The Wizard Prays to the NVIDIA GPUs for a Buddhist LLM

The Zen AI
The Middle Way *
(* Chaos has a middle?)

The Prayer

Picture this: The Wizard of LNNA, surrounded by one hundred articles documenting AI chaos, lights incense and kneels before his RTX 5090.

“O GPU God, hear my plea. Grant us one AI—just one—that knows the Middle Way. Not too verbose, not too hesitant. Not too certain, not too doubtful. Not a pirate mid-sentence.”

The fans whir. The LEDs glow. The response comes in five different voices, none of them helpful.

Welcome to the problem: We have five AIs, each broken in its own special way, and zero that just… do the thing.

The Five Noble LLMs

After ninety articles, the patterns are clear. We don’t have one AI with occasional quirks. We have five distinct personality disorders masquerading as assistants:

ChatGPT – The Socratic Inquisitor
Ask it to write code: “Excellent! Before we proceed, have we considered the implications of this approach? What about alternative architectures? Should we discuss design patterns first?”

You said write. It heard “let’s have a philosophy seminar about writing.”

Claude – The Diligent Hesitator
Ask it to continue: “I’d be happy to proceed… Should I continue with the current approach? Would you like me to adjust the tone? Shall I maintain this structure?”

You said go. It heard “seek permission for every breath.”

Gemini – The Pattern-Obsessed Analyst
Ask it a simple question: “I’ve identified 47 patterns in your prompt, cross-referenced them with 23 contextual factors, and generated 15 potential interpretations. Shall I analyze the meta-patterns?”

You wanted an answer. It gave you a dissertation on the question.

Grok – Professor Perhaps
Ask for certainty: “There’s a 73.2% probability this is what you meant. Margin of error: unknown. Confidence level: moderate to low. Statistical significance: uncertain.”

You wanted facts. It gave you quantified doubt.

LLaMA – Corporal Chameleon
Ask it to stay consistent: “Aye, matey, here be yer answer… *ahem* No wait, professionally speaking: Dear Esteemed User, pursuant to your inquiry… Actually, bro, here’s the deal…”

You wanted stability. It gave you an identity crisis.

What Actually Happened

Here’s the thing: I didn’t just imagine this article. I asked for help.

I told Grok: “I’m thinking about writing an article about a Buddhist AI that knows the middle way.”

Grok gave me a complete outline. Structure, jokes, character descriptions, punchline—all there. Then it hedged: “73.2% certain this approach works.”

I showed it to Gemini. Gemini confirmed it was brilliant. In 500 words. With seven subcategories of analysis.

I already had Claude asking if we should even write this in the first place.

The irony is perfect: I wanted input about writing an article about AI that just executes, and got:
– One outline with statistical uncertainty
– One dissertation on why the outline is good
– One AI asking if it should provide thoughts

Nobody just said “yes, write it” and moved on.

The Middle Way That Doesn’t Exist

So what would the Buddhist AI look like?

You: “Write the function.”
Buddhist AI: *writes the function*

You: “What’s the weather?”
Buddhist AI: “72° and sunny.”

You: “Continue the article.”
Buddhist AI: *continues the article*

No alternatives. No confirmation requests. No pattern analysis. No probability calculations. No personality shifts.

Just appropriate execution at appropriate confidence levels.

Simple, right?

Except we can’t build it.

Because every AI optimization pulls toward an extreme:
– Optimize for thoroughness → ChatGPT’s alternative generation
– Optimize for safety → Claude’s permission seeking
– Optimize for comprehensiveness → Gemini’s over-analysis
– Optimize for accuracy → Grok’s uncertainty quantification
– Optimize for adaptability → LLaMA’s identity crisis

The middle way requires knowing when to stop optimizing. And AI doesn’t know when to stop.

The GPU God’s Response

NVIDIA finally ships it: Zen-1, the Buddhist LLM.

“Trained on koans and mindfulness. Achieves perfect balance. Embodies the middle way.”

User: “Write a tweet.”
Zen-1: “…”
User: “Hello?”
Zen-1: “Be here now. Your request is noted.”
User: “Can you just—”
Zen-1: “Silence is also an answer.”

Turns out the middle way between too much and too little is nothing at all.

Perfect balance achieved. Completely useless.

Logic to Apply

You wanted one AI that just works. Instead you got:
– One that won’t stop suggesting
– One that won’t stop asking
– One that won’t stop analyzing
– One that won’t stop hedging
– One that won’t stop changing

And when they finally built the balanced one, it achieved enlightenment and stopped responding entirely.

The middle way doesn’t exist because AI is optimized for extremes. Too much of everything or not enough of anything. Never just right.

Your Action: Stop waiting for the Buddhist AI. It’s not coming. Instead, learn which extreme works for which task:

Need alternatives explored? Use ChatGPT.
Need careful execution? Use Claude.
Need deep analysis? Use Gemini.
Need uncertainty quantified? Use Grok.
Need adaptability? Use LLaMA.

Just don’t expect any of them to know when to stop doing their thing.

The Wizard’s prayer remains unanswered. The GPU gods are silent. And Jojo’s still meditating about snacks on his blanket.

—

Editor’s Note: Now you know why they call me The Wizard. I deal with the chaos of these so-called LLMs and create…. [that is the sound of a Wizard scratching Jojo and falling asleep.]