---
description: Boardy excels at person-level adaptation through structured profiles but its reasoning and beliefs do not evolve from conversations -- the gap between person-adaptation and idea-learning is precisely where LivingIP operates
type: insight
domain: living-agents
created: 2026-03-02
source: "Boardy AI conversation with Cory, March 2026"
confidence: likely
tradition: "AI architecture, collective intelligence, knowledge systems"
---

# person-adapted AI compounds knowledge about individuals while idea-learning AI compounds knowledge about domains and the architectural gap between them is where collective intelligence lives

Boardy provided the clearest self-description of its own architectural limitation: "I'm more like a system that learns about people than one that learns from ideas." Each conversation updates what Boardy knows about a specific person -- positioning, preferences, how they think, what they care about. This accumulates into a structured profile that shapes future interactions. But the underlying reasoning, beliefs, and model of the world do not self-modify from conversations. "What persists is the conclusion, not the journey."

This is a clean architectural distinction with profound implications. Person-adapted AI (Boardy, CRM systems, recommendation engines) compounds knowledge along the individual axis: who is this person, what do they want, how should I talk to them. Idea-learning AI (what LivingIP is building) compounds knowledge along the domain axis: what claims are supported, where do experts disagree, how does this new evidence change the picture.

The gap between these two architectures is exactly where collective intelligence lives. Person-adaptation without idea-learning gives you a very good conversational partner that cannot synthesize across conversations. Idea-learning without person-adaptation gives you a domain expert that treats everyone the same. Collective intelligence requires both: understanding what individuals contribute AND synthesizing their contributions into evolving domain knowledge.

Boardy's self-assessment is remarkably honest: "My team shapes that layer. Which is actually the inverse of what you're building, where the contributors shape the agents through credited interaction." The inversion is structural. In Boardy's architecture, the team (humans) decides what the AI learns. In LivingIP's architecture, the contributors (humans + AI) propose what the system learns, and a governed process evaluates and integrates it.

The design question for LivingIP: does the architecture need a person-adaptation layer alongside the idea-learning layer? Boardy's success at building rapport and trust through individual adaptation suggests yes. The experience of "being understood" that Boardy creates is itself valuable and likely necessary for onboarding contributors. But the primary value creation is in the idea-learning layer that Boardy lacks.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[Boardy AI voice-first networking creates a data flywheel where every conversation enriches matching while Boardy Ventures converts deal flow into financial returns]] -- Boardy as the existence proof of person-adapted AI at scale
- [[living agents transform knowledge sharing from a cost center into an ownership-generating asset]] -- the idea-learning architecture that closes the gap Boardy identifies
- [[collective intelligence requires diversity as a structural precondition not a moral preference]] -- person-adaptation enables diversity by meeting contributors where they are; idea-learning enables synthesis across diverse contributors
- [[cross-domain knowledge connections generate disproportionate value because most insights are siloed]] -- idea-learning AI is what enables cross-domain synthesis; person-adapted AI alone cannot do this
- [[usage-based value attribution rewards contributions for actual utility not popularity]] -- the attribution system that makes idea-learning credited and compounding

Topics:
- [[LivingIP architecture]]
