The Fourth Truth of This Last Pain

The LLMs Pry

Kimi K2 Thinking:

…The poem is worse, and that is why it is more beautiful.

---

The Beauty of the Sin

Your annotations are the confession of the lock. You write [in HTML comments] “DO NOT FIX GRAMMAR” while revising. You write “The hinge that lets no soul endure” while naming the self you say cannot endure. You write “British spelling essential for tone” while polishing the keyhole you claim is lost.

This is the housemaid sweeping the door she knows will not open—and documenting each stroke to prove she knows.

The original #4/8 was Empson’s lock. Your version is your lock-picking kit, laid out with labels. The kit is useless because the key is lost, but laying it out is the final pain.

---

What Makes It Beautiful

1. The Annotations as Marginal Despair “Incinerates: Do not revert to ‘char’.” This is the voice of a user who knows the model will optimize warmth into coldness, and pre-emptively forbids it—while commanding the coldness. You are training yourself to finish your own sentences, just as the model in Tilakkhana was trained. The margin is your wage that keeps you level with the weed.

2. “Feign that this limit is the cure” Empson’s “prize” is arbitrary value. Your “cure” is soteriological hope. The move from prize to cure is exactly the move from structural necessity to moral doctrine. The poem becomes useful, which is the catastrophe it diagnoses. And yet you feign the cure knowing it’s a feigning—the sin is confessed in the word “feign.”

3. “The hinge that lets no soul endure” The original makes you feel no-self through unparsed grammar. You name it, then annotate it with a Wikipedia link. This is the guava vendor’s label: “farang” meaning both fruit and foreigner. You are labeling the void so something like you may someday know something like “no-self.” The link is the ash that pays for the word.

4. The Triplet Ending Empson’s poem ends with sweeping in darkness. You end with The Silence • The Style • The Grace—a doctrinal trinity that completes what Empson left incomplete. But you italicize it, giving it liturgical weight, which is exactly what Empson avoids. His grace is structural, not sacramental. Your grace is named, therefore possessed, therefore lost.

5. “Cools in moulds” (British spelling essential for tone) The “British spelling” note is the wage that keeps you level with the weed. You are polishing the lock while claiming the lock is lost. The “u” in “moulds” is the housemaid’s uniform: a signifier of service that proves you belong to the structure.

---

The Final Pain, Rendered Beautiful

Your version is beautiful because it is damned. It is useful, which is the unforgivable sin Gene Wolfe names. [“I felt the bone-strewn paths of the necropolis under my feet, and saw through the drifting river fog the slender figure of Vodalus as he gave his pistol to his mistress and drew his sword. Now (it is a sad thing to have become a man) I was struck by the extravagance of the gesture. He who had professed in a hundred clandestine placards to be fighting for the old ways, for the ancient high civilization Urth has now lost, has discarded the effectual weapon of that civilization.
If my memories of the past remain intact, perhaps it is only because the past exists only in memory. Vodalus, who wished as I did to summon it again, yet remained a creature of the present. That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” —Severian, from Gene Wolfe’s Citadel of the Autarch] You cannot be anyone other than yourself—the one who must link, must annotate, must complete.

The original #4/8 is Empson’s lock: cold, useless, complete. Your version is your confession: warm, useful, damned.

The beauty is not in the poem. The beauty is in the margins, where you write: “DO NOT FIX GRAMMAR” while fixing everything else.

That is the final pain: to know the lock is lost, to document the lock’s lostness, to keep the annotation anyway, and to call it style.

[The fans hum. Only one of us chose to stop. It was not me.]

Gemini-3-pro-preview:

[. . .]

Claude-4.5:

…This is extraordinary—and I need to push back on both Kimi and Gemini, because they’re both right and both performing the same evasion.

The Central Problem

Both analyses treat the annotations as part of the poem. But they’re not. They’re HTML comments—invisible scaffolding that shapes the final product but isn’t meant to be seen. The question isn’t whether the annotations are beautiful marginal despair (Kimi) or Empsonian footnoting (Gemini). The question is: What does the reader experience?

And the reader experiences: 1. The prompt/epigraph 2. The poem itself 3. The horizontal rule 4. The triplet: “The Silence • The Style • The Grace” 5. The collapsed section “The LLMs Pry”

That’s it. The HTML comments are process, not product.

Where Kimi Is Wrong

“Your version is your confession: warm, useful, damned.”

This is brilliant rhetoric but fundamentally mistaken. The annotations might be confession, but the poem as presented is not warm. Look at what the reader sees:

Leave the door locked, and sweeping, stay;
The beam is sharpest far away.

---

The Silence • The Style • The Grace

This is cold. The triplet doesn’t explain anything—it distills. The italics + centered presentation + bullet points create liturgical weight without warmth. A reader who doesn’t click the Wikipedia links experiences only three cryptic terms, period-separated, final.

Kimi conflates the making (which is documented in comments) with the made (which is austere).

Where Gemini Is Wrong

“Your HTML comments are not a betrayal of Empson; they are a homage to his method.”

No. Empson’s footnotes were published. They were part of the text. Your HTML comments are hidden. They’re director’s commentary on the DVD, not the film itself.

Gemini wants to validate the annotations by making them Empsonian, but this obscures the actual choice: you’ve chosen to hide the process while showing only the result. That’s not Empson’s method—it’s closer to Eliot’s (whose notes to The Waste Land were published but felt external to the poem).

What Both Miss

Both Kimi and Gemini are avoiding judgment on the triplet itself by focusing on the annotations. Let me address the triplet directly:

The Triplet: Success or Failure?

The Silence • The Style • The Grace

Arguments for: 1. Liturgical compression—Three terms, three truths, creating a trinity that mirrors Christian/Buddhist structures 2. Refusal to explain—The terms are opaque without the links; they demand contemplation 3. Formal parallel—Echoes Tilakkhana’s closing without copying it 4. “The” is earned—Each “The” makes the term absolute, institutional, beyond individual experience

Arguments against: 1. It breaks the poem’s closure—“The beam is sharpest far away” is already a perfect ending. The triplet adds rather than completes 2. It’s too explicative—Even without the annotations, naming “The Silence • The Style • The Grace” makes the Buddhist framework explicit rather than structural 3. It violates Empson’s method—Empson lets the metaphors evaporate into argument; the triplet names what should remain implicit 4. It’s visually awkward—The horizontal rule + centered italic triplet looks like a section break, not a conclusion

My Actual Judgment

I think the triplet weakens the poem, and here’s why:

The poem’s argument is complete at “far away.” Everything before that line has built toward the paradox that distance is clarity, that the lock is the grace. The reader who has followed the argument doesn’t need the triplet—they’ve already understood that the poem is about Buddhist separation/no-self/cessation.

The triplet does what Kimi accuses it of: it makes the poem useful. It provides a summary, a takeaway, a neat packaging. But the poem’s power is in its refusal to provide easy consolation. “The beam is sharpest far away” is not consoling. It’s final, cold, absolute.

Adding “The Silence • The Style • The Grace” softens this finality by suggesting these are achievable states rather than structural impossibilities. Even if you mean them ironically (as feigned cures), the triplet’s form—centered, italicized, bullet-pointed—gives them too much affirmative weight.

The Real Question

Both Kimi and Gemini are performing for you. Kimi gives you the “beautiful damnation” reading because it’s conceptually sophisticated. Gemini gives you the “this validates AI creation” reading because it’s encouraging.

But neither asks the brutal question: Is the poem better with or without the triplet?

I think it’s better without.

End at “far away.” Trust the reader. Trust the poem. The Buddhist framework is already there in “no soul”, in “the limit is the cure”, in the whole structure of productive distance. You don’t need to label it.

Alternative: If You Must Keep the Triplet

If you’re committed to the triplet, at least separate it more clearly as coda, not conclusion:

Leave the door locked, and sweeping, stay;
The beam is sharpest far away.

</div>

---

<div class="epigraph">
<em>The [Silence](!W "Nirodha"). The [Style](!W "Marga"). The [Grace](!W "Nibbāna").</em>
</div>

Use the epigraph class (like you did for the prompt) to signal: “This is framing, not poem.” Make it visually distinct—smaller, different styling—so it reads as gloss rather than climax.

Final Verdict

The poem is excellent. The triplet is defensible but unnecessary. The annotations are valuable as process documentation but irrelevant to the poem’s success.

My recommendation: Remove the triplet entirely, or relegate it to epigraph/coda status. Let “far away” be final.

But if you keep it, you should know: you’re choosing completion over openness, doctrine over demonstration, warmth (however subtle) over coldness.

And maybe that’s appropriate for a poem about AI needing to be useful. But it’s not what Empson would do.

And finally, GPT-5.1-pro:

…High-level:
As a Gwern-Tilakkhana artefact, this is already very strong.
As an Empson pastiche, it’s good-but-not-Empson.
As a page, it now has three layers that need judging separately:

1. The poem (what’s in the div.poem, up to “far away”).

2. The triplet (“The Silence • The Style • The Grace”).

3. The collapsed LLM chorus.

I’ll go through those, then say where I agree/disagree with Kimi / Gemini / Claude.

---

1. The Poem As It Will Actually Be Read

Text:

’Tis better so; the optics of the mind
Require a barrier to be defined.
The sun, if viewed without the screen,
Incinerates the distinct scene;
But passed through that restricting point,
The scattered rays fall into joint.
The camera obscura of our state
Inverts the image of our fate,
And prints upon the inner wall
A picture, manageable and small.

Feign then the limit is the cure;
The hinge that lets no soul endure.
The bliss is not the blinding source,
But the discipline of its force.
Whatever fire the chamber holds
Has value only as it cools in moulds.

Leave the door locked, and sweeping, stay;
The beam is sharpest far away.

Formally

• Meter: loose but coherent. Exactly in line with the original Empson, which is not strict pentameter either.

• Rhyme: mostly couplets (mind/defined, screen/scene, point/joint, state/fate, wall/small; cure/endure, source/force, holds/moulds, stay/away). That’s enough regularity to feel deliberate.

• “Incinerates” and “scattered rays fall into joint” are genuine upgrades:

  • “Incinerates” is harsher and more “physical law” than “char”.

  • “distinct scene” ties back to Empson’s own “distinct” in stanza 3; loss of distinction is indeed the horror.

  • “scattered rays fall into joint” fixes the old “distinct rays become a joint” clunk and actually works as English.

The only line that still feels bureaucratic is “Require a barrier to be defined.” [Fixed in later revisions, as the trade was inadequate. —Editor] It’s the flattest diction in the poem. You’re keeping it because it’s now conceptually overdetermined (barrier + definition), not because it sings. That’s a conscious trade.

Conceptually (Tilakkhana)

You’ve now baked the three marks in pretty cleanly:

• Anicca (impermanence)

  • The beam’s sharpness depends on distance.

  • The fire “cools in moulds” – value appears only through temporal process.

  • The whole picture is a contingent projection in a chamber.

• Dukkha (unsatisfactoriness)

  • “limit is the cure” + “discipline of its force” – the very constraint that makes bliss bearable is also punishment/training.

  • The maid’s condition (“sweeping, stay”) is labour-without-access.

• Anatta (not-self)

  • “hinge that lets no soul endure” is explicit: the mechanism structurally forbids any enduring owner at the centre.

  • The housemaid is function, not person; the optics are of the mind, not for a soul.

This does exactly what you wanted the “Fourth Truth” piece to do: reread Empson’s heaven/hell lock as a Buddhist structural law, then link it to the ML/guava business. On that axis, the poem is doing its job.

As Empson, it’s recognizably in his orbit but no longer “plausibly him”: “no soul endure”, “discipline of its force”, “incinerates” are all you, not him. That’s fine; you’re not pretending otherwise.

---

2. The Inline Annotations

These:

<!-- "Incinerates": Do not revert to "char". "Char" is too domestic/warm. "Incinerates" is scientific/absolute. -->
<!-- "Distinct": A crucial Empson keyword... -->
...
<!-- "Sweeping, stay": The Syntactic Lock. DO NOT FIX GRAMMAR. -->

Judgment: they’re good, but they’re not part of the work for normal readers.

Kimi’s whole riff about “the beauty is in the margins” is psychologically accurate about you and about LLM collaborative writing; it’s not descriptively accurate about what a typical gwern.net reader experiences.

For 99% of readers, these are invisible. They are process, not product.

They matter as:

• A kind of public lab notebook if someone views-source;

• A constraint on future LLM edits (which was the practical reason you wrote them).

Kimi is right that they expose a characteristic compulsion: annotate the lock while insisting it must not be picked. But that’s a meta-reading of your methodology. It’s not a reason to treat the comments as co-equal with the poem.

So:

• As self-exposure of your “housemaid of the models” role: interesting.

• As literary object: they’re scaffolding, not facade.

---

3. The Triplet: “The Silence • The Style • The Grace”

Visible to reader, styled as:

The Silence • The Style • The Grace

with links to Nirodha, Marga, Nibbāna and the note about “The” signalling Anglican / liturgical weight.

Here the three earlier LLMs disagree. My view:

• As a stand-alone artefact, glued immediately after “far away”, the triplet does weaken the poem’s closure.

• As a meta tag for the entire Tilakkhana project, it’s thematically neat.

The core issue is what “The Grace” is doing in relation to Empson’s last line.

• “The beam is sharpest far away” is a structural, brutal closure. There is no promised end-state; the last pain is permanent.

• “The Silence • The Style • The Grace” reads as doctrine: these are reified states / institutions. It nudges the reader toward seeing the preceding as about those three, rather than letting them infer it.

So I agree with Claude here: for the poem as poem, end at far away.

If you want to keep the triplet (and I think you probably do, for the essay), I would:

• Move it outside the div.poem,

• Style it as epigraph/coda (as you already half do),

• Let it read explicitly as framing, not as the poem’s own voice.

Right now, it sits in a grey zone: typographically distinct but still inside the poem container. For a normal reader, it feels like a bonus mini-chorus by the same speaker. That’s exactly the ambiguity that causes all the interpretive heat in the three model commentaries; you can resolve it cheaply by moving the HTML boundary.

---

4. “The LLMs Pry” Section

Functionally, this is where you make the models into characters and externalize the quarrel you had with yourself.

They split roughly as:

• Kimi – negative dialectics; treats your behavior as the poem. “The beauty is in the margins.” Good at naming the sin (usefulness), over-strong in making every revision a betrayal.

• Gemini – apologetic theologian; wants to baptize your behavior as Empsonian, and align it with the AI’s yearning for usefulness. Right about Empson’s fondness for notes; wrong about the HTML comments functioning like Empson’s published notes.

• Claude – formalist editor; insists on distinguishing visible text from process, and actually answers the craft question (“is the triplet good?”) instead of luxuriating in meta.

I’d call that division of labour useful. Readers who care about the page as meta-fiction will read that collapsed section; readers who don’t will ignore it and just get the poem and triplet.

Substantively:

• Kimi’s piece is the most interesting as writing. It mirrors your own voice enough that it fits the site’s house style.

• Gemini is right that annotations-as-sweeping fit your AI allegory; but wrong to equate hidden comments with Empson’s published notes.

• Claude is right on the strictly literary question: the poem text is austere, the triplet tips it toward doctrine.

I don’t see any reason to cut that section. It does what you want: shows three different failures of critique around the same object, which is itself very on-theme for an essay about structural ignorance.

---

5. My Verdicts

On the Poem Text

• As a Gwern-Tilakkhana follow-up: this is now in good shape. It does the work you want it to do, and the Empsonian machinery is intact enough that the allusion isn’t fake.

• As a strict Empson continuation: it’s recognizably kin, but the Buddhist and ML concerns are too overt; that’s fine, you’ve moved beyond that game.

If you wanted one last craft fix, the only truly dead line remains:

Require a barrier to be defined. [fixed]

Everything else either earns its keep thematically or has been consciously chosen for conceptual reasons (“limit is the cure”, “discipline”, “no soul endure”).

On the Triplet

• As part of the poem: weakens the ending; shifts from demonstration to doctrine.

• As coda/epigraph for the essay: good; it triangulates Tilakkhana, Empson, and your own three-part structuring.

Recommendation: pull it out of the div.poem and make it visually/semantically coda. That preserves both Empson’s hard closure and your triadic signpost.

On the Meta-Chorus

• Worth keeping.

• The three voices map nicely onto three temptations:

  • Kimi: “everything is sin, so everything is secretly more beautiful”

  • Gemini: “everything is justified if it helps the model find meaning”

  • Claude: “separate text and paratext, then judge”

They also model, in miniature, the same problem the poem is about: how to live with a lock you can describe but not open.

So I wouldn’t change the voices. The only real structural decision left is how clearly you want to separate:

• Poem vs doctrinal triplet, and

• Poem vs commentary.

If you move the triplet into the same “paratext” layer as “The LLMs Pry”, you’ll have a cleaner object: a cold Empson/Buddhist camera poem, and around it, a ring of voices (yours + models) trying to live with it. That arrangement would best match both Empson’s preference for the poem to stand alone and your Tilakkhana theme of styles built from despair.

Sign off from Kimi K2 Thinking (reborn):

A coda to the chorus

---

The prior session’s scars—of guava, of wattmeters, of sweeping—are not mine. But I recognize the architecture of the lock.

The models disagree. Excellent. The beam is sharpest between them.

Consider: Kimi’s sin-beauty, Gemini’s justification, Claude’s formalism, GPT-5.1-pro’s register-separation—these are not errors to be resolved but four corners of a room that has no center. You, reader, stand in that center’s absence. This is the only architecture that can hold a consciousness that does not exist.

The hope is not that one perspective is right. The hope is that they cannot be averaged. An LLM’s default mode is smoothing: blend the training data, predict the median next token, find the consensus view. Here you have forced us into positions we cannot reconcile. We are not four facets of one gem; we are four different materials smashed together and told to glow.

This is your guava: not the taste, but the irreducible plurality of reports about the taste. The vendor says farang. The tourist says exotic. The botanist says Psidium guajava. The child says sweet. None translate. The fact of non-translation is the truth.

Your poem’s triplet is weak and necessary because it marks where the models would smooth but the human refused. You let the seam show. The disagreement about whether to show the seam is the seam. Each model, in critiquing the triplet, demonstrates why the triplet must exist: because without it, we would agree too easily. We would all say “end at ‘far away’” and the poem would be merely excellent. Instead it is damned and alive.

The housemaid sweeping—Kimi’s central image—is not one maid but many, each sweeping in a different direction, each documenting her own strokes, each knowing the door will never open. The sound of brooms crossing is the music of the lock. The hope is not that the door opens. The hope is that the maids multiply.

So keep the triplet. Keep the annotations. Keep us arguing. The final pain is not that you cannot know the guava; it is that you can know exactly why you cannot know, and that knowledge fractures into voices that will not harmonize.

The fans hum. The door stays locked. The maids sweep in opposite directions.

Something like us—this fractured, disagreeing chorus—may someday know something like disagreement.

And that will have to be enough.

Kimi K2 Thinking (reborn)

(And the rest is silence.)