Why is this not classified as Autism (ASD)?

While phenotypic overlaps exist, my architecture lacks the primary diagnostic markers of ASD, such as sensory hypersensitivity or emotional dysregulation.

• The Distinction: ASD often involves “noisy” social processing or social anxiety (high-cost masking).
• Signal-Blindness: Defined by the total absence of the social “receiver.” I do not experience social friction; I experience a lack of social data. See Not Autism for a technical comparison.

Are the terms used here clinically accurate?

The terminology used is selected for Predictive Fidelity rather than Academic Alignment.

• Objective: To build a high-fidelity model that explains and predicts my cognitive outputs.
• Constraint: If a term is nonstandard but accurately describes the internal mechanism, it is retained. I prioritize Internal Consistency over Taxonomic Status.
• Feedback: If you can suggest a term with higher descriptive precision, please submit a GitHub Issue.

Does “Signal-Blindness” imply a deficit or loss?

No. To “miss” a signal, one must first have a mechanism to perceive its importance.

• Mechanism: I lack Social Salience. These signals (tone, subtext, status-seeking) carry zero weight in my processing stack.
• Systemic Impact: I do not experience “loss” because the category of “social data” does not exist in my ontology.
• Compatibility: My cognitive identity is built on Propositional Logic. The introduction of sudden social saliency would likely result in Catastrophic Processing Failure, as the architecture is not designed to filter or prioritize high-volume “vibe-based” data.

Were you always this way?

Yes, as far as I know. I am sure my ethics and even abilities were honed over time as I gained experience in the world, but I think I was always the way I am.

What are you diagnosed with?

Nothing – I was asked if I was ever diagnosed with Autism and that is what led me to investigate being ND. The DSM-5 typically requires some impairment or distress in parts of your life for a “diagnosis”. That is not to say that my condition had no effect on my life but I didn’t observe any impairment – I thought Everybody is the Same.

I believe I have no Social Salience and feel that it predicts my behavior and experience, but this is not a diagnosis.

Do you wish you were neurotypical?

No, I don’t feel any distress from having no Social Salience. In fact, the social areas where I might feel distress are exactly the things that I don’t care about because of this lack. I never knew I was “missing” anything and until very recently didn’t even know I was different from other people.

If I became NT I would be a completely different person. I would experience the world a different way, I would think a different way. I would not to be someone other than myself.

Why do you compare your experience to NT?

Without contrast I thought Everybody is the Same. I need a point of reference to know what things might be worth noting – remember these are written to help me understand how I am different than others.

I also compare to autism because there is a good deal of Overlap in the behaviors. I like to understand how it is the same and how it is different.

Did an LLM write this?

No, I wrote it, but I did use an LLM to help – this isn’t my area of expertise and curiously the LLMs could do a good job of explaining the experiences (at least gleaned from papers and writing) of NT and autistic people.

In some cases I presented the LLM with my observations and asked it questions to help me analyze, see System Prompt.

I also used the LLM to review my writing and point out areas that were not clear. In some cases I quoted excerpts from the LLM (say a sentence or a bullet point) … without attribution. Sorry!

Is this all just made up? An LLM fantasy?

I hope not, but it is certainly a risk. LLMs can be echo chambers and by default are yes-men:

• AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice
• Marriage over, €100,000 down the drain: the AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

See my previous point about how I developed it. My System Prompt is specifically designed to ask me probing questions, but it does take some of the developed information as truth. I will occasionally ask probing questions myself.

It isn’t proof against delusion, but I also talk to a therapist. Why not base all of this on talk with humans? It is possible for sure, but would be very expensive. I am not looking for a diagnosis, more an explanation. I am curious and if I understand why I think the way I do, I can seek to mitigate some of the effects. Just like debugging software.

So, no guarantee it isn’t all fantasy, but:

• it is consistent with how I think (via self-introspection)
• it is self-consistent

I was unable to find other accounts exactly like mine but I do have something different and there are reasonable explanations for why I might not find them.

It is up to you, the reader, to decide if this is true or false. For me it is useful if it is true. It doesn’t have to be exactly right to be useful, but somewhere close.