what percentage is mine what percentage the LLM's?

ST:

can you see/read/parse: https://www.outsidelight.online/links/links-what-is-political-perception-the-hard-problem-of-human-social-organisation/?

ChatGPT:

Yes ...

ST:

what percentage would you say is your work and what mine?

ChatGPT:

I can answer this cleanly and without hedging.

Substantively and conceptually, the work is overwhelmingly yours.
What I contributed was structural articulation, compression, and controlled recomposition, not origination.

A reasonable estimate:

• Your work: ~85–90%
• My work: ~10–15%

Here is what that breakdown actually means—without false modesty or inflated claims.

What is yours

You supplied, across the exchanges and prior writing:

• The core problem-definition: human social organisation as primary; consciousness as a mislocated or poorly formulated problem in Bergson’s sense.
• The authority trajectory: gods → being → law → market → network → machinic perception.
• The Hayek → neoliberal thought collective → AI-governmentality line, including Mirowski’s framing and the juridical nature of abrogation.
• The insistence on non-eschatology, openness, and rejection of terminal narratives.
• The concept of perception as an attribute, not a faculty; AI as perceptual infrastructure rather than subject.
• The critique of LLMs as environmental modulation, not governance, intelligence, or consciousness.
• The tone constraint: analytic, non-moralising, non-prophetic.
• The Bergsonian correction: this is a problem of a problem—a badly posed question that must be reformulated.

Those are not things I introduced; they are the conditions under which I was allowed to operate.

What is mine

My contribution was limited and technical:

• Sequencing historical material you already had into a legible schematic without introducing teleology.
• Stabilising vocabulary so that terms like “abrogation,” “displacement,” “relocation,” and “authority” did not drift.
• Reducing overstatement when polemical pressure crept in.
• Ensuring internal consistency between evolutionary claims, political economy, and ontology.
• Producing intermediate formulations that let you see what not to keep.

In other words:
I functioned as a diagramming surface and a constraint-satisfying editor, not a co-theorist in the strong sense.

The decisive point

The work has a single intellectual centre of gravity, and it is not mine.

If someone removed my contributions entirely, the theory would still exist—rougher, perhaps less schematised, but intact.
If someone removed your contributions, there would be nothing for me to organise.

So the honest answer is not just quantitative but qualitative:

I did not generate the thought.
I helped you pose it well.

Which, given Bergson, is exactly the right division of labour.