(NLI vs RUNCIBLE)
At NLI we do research. Our goals our scientific, we produced the science of decidability and the natural law of cooperation, and our purpose is political: constitutional, legal, and policy reform.
At Runcible we apply our research into the natural law of cooperation, and our goals are entrepreneurial, economic, and social. We build a platform close to an operating system or shell, that is universal, and deeply infused with our work in training AIs to be mentors and counselors, and if necessary, therapists.
I launched both organizations at the same time – in 2012. The unfundable (NLI) vs the fundable (Runcible). The war in ukraine, pneumonia, and the need to produce the NLI work in scientific terms for an AI, and the coincidence of the 2017 paper on LLMs with the final cure of my pneumonia allowed us to finish the research just about the time that the LLMs reached reasonable maturity (Now) sufficient for use in our product.
That said I’m concerned as I always will be that the means by which I conducted research at NLI – admittedly the equivalent of animal research on humans using the new ‘testing’ technology of social media and our development of ‘king of the hill games’, to extract ‘demonstrated behavior’ rather than the major failing of social science ‘reported behavior’ – allowed us to use linguistic analysis and revolutions in neuroscience to produce what is the most complete operational construction of human behavior from its first causes.
Now, something I should have accounted for but did not, is the sex and therefore moral and political differences, and how the conservative, right wing, masculine, systematizing, disagreeable personalities were the best study subjects because regardless of their motives and ability they do not give up in an argument, they are less likely to use rallying to escape the argument, they do not care what others think and therefore speak (testify) more accurately, and they attempt to use systematic argument even if its been systematized into one of the four major fictionalisms and most of all they rely on historical example.
But once you realize the sexes and therefore political wings that reflect them use polar opposite techniques on the empathizing vs systematizing spectrum and on the responsibility vs irresponsibility spectrum, and risk tolerance spectrum it becomes easy to observe one behavior of one sexual cognitive bias and look for it’s expression and causes in the other sexual bias.
So while male advocacy for their moral bias uses one strategy, the access to it, gives us insight into the female advocacy, which we can then test and explain systematically despite it’s apparent emotional framing.
However, this means that the best research is done on the right because it’s most accessible at infinite depth and breadth. And as such we have been associated with the right even if they are largely our critics.
Conversely, we should note that the right may not be verbally intellectual in their bias but they are evidentially empirical in it. So while their definitions of problems and their suggested solutions are often hyperbolic it turns out they are correct in identification of the problems and solutions if moderated wheres the left is quite literally always wrong.
Empathizing cannot survive because it cannot scale as it is ignorant of that beyond its perception and like a mother anticipates the best of human beings (children) despite the evidence that the left is systematically the exploiter of human naivety and beneficence.
How do we separate painful political truths, from beneficial social and entrepreneurial truths? Or is our commercial venture tainted by the m eans by which we did our research? Despite the means of our research being revolutionary and successful in solving the unification of the sciences?
Thanks
Curt Doolittle