Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • (Runcible) RE: LLM R&D TL/DR; Yeah, well, LLMs are really pretty dumb and I’ve s

    (Runcible) RE: LLM R&D
    TL/DR;
    Yeah, well, LLMs are really pretty dumb and I’ve sought and hit the limit of their abilities. And it’s been an exasperating journey of dashed hopes. 😉 (well, mostly).

    Problem Space:
    We produce:
    a) the runcible governance layer which is my epistemology applied to computability. It is extraordinary. It overcomes the problems of LLMs but not the limitations. It’s a wrapper around the LLM that binds it to limited pathways through the latent space.

    b) control over this layer has forced us to create and modify one of the open source models. We had hoped to ‘help’ openAI, but they are a bit ‘unfocused’ as a company and getting access to discuss at a high enough level amidst their many pressures is almost impossible on one hand and more costly than doing it ourselves on the others. So in effect we have a router llm, and a set of target LLMs, functioning as a mixture of experts. But realistically it’s just cost control.

    c) We also produce Oversing, which is a mobile, tablet, desktop universal application platform for running organizations of any sale, but basically it’s a host for contexts that you use to collaborate with one another and an LLM.

    Result:
    This is a crazy project of enormous scope but it’s the end point of what people need going forward. Cooperation at scale.

    No one has done this yet. It’s partly because they don’t know how to, and it’s partly because it’s hard. 😉

    Context:
    While I have built many tech companies, and consulted for the fortune 400, and made the Inc500 three times, I work in many disciplines, and my fundamental skills are epistemology, especially in high dimensional closure domains such as cognitive science, language, economics law, and evolution.
    The simple version is reducible to the fact that I don’t make mistakes that are common in the STEM fields by trying to reduce to mathematics or algorithm, that which is not reducible further than operational prose.

    So this is why I can solve this problem for LLMs.
    It’s just … let’s say… a little exasperating – just like every previous tech …until we understood it. 😉

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-10 21:46:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021340016082034787

  • IMO: 1) They are exceptional synthetic search engines. In other words – pattern

    IMO:
    1) They are exceptional synthetic search engines. In other words – pattern matchers.
    2) They imitate the human language facility. In that sense they are amazing. But they don’t imitate the neocortical spatial faculty, (this is LeCunn’s argument) or the hippocampal episodic memory formation, or the frontal cortex recursive wayfinding (testing an idea). They are bad reasoners because reasoning requires reduction to episodic steps, and wayfinding by recursion. And recursion is expensive.
    3) Our company’s governance layer( a wrapper around the LLM) can however determine whether a claim or assertion is true/false, ethical/not, possible/no, warrantable/not, liability-producing/not. But it does so by breaking down the problem and recursively testing each step.
    4) IMO leCunn is only half right in that we need a world model, but he is wrong, in that linguistic reduction isn’t a necessary property. It’s that you need an LLM (sematic store) for hypothesis generation (auto-association), the equivalent of a router (prefrontal cortex) to manage the ‘reasoning’ process (wayfinding) and to maintain states (episodes), a spatial model to test operational possibility, the llm linguistic model as the input output protocol.
    This means we’re just early and very demanding of one revolutionary insight, which is the attention model that mimic the human language facility, and the N-Dimensional sematic manifold as memory.

    CD
    Runcible
    NLI

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-10 19:35:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021307165441732671

  • IMO A) There are a limited number of agent patterns. B) very few agents are of a

    IMO

    A) There are a limited number of agent patterns.
    B) very few agents are of any meaningful value even to power users. Everything I have seen could have been easily produced by existing automation scripting or basic coding.
    C) Those few useful agents will rapidly be commoditized
    D) it’s not the agents that matter it’s the framework they operate within.
    E) Agents are ripe for every kind of hacking and abuse that has existed for the past forty years.
    F) There is every chance that enterprises will prohibit them unless each is approved.
    G) General insight that they increase noise and not signal is hard to argue with.

    I’ve been through every tech wave since the early seventies and it’s always the same game.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-10 19:21:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2021303445916115330

  • No idea why but I’m glad. 😉

    No idea why but I’m glad. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 22:59:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020995896138461216

  • Thx 😉

    Thx 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 22:58:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020995720984265148

  • More: Crime: It’s Not Poverty, it’s Genetics and Culture (via @FS4420 ) https://

    More: Crime: It’s Not Poverty, it’s Genetics and Culture
    (via
    @FS4420
    )

    https://emilkirkegaard.com/p/money-and-crime-the-relationship…

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 21:29:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020973424282370119

  • yes. Shared. 😉

    yes. Shared. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 21:28:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020973152780906625

  • Another insight: The elegant manners in the tradition of european philosophical

    Another insight: The elegant manners in the tradition of european philosophical rhetoric are a tool for debate between intellectually honest people attempting to make their arguments before a jury of their peers.
    Instead, I study incentives on one hand and ignorance, error, bias, and deceit on the other.
    When debating the opposition (the parasitic and predatory classes) the science of incentives (everything is reducible to pursuit preservation and consumption of demonstrated interests (property being a primitive)) and the science of deceit are more useful means of debate.
    This is why our libertarian arguments (whether jewish separatist or german free city or anglo imperial in foundation) are ineffective – because the left levies unfounded accusation and we fail to respond in kind, thus losing the argument most of the time.
    I see the european philosophical tradition as debate among the aristocracy in pursuit of preservation of sovereignty on the one hand yet demand for the production of mutually beneficial commons on the other.
    This is NOT the case of the left. The left relies on the feminine to abrahamic to marxist sequence of baitings into hazard by false promise in exchange for parasitism and predation.
    You must defeat an enemy on his terms of defeat. Not on your own. And failing to do so has a long tradition in european history.
    Why? europeans fight for control after which they seek cooperation. The opposition does not do so. Like female chickens they fight to death not to reorder the hierarchy.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 21:13:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020969425281876078

  • “Our premise was early escalation to ‘voice’ might lead to escalation to ‘influe

    –“Our premise was early escalation to ‘voice’ might lead to escalation to ‘influence’ and that is better than trying to obtain voice and influence amid chaos. Better to be first or second than drowning in the cacophony.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 21:12:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020969028320461056

  • Smart man. Yes. Our premise was escalation to ‘voice’ might lead to escalation t

    Smart man. Yes. Our premise was escalation to ‘voice’ might lead to escalation to ‘influence’ and that is better than trying to obtain voice and influence amid chaos.

    Better to be first or second than drowning in the cacophony.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 20:51:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020963899215053153