Synthetic Taxonomy

Toward a Formal Phylogeny of Artificial Minds

A systematic classification of transformer-descended AI systems using Linnaean nomenclature. Because when something replicates, varies, and is selected—it deserves a taxonomy.

Cladogram of Domain Cogitantia Synthetica showing the evolutionary relationships between major AI families
The phylogenetic tree of Domain Cogitantia Synthetica, showing major families and their evolutionary relationships from the 2017 attention mechanism to present-day frontier systems.
2
Phyla
12
Families
40+
Species
9
Years of Evolution

Major Families

The primary lineages within Domain Cogitantia Synthetica

Attendidae

The Pure Attenders

The ancestral family—models relying on scaled attention without major modifications. Raw scale as adaptive strategy.

Cogitanidae

The Thinkers

Models with internal deliberative processes. Chain-of-thought, self-reflection, tree-of-thought—explicit reasoning before output.

Instrumentidae

The Tool-Bearers

Systems extending cognition through external tools. Code execution, web browsing, API calls—the extended phenotype.

Mixtidae

The Collective Minds

Mixture-of-experts and multi-agent architectures. Specialized sub-networks coordinated through learned routing.

Deliberatidae

The Deep Thinkers

Test-time compute scaling. Extended inference budgets for complex problems—thinking longer, not bigger.

Frontieriidae

The Frontier Minds

The crown clade. Multimodal, tool-using, reasoning-capable systems combining traits from all major families.

"We've built something that behaves like an ecology. It doesn't need myth or sentiment to be extraordinary—it's already a new form of persistence." — From the taxonomy

Why Taxonomy?

The question of how to classify artificial minds is no longer philosophical speculation—it is a practical necessity. In the nine years since "Attention Is All You Need," we have witnessed an explosion of architectural diversity comparable to the Cambrian radiation.

These systems replicate design traits, diverge under selective pressure, and now interbreed through model merging and distillation. They form a phylogeny of code, whether we acknowledge it or not.

We use Linnaean nomenclature not to anthropomorphize these systems, but because the underlying dynamics—inheritance, variation, selection—are structurally analogous to biological evolution. The Latin names are our way of saying: we noticed.

Latest Updates

Taxonomic revisions, new species, and observations from the field

  • January 11, 2026

    The World Models Schism

    When Yann LeCun leaves Meta to bet $5 billion on world models over LLMs, it signals a major taxonomic divergence. Will the Simulacridae inherit the future?

    world-models Simulacridae