Thanks @leehammond for sharing – and also posing the interesting question of how to translate such a system, or its semblance, into the DT-universe!
The interesting part to me is the insertion of “the schema” (…there are other definitions of “schema”, but the term does it´s job here, IMO):
– Conceptually it´s basically baking (“programming”) ones intention as to how the knowledge system should behave, compile and ‘metabolize’ into the automated, LLM-driven system.
That is the really interesting part being stated in this conceptual scheme. And also the interesting part to be inquired further, IMO…
Basically, IMU, it is a high level replication of what everyone “architecturing” his/her own PKM system does anyways: devise things like adequate ontologies, index systems, relational structures (on different levels), relevancies, basic notional structures of the system, preferred affordances etc.
And, it´s like what people do with any tool anyways: as a(ny) tool basically is “intention” intentionally baked into an external system. Just now, with things like agents, LLMs (quasi-semantic transformation systems) things get more liquid, ‘active’ (in a way) and even dynamic compared to a hammer (or a notebook with a personal index system etc.).
– But they also get more complex, of course. This is why the question of handling the scheme is tricky, and interesting at the same time. This is where all the modulation of ones ‘systemic intention’ happens here – vis-a-vis a tool a) build by outside forces of macro-scope, and b) too complex for anyone to really cognitively grasp the insides of it (the “tool” used here; – we know, not even the systems architects really do understand ‘their’ LLM-machines)…
So, would be interested to hear more of your personal insights/experiences around devising, tuning, working with the “schema” – or, for that matter, any interesting reference material that you came across on your travels around the ‘AI Wiki’ – (Even though I remain sceptical of the loose ‘AI’ label in general… as of the metaphoric use of “brain” in “Second Brain”, as every “Second Brain” concept really talks about augmentation – … not about ‘replicating brains’ (at least not in earnest☺️)).
Thanks again for sharing your insights & impulses here!
PS: I do think the excellent search automation scripts graciously shared by @pete31 would help in any such analogous system in DT. In a way, I consider/use them as a proto-automated Wiki-system ever since I discovered them here on the forum…
PPS: you are lucky your post still stands! I once got flagged for a less flagrant, even more contextualized quote produced by LLM 
. While automation is king in the DT-forum world, LLM automation – even if produced/used intentionally – is largely something to burn yourself with here… 
