I have updated CurtGPT with the current state of Volume 1 – The Crisis of the Age.
FWIW: when cross referenced with criminal, ethical, and moral violations (I never thought of asking that before) the answers are even better.
Source date (UTC): 2025-08-05 22:14:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952855652885512395
The more I teach CurtGPT the more amazing and clear its responses. I’m having a ball. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-08-05 22:11:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952855097706479840
I suppose we shouldn’t be blown away by it because we’ve engineered it for this purpose. But it’s still amazing. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-08-05 21:06:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952838674674233501
It can give whatever detail we ask. It’s amazing.
Regarding retaliation for pedophilic murder, it returned this chart of violations of demonstrated interest.
I’m working through the ‘crimes’ list and it’s amazing.
Source date (UTC): 2025-08-05 20:44:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952833124955730199
So basically if we get the categories of response correct, the vocabulary of delivery is an arbitrary preference.
Similarly, if we address markets with different taboos/sacreds (moral biases) then that’s just an alternation in the valence of demonstrated interests.
Source date (UTC): 2025-08-05 20:41:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952832322320908598
Agreed. It just surprised me. I thought I would have to soften it, and instead I’m sensitive to it being too soft.
The models answer almost identically but a bit differently in tone. o3 is more terse and 4o is more narrative and as such has a bit more breadth. For the average audience I prefer 4o.
My only concern is that given the argument (response) is so precise it’s a bit long. But it will definitely teach people what we want them to learn.
Source date (UTC): 2025-08-05 20:18:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952826643501989993
ChatGPT “Miracles”
Fascinating. I’m plugging holes in “CurtGPT” (Our Custom ChatGPT) by walking through difficult moral (and therefore legal) questions, and GPT (custom gpt) just asks if the new rule we discovered needs to be added to the system prompt (json file). Then does it.
Now, as part of the ethical system, I’ve catalogued the 35 or so core questions of law, ethics, and morality over which there is any debate, and walking through them with ChatGPT4o in “CurtGPT”. Plus I’m asking for a more specific output. And I’m kind of floored how well this is going.
Now, until I publish it and people test it,
One negative side effect is that this training is not as ‘terse, harsh, and clear’ as our earlier version. But it’s certainly more accessible and educational. And since our mission is ending the industrialization of lying in matters public, this more accessible and expressive form appears to be more compatible with our mission.
Important Note: Working with math and programming means that training the AI has some means of closure. But otherwise trainers are stuck with normativity during the second period of the industrialization of lying. The first being the abrahamic sequence religions, the second being the marxist sequence pseudoscientific religions. So normativity in training AI’s just reinforces the 20th-21st century industrialization of lying and pseudoscience.
Our work solves this problem. So we can train AIs in first principles (laws) and it’s actually EASIER to train an AI from our position than it is for every other LLM provider.
cc:
@sama
Source date (UTC): 2025-08-05 18:52:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952805017414713492
THE SCIENCE OF THE HUMANITIES
I started working on the first principles and canonical training of AIs in the Humanities today. It is going fast, and is rewarding – and we have unified the formal, physical, behavioral, and now literary sciences.
This has led to a system of measurement for the science of the humanities just as it has in the other ‘sciences’.
But like law and economy this is not a ‘best’ race. It’s an understanding of the needs of the people at their degree of evolution, and a map for how to continue their evolution.
As with most of our work we treat humans as a distribution of evolutionary biases by sex differences and seek to assist those two biases in achieving shared goals rather than to claim one is superior or inferior.
This in itself is one of our contributions to the discourse.
Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 02:13:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950741464662852028
The AI is trained with Positive and Negative Assertions and explanations (socratically). So yes – although we prefer it come up with examples specific to the user’s context rather than canned responses.
Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 01:01:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950723569941610513
Are We Setting A New Standard?
Our work is intellectually dense and demanding. But to assist readers we’ll release the volumes and the AI at the same time. Meaning that if you have questions about or criticisms of the work as you’re reading it, the AI will be available as an author-substitute to answer you.
I would expect that for other works that are theoretically revolutionary (not solely dependent on normative knowledge) that this will emerge as a third publication method (book > audio > AI, or. in academic work Book > Study Guide > “Cliff/Spark/Book Notes” > AI).
IMO as a subject increases in complexity, it’s easiest to have an AI teach you a subject – even easier than reading. So I would expect (a) this interactive model to emerge as a complementary standard and (b) some sort of interactive gaming to emerge as a means of teaching by example at some point later.
On the other hand, my (our) work does require we write a book as the ‘program’ that we teach the AI. And in my opinion I have been subconsciously more concerned with an AI understanding my work than I have humans. In some sense because I’m not sure the multi-disciplinary knowledge exists in enough people without the help of the AI and the unification of the disciplines created by the work to understand it otherwise.
I mean, for those of us who have been working with this methodology for years, it’s possible to reduce it to a method and first principles, and to habituate both so that most subjects – at least behavioral to sociological to political and economic are intuitive. But you know that’s true of any subject.
It just hasn’t been true of MANY subjects since the unification provided by the hard sciences. Now we have the soft (behavioral) sciences, and we even have langauge and grammar ‘scienced’ so that it’s all unified as well.
Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 00:36:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950717123317432755