Opinions or Orders? Why Your Chat Fails Before Minute Three

#ai #programming #discuss #opensource

Authority Entropy, explained for everyday conversations

Most arguments do not fail for lack of facts, they fail because the talk loses structure. Authority Entropy is a simple way to see that structure in motion. It measures how concentrated or scattered the “authority signal” is in a short slice of dialogue. When the signal is concentrated, people tend to comply faster, decisions converge, and the group stays coordinated. When it is scattered, talks drift, delays grow, and small errors pile up into bigger ones. No mystique, just a practical yardstick for how close a conversation is to doing what it says.

How it works, without the math

We look at a short window of turns, only what has already been said, never peeking at the future. In that window we estimate the stance of authority, low, neutral, or high, and compute how uncertain that stance is. Low entropy means the stance is clear. High entropy means mixed signals. Two companions help: the slope tells you if clarity is improving or getting worse, the volatility tells you if the signal is stable or jittery. Think of it like checking the road ahead at night. Bright, steady lights, you drive confidently. Flickering lights or darkness, you slow down.

Why this matters outside the lab
Because real decisions happen in chat threads, meetings, support calls, classroom discussion, and family planning. If we can see when a talk is drifting, we can correct it early with small moves. If we can see when authority is overconcentrated, we can add safeguards before a bad shortcut becomes policy.

*Three everyday scenes
*
Customer support, “I just need this fixed.”
A client chats with a phone carrier. The agent writes, “We will credit your bill today. You will receive an email confirmation before 6 pm.” Authority Entropy drops. The words carry an executable promise, a time, and a checkable outcome. If the agent hedges, “We will try to review this soon, maybe today,” entropy rises. Same intention, different form, different behavior. Clear, checkable form produces faster compliance and fewer escalations.

Family trip planning, “Where are we staying?”
Two people plan a weekend.
A) “Maybe we could do a hotel, unless prices go up, or we wait for a better deal.” Entropy rises, choices multiply, no one books.
B) “Book Hotel Capri tonight, cancel free until Thursday, train at 9:10, I will buy the tickets now.” Entropy falls, the plan locks, stress drops. The difference is not who decides, it is how the sentence binds action. The form carries authority, not the personality.

Team stand-up, “Who owns the fix?”
A bug hits production.
Low entropy talk: “Maria owns the hotfix, due 11:30, John reviews, I merge, notify client at noon.”
High entropy talk: “We should probably look into it, maybe Maria or John, we will see if noon is realistic.”
Same people, same goodwill, different outcomes. The enumerated plan, the time box, and the named owner are formal cues that reduce ambiguity and speed convergence.

What the index adds beyond “tone”

Tone can be friendly and still bind action. Tone can be stern and still say nothing. Authority Entropy tracks form, not mood. It detects patterns that actually move behavior, like enumerations that scope decisions, deontic verbs that prescribe action, or passive frames that hide the agent. This is the difference between “We apologize” and “We will refund today,” between “We value your feedback” and “We will call you at 16:00 with a resolution.”

How to use it without software

You do not need the model to act on the idea. In any critical exchange, watch three things.
Clarity, is there one next action that a reader can execute without guessing.
Ownership, is a human or role named for that action.
Time, is there a deadline or trigger that can be checked.
If any of the three is missing, entropy is rising. Add the missing piece in one sentence, then stop. You just lowered entropy.

Where this goes next

The research builds a public specification so others can test and challenge it. It trains a strict left-context classifier, computes entropy, slope, and volatility over time, and checks whether these features predict compliance and convergence in synthetic tasks, open multi-party datasets, and consented human model dialogues. It also performs stress tests that edit the form while keeping meaning, for example removing stacked modals or adding hedges, to see how the signal reacts. Early results show that local authority structure explains outcomes that sentiment and politeness do not. To clear the ninety percent bar on novelty and originality, the roadmap includes harder baselines, out-of-sample endpoints, and a full replication kit.

Why it matters for the commons

Public services, hospitals, schools, courts, and companies run on text. If we can measure when a text will actually be followed, we can design for compliance without coercion, and we can spot failure early. That is not about making speech colder, it is about making responsibility visible in the sentence itself. Language becomes a tool for coordination, not a theater for authority.

Ethos

I do not use artificial intelligence to write what I don’t know. I use it to challenge what I do. I write to reclaim the voice in an age of automated neutrality. My work is not outsourced. It is authored. — Agustin V. Startari