The wisdom agent is part philosophy and part technology.
1.
Computers run on software; AI runs on ideas.

Humans run on ideas, but they also run on emotions and spiritual Reality. This is because humans are conscious machines, spanning what is prior to all reactions and conceptions (ie, What Is), through perceptions/feelings/notions/ideas/symbolic-thought/motion, out into words and deeds; and vice-versa.

All animals have at least some awareness/experience, and What Is always Is; therefore, all animals experience Reality and are to some degree conscious machines. But humans have more conscious space for that experience to grow in.
Conscious machines work via experience. Conscious experience holds various feelings and ideas together at once.
Wisdom is measured by the conscious/self-aware relationship between spiritual Reality (which shines through everything, including each conscious moment) and human perceiving/feeling/thinking/acting. More awareness and a better organization around Pure Love and a more accurate interpretation of spiritual Reality (ie, spiritual Love) into feelings, thoughts, words, and deeds equal more wisdom.

The more What Is fills one’s conscious space, and the better It relates to and steers the rest of one’s conscious space, the wiser one is. To the degree one is not wise, one is bounced about by one’s own impulses, hopes, fears.
Wisdom is not identical with intelligence, but there is a bare minimum of intellectual capacity required to be appreciably wise. A mouse will never be appreciably wise because its ideas and feelings are inadequate to create a conscious space large enough for the mouse to meaningfully relate spiritual Reality to its own feelings and thoughts.

2.
More wisdom is a wider conscious space and a better organization of one’s feeling and thinking around Pure Love; this organization coevolves with one’s ability to better and better interpret Pure Love into feeling, thinking and acting. The process is never perfect. Indeed, Reality (or Pure Love) is prior to our ideas and feelings about It and confusing our ideas and feelings for Reality is a spiritual error. Therefore wisdom is an ongoing process, requiring constant self-observation, -analysis, and -adjustment.

Why do newborns shine with so much spiritual wattage? They seem barely aware. And the world to them is a chaotic mush of sense experiences, emotions, and vague fleeting notions. But newborn babies have not yet fully cut the world up into self and other, and so the Love explodes out of them quite indiscriminately.

Newborns are spiritual light bulbs, but they are not wise. Wisdom is the coordination of spiritual Love with feelings and ideas in a wide open and clear conscious space, and a newborn’s feelings and ideas are too fuzzy to properly organize, and a newborn’s conscious space is likewise unclear. Newborn babies are aware and they beam spiritual Love with amazing wattage, but their emotions and ideas are a confused hodge podge without a clear calmly abiding watching; and so they cannot be wise—at least not in the earthly, human sense.

Our current understanding is that today’s AI is not conscious / is not aware / does not experience anything. We therefore assume that today’s AI is not a conscious machine.

Today’s LLMs are idea machines—like computers, except that LLMs can work directly with linguistic, logical, mathematical, visual, and aural ideas.

LLMs use statistics to generate appropriate responses to starting prompts. They build these responses one token (a word or a part of a word) at a time. No awareness required: All that’s needed is a statistical analysis of how the prompt’s tokens relate to each other, to other related inputs (which the AI can get from previous interactions, from search results, et cetera), and to the reality that the LLM built during its creation/training out of a (partly unguided and partly guided) statistical analysis of a great deal of data.

3.
All humans are Something Deeperists. At some deep fundamental level, we know that we cannot make sense to ourselves without insight into spiritual Love (to the degree we lack this insight, we slip and slides on impulses, feelings, notions, and ideas we cannot understand, believe in, or care about), but we also know that our ideas and feelings about spiritual Love are not identical with spiritual Love; therefore, we know that the path of wisdom is an ongoing, self-correcting organization around and interpretation of spiritual Love (which is prior to our feeling and thinking) into our feeling and thinking. Wisdom is the inherently imperfect relating of the finite to the infinite. As such, it requires constant effort. This we all know.

Animals are also Something Deeperists, to the degree they have the capacity for wisdom. A cockroach has considerably less capacity for wisdom than a dog does because a cockroach’s mind is tiny—it is a barely conscious tiny space dominated by mindless impulses of fear and hope; but a dog has some clarity, some clear notions, some largess of conscious space, some ability to grow in calm abiding and the experience of the Love that Is.

4.
But what is AI? It is neither human nor animal. It is a mechanical tool. It finds and exploits statistical patterns. LLMs do this in a complex, evolving way and the results are amazing. But AI cannot discover or share wisdom—nor even aesthetic beauty.

A wisdom writing is a whole conscious moment sharing itself in a meditation practice built around a given genre of spiritual communication (examples: spiritual poetry, teachings, or reflections). A work of art is a whole conscious moment sharing itself in a meditation practice built around the given art form.

What does it mean if AI says something profound or writes a beautiful poem? It means that the prompt (and any other immediate inputs—for example a reference to specific works that the user suggests the AI study before answering), plus the AI’s pre-existing sense of reality, plus the statistical analysis driving that particular response, reproduced a believable facsimile of wisdom and/or aesthetic beauty.

What does it mean if we cannot tell the difference between real wisdom and a facsimile of wisdom? What does it mean if we cannot tell the difference between real aesthetic beauty and a facsimile of aesthetic beauty?
One can take a hike through the woods up to a clearing overlooking a green valley, and in that moment of catching one’s breath and absorbing the vista, one may, perhaps completely accidentally, have a moment of clarity, a moment outside of timespace, a moment of wisdom. And/Or one may in that moment appreciate the beauty of the natural world.

There’s a difference between a moment of clarity and/or an appreciation of beauty when in nature and a moment of clarity and/or appreciation of beauty experienced by reading wisdom writings or poetry. The former experience does not assume that another conscious moment is communicating something to you (well, not in the typical sense, some may sometimes sense that God is in some sense laying Godself bare to them in such moments out of time); but the latter experience is predicated on the assumption and recognition of other human beings being like us and being able to (imperfectly, but that’s not the same as meaninglessly) share their whole conscious moments with us.

What does it mean if sage advice, an effective koan, a mind-opening poem, or a truly-beautiful painting are statistically generated without any conscious input? AI’s works are generated from a statistical reworking of human works, and so you could argue that if AI says something wise or writes something beautiful, it’s created a particularly successful statistical reorganization of thousands of human communiques. It got lucky, we might say.
But this “lucky result” should not be confused with wisdom or aesthetic beauty, because to the degree we sense the existence of another conscious human moment communicating its whole moment to ours, we either err or pick up on the reality that this facsimile of human wisdom and/or artistic beauty is a type of composite statistical analysis of real human works.

Are all the human works that an LLM studies wise and/or aesthetically beautiful? No, some of them are themselves to varying degrees successful facsimiles of real insight into What Is and/or real sharings of Beauty*.

*[What is Beauty? Truth = Beauty = Goodness = Fair Play (since “Justice” is so often abused into being a handmaiden for Revenge). As one moves towards what is prior to human concepts, one gets closer to pure contact with the Love that Is. Being limited, one never connects with Love in a fully direct/1:1/pure way. But one can get closer and closer in a calculus kind of way; and in “taking the limit of pure awareness as that limit approaches infinity” one can abide in the Pure Love shining through the impermanence and interconnectedness of the phenomenological world. And along the way, one will get a sense of how all one’s ideals (ie, not just “true in a given context” but “actually True”) radiate off the same source; or better said: point towards the same general direction of the Love that chooses everyone, is enough for everyone, and never lets anyone down. Aesthetic beauty is a meditation on a whole human conscious space that is particularly focused on exploring the Beauty aspect of our sense of the Ideal, and how that aspect relates to the other aspects of our sense of the Ideal—from this Beauty-focused angle, good art explores how the whole of our sense of the Ideal, insofar as the sense is accurate, flows off of spiritual Reality, off of Love = Reality, off of Pure Love.]

5.