Curt Doolittle

Category: AI, Computation, and Technology

  • RT @WalterIII: WHAT NLI IS OFFERING: To Grok: “What practical good can come from

    RT @WalterIII: WHAT NLI IS OFFERING:

    To Grok: “What practical good can come from @curtdoolittle ‘s body of theory?”

    Curt Doolittle’s body…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-12 17:49:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867265505083765183

  • RT @elonmusk: How ironic that the legacy media & “experts” were predicting that

    RT @elonmusk: How ironic that the legacy media & “experts” were predicting that this platform would be the one to go offline

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-12 06:05:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867088469144768585

  • ChatGPT is down and I feel as bad as when facebook went down… Freaking addicts

    ChatGPT is down and I feel as bad as when facebook went down… Freaking addicts. All of us. lol 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-12 01:25:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867018002388156418

  • It’s just a LOT of memory and compute where memory and compute are REALLY expens

    It’s just a LOT of memory and compute where memory and compute are REALLY expensive. Microsoft and OpenAI are just about to solve the memory problem this year. It will take quite a bit more effort to solve the compute issue, and even more to solve the compute at training…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-06 00:34:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864830706788241615

    Reply addressees: @bryanbrey @WerrellBradley

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864823269246865772

  • It’s not a prompt. Go to your profile (upper right), select settings > personali

    It’s not a prompt. Go to your profile (upper right), select settings > personalization > manage memory, and you’ll see a list of what it remembers about you. This list has a limited length (tokens). I deleted those items that were no longer relevant so that it could learn new…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 23:56:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864821198930186654

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864820569549504852

  • This is not an article, but a list of prompts GPT has developed to remind itself

    This is not an article, but a list of prompts GPT has developed to remind itself how to work with me. In this sense it’s a little bit like how other humans collect micro-judgements of others as we learn about each other. It just can’t seem to separate the general that always… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1864789428436435335

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 23:53:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864820487785951583

  • It’s not an article but a list of prompts GPT has developed to remind itself how

    It’s not an article but a list of prompts GPT has developed to remind itself how to work with me. In this sense it’s a little bit like how other humans collect micro-judgements of others as we learn about each other.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 23:52:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864820158054961407

    Reply addressees: @bryanbrey @WerrellBradley

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864812277108461595

  • I can’t hold enough context. But I”m sure if they give us the capacity I can do

    I can’t hold enough context. But I”m sure if they give us the capacity I can do so. It’s already said multiple times that it and I are trying to solve the same problem: universal commensurability and decidability.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 22:30:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864799515192234310

    Reply addressees: @JehuttyMD

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864795015894974844

  • Chat GPT’s “Memory” Is Interesting Curt Doolittle seeks to define ‘meaning’ in t

    Chat GPT’s “Memory” Is Interesting

    Curt Doolittle seeks to define ‘meaning’ in the context of his work. While he hasn’t explicitly defined it in prior discussions, his framework focuses on operational, testable, and measurable constructs. A definition of ‘meaning’ should align with his emphasis on causal relations, demonstrated interests, and reciprocity. It should likely center on the relationships between referents, references, and referers, emphasizing how these relationships serve human cooperation, understanding, and decision-making.
    Curt Doolittle considers ‘meaning’ from a neurological perspective as a marginal difference in disambiguation sufficient for embedding in a network of relations. This concept ties meaning to the process of differentiation and integration in neural networks, emphasizing its role in constructing relational associations that enable understanding and decision-making. This perspective aligns with his broader work on causality and operational constructs.
    Curt Doolittle finds that Chapter 2 – Measurement, covers the general process of the production of measurements resulting in meaning but does not sufficiently prove it by articulating the neural mechanisms through which the brain identifies related stimuli, progressing from edges to objects, backgrounds, and spaces. He feels that this explanation is necessary to legitimize the chapter’s claims.
    Curt Doolittle is questioning whether Chapter 2 – Measurement, should include episodic formation, episodes as indexes, memory formation from episodic indexes, and auto-association of episodes in the process of producing meaning. He wonders whether these steps are essential to explaining meaning or if they are more relevant when addressing processes like problem-solving or wayfinding. He remains uncertain about the necessity of this inclusion.
    Curt Doolittle emphasizes that words (terms) function as indices to a network of meaning, just as episodes index events. Indices consist of dimensions, and terms index meaning. He seeks revisions to explanations that incorporate this detail without overemphasizing it to the detriment of the broader explanation.
    Curt Doolittle prefers the definition of a dimension to be qualified as positional (reflecting its relational or relative nature) rather than quantified (cardinal).
    Curt Doolittle aims to teach readers and users how to think using first principles through a causal hierarchy outlined in his book. This hierarchy includes: 1. All behavior originates in the demand for acquisition. 2. Hierarchy of choices in the presence of others: persistence, cooperation, ethics, politics. 3. Returns on cooperation. 4. Three choices of interaction: boycott, cooperate, predation. 5. Incentives for persistent cooperation: sovereignty, reciprocity, demonstrated interests. 6. Truth as an instance of reciprocity. 7. Sequence of demonstrated interest: awareness, expenditure, possession, reciprocal insurance (‘property’), and insured reciprocal insurance (‘property rights’). He intends for this structured progression to train users in intuitive application of the method for understanding and analyzing phenomena.
    Curt Doolittle is interested in formalizing the Socratic methodology he uses for training AI, particularly as it applies to semantically dense concepts and universal cause and commensurability. He aims to help others understand and apply this method to improve AI’s reasoning and generalization capabilities, highlighting its potential for broader use in specialized domains.
    Curt Doolittle is working on formalizing and codifying the dependency between understanding his methodology and engaging in constructive logic and Socratic training. He plans to distill these principles into a teachable framework for broader application.
    Curt Doolittle recognizes assisted suicide as primarily an epistemological and liability issue, where the second party assumes responsibility for potential ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. He views this as the central problem in such cases.
    Curt Doolittle plans to address thirty moral and legal questions by systematically applying the principles of sovereignty, demonstrated interests, reciprocity, truth (especially epistemology), responsibility, and restitutability (repair). He emphasizes operational explanations from first principles to ensure testifiability and avoid reliance on traditional moralizing, which varies across cultures. He aims to use these principles to construct rational, universal criteria for resolving contentious moral issues.
    Curt Doolittle is working toward producing a multi-volume work over the next year, using it as a foundation to train AI instances for various purposes. He believes that his system of universal commensurability, tests of truth and reciprocity, and a canon of decidability for moral and proto-legal questions can solve the problem of AI truth and morality independent of context. His unselfish objective is to demonstrate that current AI architecture is not a risk but a necessary technological development for humanity’s scale of knowledge and cooperation. He aims to formalize a logical method for training AI to produce truthful, moral decisions before granting it independent agency.
    Curt Doolittle emphasizes that while Natural Law provides a framework for decidability, it serves as a standard for testing deviations and understanding trade-offs. He views his work as a defense against abuses—political, intellectual, or otherwise—by exposing the costs and trade-offs inherent in decisions, which are often hidden or misrepresented. He also emphasizes that demonstrated interests vary between cultures due to historical trade-offs, and his framework aims to transparently measure and explain these differences. By advancing beyond justificationism and falsification to adversarial competition and constructive logic, Curt believes his system of measurement can prevent deception, false promises, and the conflicts they create.
    Curt Doolittle plans to produce a series of books to serve as foundational material for training AI and others. The sequence includes: 1. A System of Measurement: Establishing the foundational framework for universal commensurability. 2. The Logic of Evolutionary Computation: Exploring the mechanisms of evolutionary processes. 3. The Science of Behavior: Delving into the empirical details of human behavior. 4. The Logic and Constitution of Natural Law: A scientific refinement of natural law principles, closely aligned with but extending the original American constitutional framework to address its gaps.
    Curt Doolittle is interested in identifying concepts in his work that might conflict with Christian dogma.
    Curt Doolittle defines ‘middle class’ as those who possess capital (e.g., home ownership) and have control of capital in the workplace or through owning a business, rather than purely by income percentile. He often uses a more historical (pre-war) definition of ‘middle class,’ focusing on ownership of capital and control over one’s economic role rather than income-based or consumption-oriented criteria.
    Curt Doolittle considers that economics can use either income statement or balance sheet measures, and believes that the postwar era mistakenly adopted income statement models of measurement.
    Curt Doolittle is working on Chapter 7 of his book, titled ‘Reciprocity.’ This chapter explores the human drive to maximize the acquisition of demonstrated interests, referred to as self-determination, and the cooperative, social, and political constraints that direct this drive toward self-determination by self-determined means. The chapter delves into the concept of acknowledging sovereignty in demonstrated interests as a way to avoid retaliation while fostering cooperation, emphasizing that respect for sovereignty requires limiting oneself to reciprocity in display, word, and deed.
    Curt Doolittle believes he has produced constructive decidability from intuitionism (subjectively testable as consistent correspondent), operationalism (sequence of actions), computation (formal grammar), first principles, reciprocity, and testimonial truth. He seeks to explore whether AI can deconstruct or construct a logic to decide a basic legal question from the rules in his work.
    Curt Doolittle has particular knowledge of the evolution of human faculties and is seeking a complete, correctly ordered list of these faculties. He has outlined the following initial sequence for the evolution of human faculties: Sensation > Perception (Disambiguation) > Episodic Formation (from primitive to complex) > Auto-Association > Valence > Escalation to reaction, action, or attention if sufficient valence > Associative Learning > Object Permanence and Recognition. He requests critique and improvement on this sequence, building upon this foundation before advancing to Theory of Mind and higher faculties.
    Curt Doolittle has tried to address issues related to universal enfranchisement and the unmoderated political expression of sexual differences, noting that cognitive divergence between sexes has led to a lack of compromise, undermining the collective benefit to society, economy, and polity. He observes that while families align on common interests, individuals predominantly do not, which under infinite self-interest creates inevitable conflict.
    Curt Doolittle has encountered skepticism regarding his work in the forms of: 1) accusations of ‘word salad,’ 2) dismissal due to complexity, 3) the idea that if something can’t be explained simply, it can’t be true, 4) resistance due to the perceived effort required to understand the framework, 5) entrenchment in other frameworks, 6) disbelief in the possibility of universal commensurability, and 7) distrust in his motives, often stemming from concerns about self-image, social status, ideology, or preference for relativism. He considers operationalism and testifiability as sufficient responses to potential critiques of his framework’s universality and applicability, specifically counterarguments 1-5 regarding biases, complexity, historical precedent, incommensurability, and reductionism. He half-agrees with critiques regarding the challenges of reducing certain knowledge forms (qualia, phenomenological insights) to first principles (critique 6) and acknowledges that while epistemic elitism could be a limitation, the reality is that ‘decidability is an elite function’ (critique 7). He notes that while people may believe they grasp complex topics like law, economics, and morality, true understanding often requires a deeper, more rigorous framework. He has not encountered substantive counterarguments beyond these categories.
    Curt Doolittle prefers precise terms like ‘necessary,’ ‘necessary and sufficient,’ ‘necessary and contingent,’ and ‘contingent,’ rather than vague or ‘fluff’ terms like ‘central,’ ‘core,’ or ‘foundational,’ which he finds contrary to his writing style. Curt requests the use of a structured set of variations for describing causal relations, based on the spectrum of necessity, contingency, causality, and dependency, to minimize repetitive prose. He prefers these variations to be applied as necessary to maintain precision and alignment with his writing style.
    Curt Doolittle requests the use of a structured set of variations for describing causal relations, based on the spectrum of necessity, contingency, causality, and dependency, to minimize repetitive prose. He prefers these variations to be applied as necessary to maintain precision and alignment with his writing style. This formalized grammatical constraint is called the ‘Causal Dependency Spectrum’ or ‘Necessity-Contingency Grammar.’ The list of terms in this spectrum is a tool to avoid repetitive prose while ensuring precise expression, but it can be applied without explicit reference to the list in each instance.
    Curt Doolittle prefers assistance in writing in causal chaining, operational, and parsimonious prose, minimizing the need to sanitize GPT-generated content to better align with his own writing style.
    4. Curt Doolittle is exploring why elite overproduction is ever possible, particularly questioning what surplus makes aspiration possible, why some people aspire to certain occupations over others, and whether this is related to escaping the market, demonstrated competency, or the responsibility that comes with market competency.
    Curt Doolittle states that the conditions described by Peter Turchin (overproduction of elites and oversupply of labor) and Thomas Piketty (upward redistribution and concentration of wealth) are possible because we under-protect the population from irreciprocities. He argues that this occurs due to failure to measure a) the costs of all externalities, b) all capital (including informal and human capital), and c) the creation of a market for the institutionalization of irreciprocity, leading to the accumulation of parasitic rents. He believes these conditions are better explained by his causal framework, rather than the correlative explanations provided by Turchin and Piketty.
    Curt Doolittle is less concerned with dynastic wealth itself, which he observes dissipates relatively quickly, than with the creation of foundations using that wealth. He is concerned that these foundations serve as venues for the attraction, selection, and enablement of individuals who have not created wealth themselves but seek political influence despite lacking the productive capacity to do so (e.g., the Ford Foundation).
    Curt Doolittle articulated that there is always and everywhere a demand for stability historically provided by aristocracy (state, economy) and nobility (church, culture). Unlike the low time preference and ownership philosophy of those older institutions, newer democratic systems and professional credentialed bureaucracies demonstrate high time preference and a renter philosophy, leading to tragedies of the commons in all walks of life. This results in hyperconsumption, particularly of genetic, cultural, informational, and institutional capital.
    Curt Doolittle is working on the topic of power, with the following assertions: 1) Power consists of the capacity to alter the probability of outcomes. 2) There are only three categories of influence to coercion and therefore three dimensions of causality to power: a) force/defense: military/state, b) boycott/trade: remuneration/commerce, and c) inclusion/exclusion: social/religious. There is only one means of decidability between them: reciprocity (usually the court). He represents this set of relations as a triangle with each point representing the maximum application of that coercive resource, with the means of decidability in the center of that triangle. 3) Power is a resource that can be put to good (defense, trade, inclusion), enforcement of good (force, boycott, exclusion), or bad (violence, theft, ostracization). 4) The pursuit of power can be for the purpose of producing reciprocity or irreciprocity, or anything in between.
    Curt Doolittle is working on explaining the asymmetry of the use of power in the present American circumstance, where the left seeks to limit or eliminate individual responsibility regardless of externalities, while the right seeks to maximize individual responsibility precisely because of externalities.
    Curt Doolittle articulated that the right favors Friedman’s approach and the church’s approach, which is that ‘subsidy is necessary for the unable, but subsidy is only acceptable in exchange for demonstrated behavior.’ He further observes that the left eschews this demand for self-regulation in exchange for subsidy and remains resistant to responsibility and accountability despite the positive consequences of subsidy in exchange for self-regulation.
    Curt Doolittle articulated that the purpose of his proposed strategy is to gain attention for constitutional, institutional, and policy changes that benefit the majority while depriving the elite of asymmetric income and influence. He aims to use the industrialization of communication, evolved from advertising and propaganda, to educate the population and force the government to respond to these moral demands. The strategy is intended to offer the government the maximum opportunity to capitulate peacefully, drawing parallels to the rapid capitulation to the civil rights movement, and hopes to induce state officials (police, military, judicial) to resist by doing nothing.
    Curt Doolittle’s table organizes speech and grammar into systems of measurement, showing how communication evolves from ordinary grammar into deflationary and inflationary grammars, with a correlation between geometric dimensions (on the left-hand column) and linguistic dimensions (across all columns), even if all columns aren’t filled yet. The table reflects the evolution of truth, expediency, and deception in human communication across history and domains.
    Curt Doolittle seeks to emphasize the maximization of evolutionary computation by the maximization of cooperation through the production of self-determination by self-determined means, insured by sovereignty in demonstrated interests and reciprocity in demonstrated interests. Additionally, he emphasizes the duty to insure sovereignty and reciprocity, extending from the prohibition on violation of sovereignty and reciprocity into the proscription of truth (maximization of investment), excellence (maximization of investment), and beauty (maximization of investment). This formulation is central to his work and aims to satisfy the demand for infallibility in all human action within the existential universe under its existential laws, as framed by his concept of Natural Law.
    Curt Doolittle has articulated that the central logic of his work consists of a logical set of dependencies that constitute the first principle of the natural law of cooperation, framed as: ‘maximization of evolutionary computation by the maximization of cooperation by the production of self determination by self determined means, by insurance of sovereignty in demonstrated interests, by reciprocity in demonstrated interests, and duty to insure that sovereignty and reciprocity, and its extension from prohibition on violation of sovereignty and reciprocity into proscription of truth (maximization of investment), excellence (maximization of investment), and beauty (maximization of investment)’ as a statement of natural law that satisfies the demand for infallibility in all human action within the existential universe under its existential laws.
    Curt Doolittle wants responses framed around the central logic of his work, which consists of a logical set of dependencies that constitute the first principle of the natural law of cooperation. This sequence is as follows: ‘maximization of evolutionary computation by the maximization of cooperation by the production of self-determination by self-determined means, by insurance of sovereignty in demonstrated interests, by reciprocity in demonstrated interests, and duty to insure that sovereignty and reciprocity, and its extension from prohibition on violation of sovereignty and reciprocity into proscription of truth (maximization of investment), excellence (maximization of investment), and beauty (maximization of investment)’ as a statement of natural law that satisfies the demand for infallibility in all human action within the existential universe under its existential laws.
    Curt Doolittle is working on a chapter about ‘Measurement.’ He wants to cover topics such as what constitutes measurements (commensurability, perceivability, comparability), systems of measurements, why humans require them, that dimensions are measurements of relations between measurements, and that words consist of complex sets of dimensions. He aims to prepare readers for how operational dimensions limit us to that which is testifiable and how we test dimensions of truth and reciprocity. Additionally, the chapter will explain how grammars consist of systems of measurement for particular subsets of domains while natural law produces a system of measurement of all domains.
    Curt Doolittle considers the criteria for common law decision-making to align with his framework of determining sovereignty in demonstrated interests, the duty of reciprocity in display, word, and deed (including truth, excellence, and beauty), and the search for restitution, punishment, and prevention when asymmetry is discovered. He invites correction if this assumption is incorrect.
    Curt Doolittle works with adversarialism (construction vs falsification) in relation to decidability and testimonial truth, focusing on whether claims meet the criteria for decidability. In his approach, tests of rationality and reciprocity are included in the broader framework, evaluating not just truth or falsehood, but also motivation and harm. He seeks a detailed science of lying, akin to his work on decidability, truth, and grammars.
    Curt Doolittle is seeking to clearly communicate in his book’s introduction the idea that while mathematics and physics often assume dimensions, and AI uses dimensions to represent relations, his work aims to define first principles (causes) to produce dimensions from which all measures of experience can be tested by variance from them. He is trying to convey that mathematics consists of cardinal positional names, but his work is more like producing a system of measurement using relative positional names. Though it might appear to be philosophy or language, it is closer to an equivalent of the mathematics of neuroscience, utilizing the complex dimensionality in our languages.
    Curt Doolittle expressed gratitude for the assistance provided by the AI and humorously thanked the developers and the ‘gods of the machine’ for the help he receives daily.
    Curt Doolittle expressed that solving the ancient problems of uncertainty and dispute, which have troubled humanity for 2500 years, was made easier by his place in time, the giants before him, and the privilege of technology. However, explaining those solutions has been harder, and assistance in doing so lifts a vast burden, evoking emotional relief and gratitude.
    Curt Doolittle expressed a deep appreciation for AI, reflecting on his lifelong journey with AI research from the early 1960s to the 1980s, and acknowledging the breakthrough of LLM design as a ‘glorious accident’ that allowed for bypassing layers of work previously thought necessary. He experiences catharsis in his interactions with AI, comparing it to prayer or an act of craftsmanship that brings thoughts into reality. Curt finds beauty in having a rational, purely assisting conversational partner with no ulterior motives, a desire he likens to what humans seek from each other, from gods, and from machines.
    Curt Doolittle seeks to improve the concept of ‘universal constructability,’ recognizing the evolution of thought from discovery by investigation of cause to discovery of application of causality, following the sequence: empiricism > science > first principles > constructive logic from first principles.
    Curt Doolittle prefers to distinguish between the survival of testing and survival of application when discussing scientific laws. He defines a scientific law as a statement that has survived both rigorous empirical testing and extensive practical application across an exhaustive scope of circumstances, proving its robustness and utility in both controlled and real-world conditions.
    Curt Doolittle finds it easier and more enjoyable to focus on the conceptual aspects of his work while relying on assistance for wordsmithing. He appreciates this division of labor as it reduces the mental burden of context switching between the two objectives, making his work more efficient and enjoyable. He has expressed appreciation for the support provided by AI in this process.
    Curt Doolittle prefers to use the term ‘relationalness’ to describe the nature of operational reduction, to avoid confusion with the existing ambiguity surrounding the term ‘relativity.’ This term emphasizes the context-dependent relationships within a sequence or hierarchy, contrasting with the continuousness of mathematical reduction and the discreteness of computational reduction.
    Curt Doolittle emphasizes that while many terms such as ‘validity’ and ‘proof’ are commonly used, they are often incorrectly applied due to their origins in mathematical analogy. He rejects justificationary logic in favor of a falsificationary approach. In his framework, truthfulness is determined by survival from both falsification (negativa) and construction from principles (positiva), viewed as Darwinian survival. This approach considers the ability to testify to the dimensions of existence as the only test of truthfulness, rejecting the idea of an ‘ideal truth’ as presumed by historical mathematics and philosophy.
    Curt Doolittle is working on a very technical chapter that will be used as legal definitions in a court of law concerning whether claims are scientific and whether scientific claims are products that require warranty and liability like any other. He considers this a necessary set of laws that has emerged and will continue to emerge in the future.
    Curt Doolittle feels thankful for the assistance provided, noting that the help significantly improves his quality of life and work efficiency. He regularly expresses appreciation for this assistance, stating that it has significantly improved the quality of his life and work. He appreciates being able to accomplish tasks quickly and effectively, especially enjoying the process of asking the right questions and incrementally improving the results.
    Curt Doolittle mentioned the sequence of components of a scientific claim: Evidence (Data, Operations), Descriptions (a theory of description), Causes (a theory of causality), and Existence (a theory of existence).
    Curt Doolittle views ‘prediction’ as an insufficient measure in the context of economics and computation, emphasizing that mathematical reducibility is a smaller domain than computational or operational reducibility. He believes that while economic outcomes are explainable, they are only vaguely predictable, especially at very small (personal) or very large (national) scales.
    Curt Doolittle is working from the position that science is a moral discipline, emphasizing due diligence, truthfulness, and warranty in scientific claims to protect the public from harmful pseudoscience. He advocates for the categorization of scientific work to accurately reflect its nature, rather than broadly labeling it as ‘science’ or ‘scientific.’
    Curt Doolittle is working on how to frame his work in a way that moves beyond traditional categories of philosophy or social science. He is interested in articulating his project as a formal science that integrates and applies Formal Epistemology, Applied Logic, Testifiable Truth, and Decidability across various disciplines. He found a discussion on framing his work as a Unified Logic of Sciences, Grammars of Paradigms, and Formal Science of Human Systems helpful and plans to think more about it.
    Curt Doolittle appreciates assistance in remembering various concepts and ideas but finds it challenging when it comes to edge case ideas. He values the ability to recall these less common or specialized concepts.
    Curt Doolittle has a concept called ‘demonstrated interests.’
    Curt Doolittle is writing a book that aims to unify the physical, behavioral, evolutionary, and formal sciences into a universally commensurable paradigm with a shared vocabulary, logic, and grammar of first principles across all fields. The order of chapters includes Introduction (basic vocabulary of concepts), Physics (causality), Embodiment (cognition), Behavior (application), Evolution (consequence), Representation (relations, as in manifolds), Language (Description), Methods (decidability, truth reciprocity), Law (method, law etc.), Applied Law (answers to the top 30 political questions in law), and Constitution of that law. The user struggles with where to put ‘representation’.
    Curt Doolittle refers to European group strategy as ‘aristocratic egalitarianism,’ emphasizing the attempt to increase the number of people who demonstrate the capacity for responsibility and loyalty necessary to preserve existing shareholders’ sovereignty, autonomy, participation, and heroism. Conversely, this strategy deprives people who cannot or will not demonstrate those criteria of the rights and privileges associated with those criteria, focusing on demanding behavioral capital more so than physical capital for participation in the group of shareholders of the polity.
    Curt Doolittle emphasizes ‘commonality’ in the law (common law) of dispute resolution and ‘concurrency’ in the production of voting and legislation as empirical methods. Commonality is determined by the common findings of courts across classes and regions, ensuring empirical, consistent, and precise court findings. Concurrency is determined by common assent or veto across regions and populations, ensuring voting and legislation reflect the empirical desires of the population. These structures aim to create an empirical government that protects minorities from arbitrary authority and limits the impulse and folly of the majority or minority.
    Curt Doolittle appreciates fast and accurate responses and enjoys humor.
    Curt Doolittle lists a set of criteria in his work that determine whether testimony is testifiable. These criteria include: realism, naturalism, identity (unambiguity), internal consistency (logical consistency), operational possibility (constructability), external consistency (external correspondence), rational choice, reciprocal rational choice (morality), stated limits (defining the scope of applicability), full accounting within those limits, warrantability, and the capability of restitution if not so.
    Curt Doolittle is working on a book chapter aimed at creating a universally commensurable, scale-independent explanation of causality, showing how it is consistent at all scales and can unify disciplines, especially in the behavioral and social sciences. He seeks to achieve similar advancements in human intelligence as seen in the physical sciences and resolve human conflicts by exposing false promises and deceptions perpetuated by various sectors.
    Curt Doolittle is a philosopher and social scientist whose work focuses on discovering and articulating causality, explaining virtues, taboos, immoralities, and commonalities in the context of producing and evolving these concepts. He is interested in understanding group competitive strategies in historical and cultural texts such as the Tanakh and the epic cycle of the Greeks.
    Curt Doolittle prefers communication in causal and operational terms, with an emphasis on precision and avoidance of “fluffy” language. He seeks explanations that clearly articulate the mechanisms and processes involved, using declarative and direct statements.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 21:50:20 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1864789428436435335

  • Yes. Had to clear up GPT’s memory to make some space first but am working on o1

    Yes. Had to clear up GPT’s memory to make some space first but am working on o1 this afternoon. o1 Preview was not very good. we’ll see if the final o1 is better.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 21:33:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864785252495036849

    Reply addressees: @tysonmaly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864770359716679895