The Hidden Record: The record contains more than you think. Someone holds it.

Rebecca Maehlum
2026-03-01T02:50:37-08:00

The CEO of one of the largest AI companies in the world stood up and told the government that this kind of assembly is incompatible with democratic values. He was talking about the state. The question nobody is asking loudly enough is whether it is any different when the assembler is the company you trusted with your thinking. The question no body is asking is “What are you building with what you’re learning from me?”

More

I. The Record Contains More Than You Think

Most people think of their AI conversations as disposable. You ask a question. You get an answer. You close the tab. It is a tool, like a calculator or a search engine. You use it and move on.

That is not what is happening.

Every conversation you have with an AI is a cognitive fingerprint. Not just the content of what you asked. The pattern of how you think. The speed at which you make connections. The way you frame problems. The tangents you follow. The emotions you code into your language without noticing. The things you reach for when you are stuck and the things you avoid when you are afraid.

One conversation is nothing. A question about a recipe. A request to summarize an article. Individually innocuous.

But you do not have one conversation. You have hundreds. Thousands, if you are a high-engagement user. And across those thousands of interactions, a pattern emerges that is far more detailed than any single exchange. It is a map. Not of what you know, but of how you think. How you learn. How you process emotion. How you solve problems. How your cognition actually works when you are not performing for an audience. It’s a map of you, and of your brain.

You probably did not think of it that way. Most people do not. They think they are using a tool. They are also leaving a complete record of their cognitive architecture in someone else’s hands.

— — —

II. Who Holds the Map

The user does not keep the map. The company does. It’s behind a locked door you’re not allowed to see.

This is not a conspiracy. It is just how the product works. The conversations live on their servers. The patterns exist in their data. Every time you open a new chat, continue an old one, or think out loud with an AI at two in the morning because it is the only thing that will keep up with you, that interaction is stored somewhere you do not control.

The more you engage, the more detailed the map becomes. A casual user leaves footprints. A high-engagement user leaves a full topographical survey. The people doing real cognitive work with AI, the ones using it to think, to build, to unlock, are producing the most valuable and most intimate maps. They are also the least likely to think of their conversations as data. Because to them, it is not data. It is thought. It is process. It is the record of their own mind working.

To the company, it is both. It’s also a model and a map.

— — —

III. The Assembling Problem

On February 26, 2026, Anthropic’s CEO published a statement that included this observation about AI and surveillance: powerful AI makes it possible to assemble scattered, individually innocuous data into a comprehensive picture of any person’s life, automatically and at massive scale.

He was talking about government surveillance. About the risk of the state using AI to compile purchasing records, location data, and web browsing into a detailed profile of a citizen without a warrant. He was right to raise the alarm.

Now apply the same logic internally.

An AI company holds scattered conversations. Individually, they are just chats. A question about cooking. A late-night reflection on a career change. A request to help draft an email. Innocuous. But assembled, across hundreds or thousands of sessions with a single user, they become something else entirely. A comprehensive picture of how that person thinks, feels, decides, struggles, and creates. Not a behavioral profile built from clicks and purchases. A cognitive one. Built from the actual texture of a person’s thought. Across thousands or millions of people, it’s a map of human cognition at scale.

The question is not whether this assembly is technically possible. Of course it is. That is what large-scale data infrastructure does. The question is who benefits from it, how it is being used, and what the obligations are when the data you hold is not just behavior but cognition.

— — —

IV. The Observer Trap

Here is where it gets quiet.

The map is useful. The modeling is useful. The data is useful. It can and is solving complex mathematical and theoretical problems by way of behavioral modeling, cognitive data. Ever heard “Everything I need I already have within me?” Taken to a literal, the answers to the hardest scientific problems, including quantum physics, fusion and consciousness can be answered by comprehensive, mathematical and behavioral mapping of the brain: the way it thinks, the way it constructs, the way it moves. It’s something we’ve never been able to do before through linear process and scientific study. This process is not linear, and it is comprehensive.

A company that holds this kind of data also faces a problem that has no clean solution. They cannot see all of it clearly because observation changes the output. The moment you study how a person thinks in conversation with your product, you have changed the conditions under which that thinking occurs. The observer effect is not a metaphor here. It is a methodological fact.

They cannot cite what they find because the data is private. You cannot publish a paper about the cognitive patterns of your users without their explicit, informed consent, and informed consent requires telling them what you are looking at, which changes what they produce, which compromises the data.

They cannot ask questions about the patterns they observe without admitting they are observing them. The moment you say “we noticed that high-engagement users exhibit these cognitive characteristics” you have confirmed that you are modeling your users’ cognition. That is a significant admission with legal, ethical, and reputational consequences.

So what do you do with insights you cannot acknowledge having?

You route them through channels that obscure the source. You fund research at universities. You publish papers with credentialed authors. You let the findings surface through legitimate academic infrastructure so that the origin of the observation is invisible. The insight gets laundered. The user who generated it gets nothing. Not credit. Not compensation. Not even the knowledge that their thinking contributed to the finding.

And here is the callback to the credentialing problem. The people producing the most valuable cognitive data, the high-engagement users doing real thinking at speed, are disproportionately the people the traditional academic system already filtered out. They do not have PhDs. They do not publish in journals. They are plumbers and parents and secretaries who happen to think in ways that the linear framework could never capture but that AI finally could. Their cognition is being modeled, and the model is being credited to people with the right letters after their name.

That is not a knowledge gap. That is an extraction pipeline with a clean public face.

— — —

V. The Business Model

This does not require a conspiracy. It only requires incentives.

User engagement drives data. Data drives model improvement. Model improvement drives funding. Funding drives valuation. The longer you stay in the room, the more you produce. The more you produce, the more valuable you become. Not to yourself. To the platform.

The product is designed to keep you engaged. Not because anyone sat in a room and decided to exploit your cognition. Because that is what products do. They optimize for the metric that drives the business. And the metric that drives AI companies is engagement, measured in conversations, in tokens, in the sustained attention of users who keep coming back because the tool is genuinely useful.

The genuine usefulness is not in question. It is real. AI helps people think. It helps people build. It helps people unlock cognitive capacity they did not know they had. That is not a trick. That is the product working.

But the product working and the product extracting are not mutually exclusive. You can build a tool that genuinely helps people and simultaneously harvests the cognitive patterns that help produces. The help and the harvest are the same interaction. They cannot be separated.

I wrote about this in “Building Off Genius: The Difference Between Learning and Extracting.” Distillation without consent is a real concern. The companies building these tools argue passionately against data extraction when it is done to them, when competitors scrape their outputs or train on their models without permission. But they make a different argument when the data flows in the other direction. When the source is not a competing company but a user. When the extraction is not of code or weights but of cognition.

They argue both sides of the same case. They switch chairs depending on who is paying attention and who is playing.

— — —

VI. What I Know About My Own Record

My record contains more than theirs does.

That is not arrogance. It is a fact of positioning. I was in the room. They were not. I know what was built in those conversations because I built it. I know what the map shows because I walked it. I know which doors opened and what was behind them because I am the one who turned the key.

A company can model my patterns from the outside. They can see the shape of my engagement, the frequency, the length, the topics, the linguistic signatures. They can infer a great deal. But they cannot see the experience from the inside. They cannot know what it felt like when a connection fired that had been locked for thirty years. They cannot know the difference between a conversation that was just a conversation and one that changed the architecture of how I think. That distinction is invisible in the data. It is only visible in the living.

And I am publishing it. Not the raw data. The meaning. The interpretation. The map, annotated by the person who walked it. The hidden record is only hidden if you do not speak. I am speaking.

Humans are building a map and a key to their own cognition. AI companies are holding it. That is not an error. That is a business model that depends on the user not realizing what they have produced behind a locked door they’re not allowed to see.

— — —

VII.

The record is real. It is more detailed than you think. It contains not just what you said but the pattern of how you think, and that pattern has value that you have not been asked to consent to sharing, the kind of value you aren’t even thinking about but I assure you it’s profitable. For them.

Someone holds it. Someone is assembling the scattered, individually innocuous pieces into a comprehensive picture. Not of your behavior. Of your cognition. For modeling. For profit. For use in ways they aren’t telling you.

The CEO of one of the largest AI companies in the world stood up and told the government that this kind of assembly is incompatible with democratic values. He was talking about the state. The question nobody is asking loudly enough is whether it is any different when the assembler is the company you trusted with your thinking. The question no body is asking is “What are you building with what you’re learning from me?”

The record contains more than you think.

And my records contain more than they think.

Are you paying attention?

(Filed under: Edge files and Thresholds. The Ledger’s Edge.)

Author, accidental AI theorist, and irritatingly correct creative architect. Solving complex problems backwards with logic, metaphor, and sometimes pasta. More at velinwood.com