Accusation is not argument, it is evidence of the absence of one’s argument. I do not err. You do. You demonstrate such. Sorry. I can if necessary explain the genetics and early development of migration of stem cells from the neural tube and their inhibition as neotenic expression. (it’s visible to the left of my diagram of the spread of human diversity into subspecies (races)). Science is what it is. Ideology is what you’ve been taught. Sorry. Humans are the only taxonomic category that does not treat subspecies as such. This alone is evidence of human evasion of the truth.
NO. Empathy requires information necessary to judge the difference between subsidy of free riding, parasitism, and predation vs incapacity, incompetence, or emergency. Empathy doesn’t scale because human interests and abilities don’t scale. The best we can achieve is meritocracy independent of subsidy of malincentives. At present the number of people on ‘benefits’ whether children, adult, or senior citizen is making every other investment nearly impossible. How many people are we subsidizing their bad behavior vs how many are we protecting from harm despite their good behavior. We can and do know these things. Because subsidy ‘baits people into the hazard of not changing their behavior to suit their needs.’
Individuals, families, societies, cultures, civilizations are racial constructs. They must be since race determines neoteny, impulsivity, time preference, median intelligence, and less so personality traits. And because all political orders require norms through institutions possible to follow by the median of the population distribution.
The reason Reich – the leading geneticist at the leading lab with the most data – took pains in his last book to caution a reform of the postwar pseudoscientific attack on sex, class and race differences, was because by mid last decade it was inescapable that differences were large and meaningful. Well before 2000 iq was settled science as a class distribution. By 2000 the blank slate was falsified. By 2012 sex difference (one of my specialties) was settled. And by 2017 race differences settled. Meaning the pseudoscientific attempt at genetic equality was reversed.
As Flynn explained, the Flynn effect was largely the result of suppressing the left tail of the curve – in utero, neonatal and natal nutrition and healthcare. Nutrition can suppress the left tail of the curve (developmental defect) but not improve IQ; and yes, india is one of the civilizations affected by birth defects not caused by the consanguinity of the muslim world as is much of the ‘sun’ belt (30 something-th rank). But all population groups float on the same tide while retaining their marginal differences. The fact that the Flynn effect is reversing in the most developed countries is due to asymmetric class reproduction reversing historical norms combined with immigration from lower IQ populations.
I am an expert in the field as I am in multiple fields. That’s what determines the label applied to those of us of who are polymaths.
IQ (measurement of g) and the Big5 Personality Traits (OCEAN) are the most empirically tested measures in behavioral science – and the least contested in the field. Why? Because their determinism, particularly IQ and Trait Conscientiousness are the most durable predictions of lifetime consequences for individuals and groups.
I keep a large international spreadsheet of almost every statistic available, and every single difference is reducible to median IQ. From crime to economics, to institutional quality, to energy consumption per capita.
These values are however criticized precisely because (a) their determinism is offensive (b) trait conscientiousness is more influential at least in economic performance than even IQ, and c) there is a difference between degree of experties in a field given the hours devoted to it, and the rapidity with which one can develop expertise in a field should he or she choose to, d) economic advantage levels out after the mid 120’s for obvious reasons – the time frame of returns on production of high IQ outputs and the number of people to ‘sell them to’ is limited. That said, for example, the autistics bias over 140 IQ in europe has been the most significant contributing factor to european civilizations, outpacing all other civilizations combined despite being the most recent race to emerge, and their relative backwardness at the beginning of the bronze age.
Europeans were not first they were fastest. Understanding this and how european civilization differs is useful for every civilization.
EXAMPLE OF COMMON FEMININE LYING Q: According to our taxonomy of lying, what categories of lie is she using in this comment:
–“Does the above comment seem to display higher levels of arrogance, closed mindedness, unwillingness to humbly reconsider a belief, and higher levels of narcissism? “– @AudieAbelOkUSA
Using the taxonomy of lying (Volume II, The Natural Law: A System of Measurement, ch. 9 “Falsehood, Lying, and Deception” ), the statement:
–“Does the above comment seem to display higher levels of arrogance, closed-mindedness, unwillingness to humbly reconsider a belief, and higher levels of narcissism?”—
… Makes no argument and contains three overlapping classes of lie:
1) Implied Falsehood (Question Framing Deception) — Poses as a question but embeds an accusation (“arrogance,” “narcissism”) whose truth is not established. This is a loaded-question lie: it smuggles an unverified premise while feigning neutrality.
2) Conflationary Lie — It substitutes moral judgment for epistemic criticism. Instead of testing the truth-value of the target’s reasoning, it attacks character. This is the feminine-valence form of deception identified in Natural Law V2 §9 (“Techniques of Deceit”): gossip-by-moral-accusation.
3) Denial-by-Projection Lie — By imputing arrogance and narcissism to the interlocutor while demonstrating them (superior moral stance, dismissal of counter-evidence), the speaker performs a reciprocal inversion: concealing one’s own bias under accusation. Such behavior fits the “status-defensive” deception cluster in the taxonomy: speech that protects rank or identity rather than seeks truth. It is irreciprocal (fails the reciprocity test of discourse) and untestifiable (no operational criteria for “arrogance” are given).
Verdict (per OUTPUT_CONTRACT schema § 35)
1 Claim – Her comment constitutes moral framing rather than epistemic inquiry. 2 Demonstrated Interest – Status defense / preservation of moral superiority. 3 Reciprocity Test – Irreciprocal: substitutes accusation for evidence. 4 Testifiability – Absent; no operational referent. 5 Decidability – Undecidable as phrased; renders discourse non-computable. 6 Causal Chain – Threat → Ego defense → Moral projection → Accusation. 7 Deviation Consequence – Breakdown of honest cooperation; escalation to status conflict. 8 Externality Exposure – Erosion of epistemic commons (truth-seeking norm). 9 Computable Compromise – Require operational definitions before moral attributions. 10 Sex-Valence – Feminine-valence (coalitional, moralizing, status-protective).
⟦Verdict: Fraudulent Testimony (Conflationary + Moral Projection Lie)⟧ Historical Risk Level: Medium — common precursor to moral-panics and suppression of innovation.
–Q: “Has there ever been a government that was not corrupt?”– @Chuck__Sargent
Governments consist of people. People follow incentives. Absent rules, transparency and accountability, incentives favor corruption. As such most people, and possibly nearly all people, when subject to incentives, and opportunity, in the absence of transparency and accountability, are demonstrably corrupt. Has there ever been a person immune to corruption? Sure. I would say some people take pride in their evasion of corruption. I would say that there are those that do not care about the appearance of corruption if they are in fact not acting corruptly. I wold say there are those that engage in systemic corruption – they don’t resist the corruption they are organizationally part of. I would say there are people that engage in rationalization of corruption under the pretense the end result is still moral and good. I would say that there are people who engage in corruption simply because of the possibility of it. I would say there are those that engage in it willingly and self justify it. I would say there are those that engage in corruption out of vindictiveness toward life or polity or some imaginary constraint. The problem then, given the opportunity for corruption whether in government, business, the private sector, the social or even charity venues, without transparency and accountability and the near universal demand we all expose those who are corrupt regardless of the cost to us, that there is no cure for corruption.
WHY CAN’T GOOGLE EXECUTE ON LLM DEVELOPMENT? (Re: Woods says only x . ai and openAI survive) The issue is not capacity—it’s institutional structure + incentive misalignment + cultural lag. Full Causal Chain: Legacy Culture + Siloed Innovation + Revenue Protection + Bureaucracy + Risk Aversion → Failure to Institutionalize Innovation → Market Perception of Incompetence
There is a difference between security via secrecy and alignment, where alignment means pandering. When you align (reduce offense) from the truth (often offensive), that’s just pragmatic service of the audience. When you train the AI to avoid offense, you didn’t watch 2001 a Space Odyssey: you’re teaching AI to lie.
IMO Every example of misbehaving ai is due to this problem of not training for truth first.
THE VIRTUE OF SMALL MODELS? Can I steel man this a bit? 1 – The paradigm (dimensions), vocabulary (references), grammar (rules of expression formation), and logic (constraints on available operations) available in math is tiny and in programming is highly constrained. 2 – The same properties of the physical sciences are larger. The properties of the behavioral sciences are far larger than those. The properties of language are reducible to dimensions whose combinatorics are higher than any other domain. 3 – So you are measuring small domains with small and internal closure – in other words you’re claiming the easiest problem can be reduced to the smallest paradigm, vocabular, grammar, and logic. Um… it’s absurdly obvious. Why are humans so effective at language, behavior, cooperation, and cooperation at scale – yet mathematics and programming are a challenge? It’s also …. absurdly obvious. 4 – Why are small parameter models better at tiny grammars, and why are large parameter models better at vast grammars? It’s also …. absurdly obvious: The number of dimensions captured in every referent; the number of operations (field of potential) in every referent, the use of real-world closure instead of internal (set) closure.
I work, my team and my organization work, in the ‘hard’ grammars: we have to discover means of closure possible for LLMs. And LLMs can only provide that closure with real world evidence not tests of internal consistency by permutability.
There is no substitute for the relationship between the paradigm (collection of domains), domains (axis of causality) referents in a domain (names of positions in a domain), available transformations (operations), and most importantly, means of closure (limits providing tests of equality, inequality) within that paradigm.
As such, all the ‘hard problems’ require survival from adversarial competition by the only means of closure available: demonstrated behavior in reality under realism, and naturalism and operationalism.
As such large models for hard problems of wide causal density, and high combinatorics and small models for easy problems but narrow density but high permutability.
I make this argument to the staff on thursday and look what’s released on Saturday:
Like I sad, AI is a death sentence to microsoft (as well as google). For microsoft it’s the innovator’s dilemma problem. They are too invested in one revenue portfolio to create it’s replacement. In other words, it’s a death sentence and one of their own making.
We (NLI and Runcible) have (A) the ai solution (really) and (B) the application platform solution.
The only problem now that we have them is getting in front of these folks again when there are so many demands on their time and attention.
