and ordinary states which become diseases if not reversed within ordinary timeframes :
I'm guilty of avoiding AI over the past decades because the techniques I've heard about still seem rather primitive. The last decade in particular has been characterised by VCs throwing obscene amounts of money at a fundamentally inefficient approach.
After noodling around in the current tech for a week or so, just to make sure I understand what's going on, I think it's safe to say that the the titular concern of this post stands firm.
An analogy. At the heart of trendy LLMs is a giant Y times Y list of known words in English ( also other languages, but nevermind those for now ), forming an enormous 2D table. It's Y times Y because both H and V axes have the same list of words - sure, half the table is redundant, so you can think of it as a trangular half-rectangle of unique pairs. If you lookup the junction between any two words, you find a WINDOW to a realm of many, about 10^(3 +/- 1 ), dimensions of information about each pair of words.
Based on the "best" available public information, this is the data structure for storing everything the LLM knows about the world - which it knows ONLY FROM READING TEXT ( except for MLLMs, which we'll also ignore for now ). Even in the case of MLLMs, sensory spatio-temporal data can be understood to be stored within the realm accessed by each WINDOW.
Of course, when you ask an LLM a question like "What is the meaning of life?" it doesn't need to peek through ALL the WINDOWS and all the realms above, rather it only has to peek through a subset of windows, W_n. However it's still fundamentally inefficient, because : it doesn't JUST look at W_n and answer your question.
Oh no.
It looks at your question, goes to a set of windows, W_n1, takes a peek, grimaces in deep thought, spits out ONE word, then pats itself on the head and goes to W_n2, a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT set of windows, spits out a SECOND word, and goes on and on until W_nM to obtain M words. While there is a cache, this is exactly what it sounds like - quite a bit of work.
I'm not a very smart fellow, so I'm probably going to be wrong about this. But, it would seem that the thin red circle that I am drawing around the entire architecture that drives most of our current AI tech is going to have to collapse, and be replaced by more efficient methods soon enough.
When? Who knows. I've been waiting since 2003, and "they" haven't figured it out yet. Some of "them" are pretty close, I think. I like the JEPA and MLLM approaches, and am eager to see where they end up.
One thing's for sure - if you create a model of the world based on this Cartesian product approach to windows upon a realm of thousands of dimensions, and have to crawl through the whole library, to peek through a different SET of windows, once per answer word ... even if it gets you the correct answer to a question, it's bloody tiring.
And to BUILD that library of windows to that realm ... it still takes WAY more money than it takes to build a human brain.
Misanthropy ( maybe a good startup name ) in cognitive sciences.
1. Many humans celebrate the act of living. This coalesces into a treatment of the brain as a joyful machine - lovingly and wonderfully operational. So, there is this current of trying to make machines more like humans, because there is a prejudice that humans are the best template.
2. On the other hand, I think life is boring. And I'll be damned if my brain hasn't been the dumbest piece of shit machinery I've ever had the chance to work with. So my prejudices in cognitive sciences (and politics in general) tends to be about fixing all the things that human brains are bad at.
I think each camp finds the other superficially appalling :P
Walaupun tak sedap dengar, dan disebut kasar, rasanya :
TIL current frontier "transformer" LLMs ...
1.
The terms "encoder, decoder" apparently, don't apply to the encoding of end-user queries. "Encoder-only" and "encoder-decoder" LLMs thus refer to entirely other things.
Frontier LLMs are "decoder-only" text generators, but they DO ENCODE the user's query into "token" space.
Simplifying the dumb parts : the following model process applies to any data, sensory or verbal - all those inputs would be first translated into "tokens", and input the same way. After processing, all results are spat out into the target (sensory or verbal) human language.
2.
Frontier "decoder-only" models function "autoregressively", they "produce results based on historical data". The important part of the model's thought process is broadly - grab a PENCIL and SKETCH it out - 2A looks something like this :
Input -->[ 2A1 --> 2A2 ] times, ( 80 to 120 minus skipped ) layers --> Output
2A.
Input data activates a process of 80 to 120 sequential "layers". ( Fortunately at this point in history, BRANCHING LOGIC allows some to be skipped. ) Each layer is internally composed of,
2A1.
... an initial "attention" network, of PARALLELISED weight-holding memory cells ( stacked to varying depth ), terminating in 64 to 128 "attention heads" ( architectural variations : MHA, GQA, MQA, MLA, etc. ), whose purpose is to CLUSTER the input data, followed by
2A2.
... a subsequent "feed forward network" block, of BRANCHING weight-holding memory cells ( stacked to varying depth ), whose purpose is to LOGICALLY JUDGE the input data.
3.
During the model's "training" period, each loop through all the layers of 2A "feeds forward" data through all ( 80 to 120 ) layers in sequence, and from 2A1 to 2A2 within every layer, then checks the correctness of the result, then "backpropagates" corrections to the weights of 2A1 and 2A2 in all ( 80 to 120 minus ) layers - which make future "feed forwards" more correct. Many cycles happen, to maximise correctness.
4.
During the model's "inference" period, a "feed forward" loop through all ( 80 to 120 minus skipped ) layers of 2A happens ONCE FOR EVERY SINGLE WORD GENERATED. Like this ...
[ Query ] -> Loop1 -> adds word1
[ Query + word1 ] -> Loop2 -> adds word2
[ Query + word1 + word2 ] -> LoopN -> adds wordN
Can you see how incredibly stupid this is?
It would (should?) be much simpler to have a model that actually understands the query in terms of a sensory-spatiotemporal model, generates an answer in the same space ( which it then reads just once), and then outputs just once into the target language. Maybe this is something JEPA, and future models will fix.
5.
Because 2A1 is just about clustering the data and not judging it, all 64 to 128 attention heads and their network cells are hit, during any "feed forward" loop, unless a layer is skipped.
6.
But because 2A2 allows branching, over 90% of cells can be skipped during each "inference" loop, though none can be skipped during "training" loops.
👷🏼戴上阴谋论帽子：当然，标准的阴谋论是这样的：
1. 马来西亚所有种族极化的政党实际上都与对立阵营的政党勾结。
2. 这些种族极化的政党并非天真地发表容易被攻击的言论，而是相互协调，轮流扮演受害者。
3. 这使得媒体中种族极化的刻板印象得以延续，支撑了种族极化政治纲领的短期支持，却牺牲了对经济增长和种族间文化融合的长期关注。
🙋🏼摘下阴谋论帽子：当这种情况在没有明确协调的情况下发生时，正如马祖基博士在最近的播客中所说，在学术界，我们称之为结构性问题。
👷🏼Dài shàng yīnmóu lùn màozǐ: Dāngrán, biāozhǔn dì yīnmóu lùn shì zhèyàng de: 1. Mǎláixīyà suǒyǒu zhǒngzú jí huà de zhèngdǎng shíjì shang dōu yǔ duìlì zhènyíng de zhèngdǎng gōujié. 2. Zhèxiē zhǒngzú jí huà de zhèngdǎng bìngfēi tiānzhēn dì fābiǎo róngyì bèi gōngjí de yánlùn, ér shì xiānghù xiétiáo, lúnliú bànyǎn shòuhài zhě. 3. Zhè shǐdé méitǐ zhōng zhǒngzú jí huà de kèbǎn yìnxiàng déyǐ yánxù, zhīchēngle zhǒngzú jí huà zhèngzhì gānglǐng de duǎnqí zhīchí, què xīshēngle duì jīngjì zēngzhǎng hé zhǒngzú jiān wénhuà rónghé de cháng qī guānzhù. 🙋🏼Zhāi xià yīnmóu lùn màozǐ: Dāng zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng zài méiyǒu míngquè xiétiáo de qíngkuàng xià fāshēng shí, zhèngrú mǎzǔ jī bóshì zài zuìjìn de bòkè zhōng suǒ shuō, zài xuéshù jiè, wǒmen chēng zhī wèi jiégòu xìng wèntí.
-
👷🏼pakailah topi komplot jap : teori konspirasi rujukan tentulah
1. Setiap parti politik Malaysia yang menunggang kaum, sebenarnya bersekongkol dengan parti-parti yang tunggangannya bertentangan.
2. Parti-parti yang menunggang kaum tidak secara naif membuat kenyataan yang mudah diserang, sebaliknya mereka sepakat dan bergilir-gilir menjadi mangsa.
3. Ini mengekalkan persekitaran media kiasan terpolarisasi kaum : maka, menegakkan sokongan jangka pendek bagi perjuangan politik berpolarisasi kaum, dengan mengorbankan tumpuan bersepadu jangka panjang terhadap pembangunan ekonomi dan pergabungan budaya antara kaum.
🙋🏼Tanggal jap topi komplot: apabila ini berlaku TANPA PENYELARASAN TERSURAT, seperti yang dikatakan oleh Dr. Marzuki dalam podcast baru-baru ini: dalam akademik kita menggelarnya sebagai keadaan berkerangka.
-
👷🏼Tinfoil hats ON : the standard conspiracy theory of course, is
1. Each Malaysian political party that is racially polarised, is actually in cahoots with parties of opposite polarity.
2. The racially polarised parties are not naively making statements which are easy to attack, rather they coordinate and take turns to play the victim.
3. This perpetuates the media landscape of racially polarised tropes, propping up the short-term support for racially polarised political platforms, at the expense of long-term integrated focus on economic growth and cultural integration between races.
🙋🏼 Tinfoil hats OFF : when this happens WITHOUT EXPLICIT COORDINATION, as Dr. Marzuki said in a recent podcast : in academia we call it a structural situation.
From chat with an influence:
3. About the world's PAST AND PRESENT interaction with Islam, I think we're generally stuck at the nopope problem. Which is, ( not sure if you or someone else reiterated it lately ) that there is no central governance for Islam, so any Tom, Dick, and Chin Lee can wake up tomorrow and start doing things in the name of Islam, without any formal body for everyone to complain to or measure them against. This is pretty much the bottleneck for progress on global attitudes towards Islam, both good and bad, Islamophilic-phobic whatnot.
... or "how any brains, human or artificial, can do maths" : including the creation of novel concepts for nouns, verbs, and adjectives in maths.
I started writing this as a comment on Valerio's post, but it overflowed so I made it a repost, then it overflowed, so I had to articleise it.
I think categorically, "mathematics" isn't "a thing that can be solved" as a whole. Mathematical QUESTIONS yes, but there is no end to the questions.
Mathematics ITSELF is a [ software program ], for [ representing ways to reason about phenomenology in general ] - in other words, maths is a programming language, or compiler toolchain - with specific focus on [ phenomenology that is objective ].
( This applies to mathematics as a social activity - in private, any mind can perform subjective quantification upon phenomena it perceives, even though that activity is not directly observable by other minds. Because at this point in history, we still do not have [ social / common access ] to the [ subjective phenomenological experience of humans ], since that memory space is embedded within an ill-understood meat net. )
I think the matter of coming up with new [ mathematics, and science in general ] is really just a generative process of creating ontologies of language where existing ontologies are insufficient. It's just mutate, and cull, loop. What gives rise to the DEMAND for new ontology / concepts, depends a bit more on the field.
In physics, ontological DEMAND is a matter of "we have some observational SENSORY data that does a quantifiable pattern, but we don't have a name for the pattern, though we can point at the pattern. Also we don't know how this new pattern relates to old patterns, and we need to do more tests to find out."
In mathematics, ontological DEMAND is a matter of "basically everything that physicists do, but swap the object of research from SENSORY phenomena in general to [ formal INSENSIBLE verbal concepts, attached to some SENSIBLE notation that we use to represent it ]".
While physicists have to tolerate the limit of "hypotheses are falsifiable, and resistant to falsification under duress," mathematicians tend to need to show that "theses are necessarily true/false".
In the realm of testing the combinatorial play-niceness of known fundamental relations and entities, that's fairly straightforward.
The discovery of new fundamental relations and entities ... is also driven, from the same sensory source that drives such discovery in physics.
Physics and mathematics are both "sensory", it's just that in physics the sensory data is of [ intrinsic ] interest, whereas in maths the sensory data is [ just symbolic of insensible interests ].
So, in the same way machines can be programmed to be creative in hypotheses about [ intrinsically interesting sensory data ], they can do the same for [ sensory data, i.e. language morphemes and syntax, which are extrinsically interesting ].
After all, in and of itself, [ the latent intuition about how logic, space, and time, work ] is essentially the brain's physical activity, as a [ subconscious memory space ]. Data from there then intrudes, from time to time, upon our also physical [ imaginations, as conscious memory spaces ].
Both memory spaces simply process [ sensory data structures, which we may call qualia when they move into the conscious memory space ].
A practiced thinker knows how to completely map, FROM qualia, TO analogous signals or other data structures which are known to be objectively quantifiable, through the social practice of science.
Of course, I might be venturing a bit too far here, in terms of asserting that meat brains are just sub/conscious physical information processes.
Haha
- - -
Discussion
2026-05-26 :
You can deterministically block things from happening. But in order to do that, your underlying architecture must have deterministic outcomes for all corner cases.
In the event when you, by nature of not having enough computational resources to check all corner cases of a deterministic system, must treat a deterministic system as non-deterministic ... it's just a black box! Like a person!
Similar approaches to governance then apply.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chuck-h-securityexecutive_cracksinyourfoundationmodels-aisecurity-math-share-7463025773600333824-VgO0?
for If you live in Malaysia, you must know this! The law of Malaysia EXPLICITLY points at adherence to EXTRA-JUDICIAL NORMS.
In anthropology, this admission of informality creates what is called "a high-context culture".
Some people feel that this is a rich part of our culture, and prefer to have things perpetually maintained in a limbo between formality and informality.
Others feel that this limbo is counterproductive.
In any event, it is important to understand that for the time being, we live in this situation. The consideration of how valuable this is, the public discourse about it, and the perpetual progress of laws through time, is inevitably part of what makes Malaysia, Malaysia.
---
Google for translation, because I'm lazy today, and edits marked *as such* :
Jika anda tinggal di Malaysia, anda mesti tahu perkara ini! Undang-undang Malaysia SECARA JELAS menunjukkan pematuhan kepada NORMA *LUAR-KEHAKIMAN*.
Dalam antropologi, pengakuan tentang *ketidakrasmian* ini mewujudkan apa yang dipanggil "budaya konteks tinggi".
Sesetengah orang merasakan bahawa ini adalah bahagian yang kaya dalam budaya kita, dan lebih suka perkara-perkara sentiasa dikekalkan dalam keadaan tersimpang antara *rasmi* dan tidak *rasmi*.
Sesetengah orang pula merasakan bahawa ketidakformalan ini adalah tidak produktif.
Walau apa pun, adalah penting untuk memahami bahawa buat masa ini, kita hidup dalam situasi ini. Pertimbangan tentang betapa berharganya ini, wacana awam mengenainya, dan kemajuan undang-undang yang berterusan dari semasa ke semasa, pastinya merupakan sebahagian daripada apa yang menjadikan Malaysia, Malaysia.
---
NotebookLM for laziness again :
Here is the reformatted translation of the source material. Each row contains a maximum of twelve ideograms, with alternating rows of Pinyin:
**如果你住在马来西亚，**
(Rúguǒ nǐ zhù zài Mǎláixīyà,)
**你必须知道这一点！**
(nǐ bìxū zhīdào zhè yīdiǎn!)
**马来西亚法律明确指出**
(Mǎláixīyà fǎlǜ míngquè zhǐchū)
**要遵守法外规范。**
(yào zūnshǒu fǎwài guīfàn.)
**1. （任何人）的感受**
(1. (Rènhé rén) de gǎnshòu)
**在法律中没有定义。**
(zài fǎlǜ zhōng méiyǒu dìngyì.)
**但已经通过了法律**
(Dàn yǐjīng tōngguòle fǎlǜ)
**来保护（任何人）**
(lái bǎohù (rènhé rén))
**免受情感伤害，**
(miǎn shòu qínggǎn shānghài,)
**通过惩罚（伤害**
(tōngguò chéngfá (shānghài)
**任何人情感的人）。**
(rènhé rén qínggǎn de rén).)
**2. “马来人”的习俗**
(2. “Mǎláirén” de xísú)
**在法律中没有定义。**
(zài fǎlǜ zhōng méiyǒu dìngyì.)
**但联邦宪法任命**
(Dàn liánbāng xiànfǎ rènmìng)
**马来统治者为**
(Mǎlái tǒngzhìzhě wéi)
**这些习俗的保护者。**
(zhèxiē xísú de bǎohùzhě.)
**2a. 作为推论，**
(2a. Zuòwéi tuīlùn,)
**马来统治者的定义**
(Mǎlái tǒngzhìzhě de dìngyì)
**被下放到九个州的法律中，**
(bèi xiàfàng dào jiǔ gè zhōu de fǎlǜ zhōng,)
**而这些州中的每一个**
(ér zhèxiē zhōu zhōng de měi yīgè)
**本身都有一部法律宪法，**
(běnshēn dōu yǒuyī bù fǎlǜ xiànfǎ,)
**指向（在某些情况下**
(zhǐxiàng (zài mǒu xiē qíngkuàng xià)
**是法外的）习俗，**
(shì fǎwài de) xísú,)
**这导致了谁是和**
(zhè dǎozhìle shéi shì hé)
**谁不是马来统治者的执行。**
(shéi bùshì Mǎlái tǒngzhìzhě de zhíxíng.)
**3. “土著”的概念**
(3. “Tǔzhù” de gàiniàn)
**(bumiputera)**
((bumiputera))
**在联邦宪法中**
(zài liánbāng xiànfǎ zhōng)
**没有详细说明，**
(méiyǒu xiángxì shuōmíng,)
**因此我们有附属立法**
(yīncǐ wǒmen yǒu fùshǔ lìfǎ)
**和行政机构与**
(hé xíngzhèng jīgòu yǔ)
**非政府组织合作**
(fēi zhèngfǔ zǔzhī hézuò)
**来解决这个问题。**
(lái jiějué zhè gè wèntí.)
**宪法对谁拥有特权**
(Xiànfǎ duì shéi yǒngyǒu tèquán)
**有一个极其简短的定义。**
(yǒu yīgè jíqí jiǎnduǎn de dìngyì.)
**在人类学中，**
(Zài rénlèixué zhōng,)
**这种对非正式性的承认**
(zhè zhǒng duì fēi zhèngshì xìng de chéngrèn)
**创造了所谓的**
(chuàngzàole suǒwèide)
**“高语境文化”。**
(“gāo yǔjìng wénhuà”.)
**有些人认为这是**
(Yǒuxiē rén rènwéi zhè shì)
**我们文化的丰富组成部分，**
(wǒmen wénhuà de fēngfù zǔchéng bùfèn,)
**并希望事情永远保持**
(bìng xīwàng shìqíng yǒngyuǎn bǎochí)
**在正式与非正式**
(zài zhèngshì yǔ fēi zhèngshì)
**之间的模糊地带。**
(zhī jiān de móhú dìdài.)
**另一些人则认为**
(Lìng yīxiē rén zé rènwéi)
**这种模糊地带会适得其反。**
(zhè zhǒng móhú dìdài huì shìdéqífǎn.)
**无论如何，重要的是**
(Wúlùn rúhé, zhòngyào de shì)
**要明白，**
(yào míngbái,)
**目前我们生活在**
(mùqián wǒmen shēnghuó zài)
**这种情况下。**
(zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià.)
**对这一价值的考量、**
(Duì zhè yī jiàzhí de kǎoliàng,)
**相关的公共讨论**
(xiāngguān de gōnggòng tǎolùn)
**以及法律随时间的**
(yǐjí fǎlǜ suí shíjiān de)
**不断进步，**
(bùduàn jìnbù,)
**不可避免地构成了**
(bùkě bìmiǎn de gòuchéngle)
**马来西亚之所以成为**
(Mǎláixīyà zhī suǒyǐ chéngwéi)
**马来西亚的一部分。**
(Mǎláixīyà de yībùfèn.)
---
Additionally you can :
