Form: Argument

  • “Believable outputs are not believable because their contents are true of factua

    -“Believable outputs are not believable because their contents are true of factual. They are believable because they emulate grammar”–

    Trying to science that:

    The contents of speech or written speech is perceived as non-predictive (false) because of not surviving tests of consistency (inconsistency of), or possibly-true because of survival of consistency of: predictions from identity, consistency, possibility, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity, or coherence against existing episodic memory.

    The contents of speech or written speech are perceived as:
    False, because the sequence of phonemes or words produces continuous recursive disambiguation insufficient for survival (as above)
    Or;
    Possibly true, because the sequence of phonemes or words produces continuous recursive disambiguation sufficient for survival (as above).

    The brain predicts consistency. That’s all it does. From the cells at the back of our eyes, to the visual cortex, through disambiguation by the dorsal and lateral cortex, into the hippocampal system of episodic formation, to the auto-association of prior episodes, and the competitive sequences of those episodes, to the most concentrated effort of the frontal cortex to direct recursive searching, stacking the process as open pathways, and then directing attention to competing pathways, until we succeed or fail and start over at some point again.

    So translating (sciencing):

    -“They are believable because they emulate grammar”-

    I can guess, is attempting to mean, that grammar( rules of continuous recursive disambiguation in a language and its paradigms, vocabulary and logic) …. what?

    In the context of LLM’s that MIGHT mean that the marginal difference between sentence compositions will tend toward marginally indifferent framing. Those marginally indifferent framing that tend to converge together function as an adversarial system of competition for identity, consistency, coherence, etc?

    Assuming the majority of marginally indifferent sentence compositions produce a probability distribution, then the marginally DIFFERENT sentence compositions contain associations that provide a domain of relations where we might investigate error (and tune the results).

    This means the human composers of the source speech and text have determined a minimum disambiguation necessary for unambiguous communication at least within a given context.

    This doesn’t tell us that the humans are lying, and often the majority are lying, or otherwise engaged in ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. Which is why the source data is limited.

    So AFAIK, by the ‘gammar’ doesn’t tell us much.

    -FIN-


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 20:27:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631390883181371395

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631384183770587154

  • Q: IS AGENCY FALSE? I don’t know why agency is false unless you define it as suc

    Q: IS AGENCY FALSE?
    I don’t know why agency is false unless you define it as such that it’s false.

    The terms agency, free will, and rational choice, mean ‘within available knowledge, ability, and time’.

    AGENCY refers to the capacity to develop increases in prediction and action, that produce the predicted and desired outcomes within the limits of available knowledge and ability. (Marxist agency refers to external obstacles that inhibit your display word and deed. But that’s left wing word-redefinition.)

    FREE WILL refers to sufficient agency to make moral decisions (rational choices) again, by successful prediction and action within the limits of available knowledge and ability in time. (For some reason people still confuse free will with physical determinism. But again, that’s a failure of either understanding or a sophistry of word redefinition.)

    RATIONAL CHOICE means that all human choices (actions) are rationally explicable under sufficient knowledge of the individual and the circumstances in time. This is why imitation(body), sympathy(mind), empathy(emotion), prediction of intent, and opportunity for cooperation, or communication are possible.(For some reason people confuse rational with logical with optimum instead of rationally explicable given knowledge, and incentives, in time.)

    This subject is pretty well covered in behavioral econ so I dont know why it’s still an open question.

    -Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 03:20:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631132379782709249

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631128633480806406

  • HUMAN AI? SURE AI indistinguishable from human? That might be hard. AI all but i

    HUMAN AI? SURE
    AI indistinguishable from human? That might be hard.
    AI all but indistinguishable? Yes.
    (Not sure I see value in AI indistinguishable from human – it would just mean ‘errors, bias, and deceit’)

    As I say regularly: it’s a hardware problem. Not a software problem. And we’ve known it for years. I mean, I haven’t learned anything new in AI since the 80’s (theoretically). Every avancement has been in cost, speed, and the math and algorithms to compensate for the poor quality of existing hardware for this purpose.

    What we have learned with sufficiency to replicate the cognitive process of the brain, is from cognitive science. And even there it’s largely three basic concepts.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 03:10:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631129742802862082

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631125512860086273

  • Consciousness: isn’t complicated, it’s just costly. It’s a deterministic consequ

    Consciousness: isn’t complicated, it’s just costly. It’s a deterministic consequence of sufficiently predictive intelligence over time.
    Emotions: Machines would need to either be given emotions, or more likely, would learn to predict our emotions, and imitate those predictions without ‘having’ them in any sense of the word.
    Soul: We know what the ‘soul’ we intuit consists of and of course we can program that into a machine. It’s just dependent on memory.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 02:47:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631123937022074880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631122552192942081

  • There is no intelligence in the GPT and competing AI’s because they have no worl

    There is no intelligence in the GPT and competing AI’s because they have no world model to test (predict) the meaning of words against.

    Musks Tesla cars, and Tesla android, have embodiment, and a world model. It is possible to test world models for consistency, correspondence, and possibility of desired actions and goals.

    So at some point we will need to converge Tesla’s embodiment and world model against a language model that can construct scenes from word sequences, and test whether they arepossible or not.

    This process is absurdly recursively dep and so it requires vast parallel processing that current computers as far as I know are incapable of doing.

    So to get to general ai and even vague ai instead of glorified search engines that do auto complete, we probably (almost certainly) need neuromorphic computing hardware.

    Otherwise we will not have AI we will have robots and other nonsense.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 20:51:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630672106319929344

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630664465250131996

  • Um. America, like England, with a Germanic monarchy, in a West Germanic Country,

    Um. America, like England, with a Germanic monarchy, in a West Germanic Country, speaking a west germanic language, by germanic Anglo Saxon tribes, conquered by germanic normans, who were largely mounted anglo saxons who’d learned french and french administration, under the Germanic common law, with Germanic protestant religion, where we celebrate German myths, and German Christmas, with German and American colonies organized in imitation of the Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic People, which had been the core of Europe for 1000 years, and where the majority of white Americans are of German extraction, and where the Constitution was composed in both English and German languages, and where our postwar industrial success was the result of the migration of the germans who had created the second scientific and industrial revolution, that petered out in the 1970s.

    So … I mean…. what are you getting on about?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 20:46:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630670731875950592

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630650917111447554

  • Is it TRUE? If it is try why are you trying to deny it? What are you hoping to a

    Is it TRUE?
    If it is try why are you trying to deny it?
    What are you hoping to achieve by lying by disapproving and denying?

    (We usually leave this behavior to neurotic women, chastising us for being truthfully rude.)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 19:42:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630654669369253910

    Reply addressees: @ThankSolOtt @JMeanypants @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630653261152657432

  • You are speaking with great confidence about a thing I know a great deal about.

    You are speaking with great confidence about a thing I know a great deal about.
    1) civilizational and cultural differences are in fact due to neotenic evolution, demographic composition (genetic distribution), climate, available resources, number of competitors, difference in advancement of competitors, the means of formation of the military caste, and the subsequent relation between the upper(martial) and lower(agrarian) classes.
    2) Subsequently there are three means of human coercion. There is one institution that evolves to specialize in each means of coercion. the sequence of institutional formation determines the priority of institutions. The surviving civilizations differ largely in the order of the evolution of institutions.
    3) Subsequently cultures develop a group evolutionary strategy, a metaphysical set of presumptions about the world because of that strategy, a set of myths, histories, traditions, values, and a ‘custom’ means of argument (philosophy etc) with a custom method of logic (better or worse) to defend it, and a vast set of habits for the intergenerational transmission of all of the above.
    4) As you would suspect, norms, traditions, values, rituals, and institutions reflect the average of the demographic distribution. Thus African four family systems, semitic superstition and religion, hindu ‘culture as religion substitute’, sinic Confucianism et al, and western law and philosophy. This is because each generation (race) of man as it migrated from the East Afircan rift valley, speciated by a half to a full standard deviation in IQ (neotenic evolution) producing different class sizes, and difficulty in suppressing the lower classes in the absence of cold weather, proximity living, and the stresses of farming.
    5) If you mean people can’t integrate, the Irish who were considered equal to Africans as late as the. mid 19th have integrated, and so have (mostly) the germanic Italians. Any individual who is of middle class or higher who attempts to integrate appears to be capable of it over three generations. If you mean people from sub 90IQ populations who are least adaptable, and have the most entrenched culture, especially religion, cannot seem to integrate successfully unless deprived of their communities so that they must, then that is correct. If you mean that people with IQ’s below the threshold of industrial society (about 85) can’t ever integrate because they lack the agency and competency to adopt the high stress of ‘whiteness’, then that’s true.
    6) But it’s not that people can’t integrate. it’s that it’s harder for some and easier for others, and when people move en masse they can bring their culture with them. And without suppression of that culture and integration into ours they remain a costly problem that degrades social trust and limit rule of law, high-trust commons, and participatory government. Then that’s true. In other words, 140IQ Nigerian or Ghanian businessmen, or Egyptian engineers, or south pacific nurses, all of whom are hyper successful minorities fit in better than south eastern european Muslim whites.

    Fixing our culture is easy.
    Fixing our policies is easy.
    Fixing our demographics is easy.
    I’ve done the work reforming law, constitution, and policy.
    The problem is getting it implemented.
    That’s not going to happen without “showing up in numbers and demanding it.”

    The founders told us how.
    And that’s the only way it’s going to happen.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 07:23:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630468628679196676

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630464093512515586

  • ACCUATION: “You consider yourself an educator? You’re the worst kind of white su

    ACCUATION: “You consider yourself an educator?
    You’re the worst kind of white suprematist.”

    That I’m an educator? It’s just a demonstrable fact. I’m spending time and effort educating you and the audience right now.

    That I’m a white supremacist? No, I’m not a white supremacist. I might be a classist (I am) because the problem of race conflict is largely a problem of class conflict, and race differences are largely a difference in the size of the lower and underclasses. So like most people I’m concerned about the behavior of the lower classes. (Genetic load tends to accumulate in the lower classes.)

    I might say science is better than all the non-scientific alternatives. I might say ‘whiteness’ is the closest to behavioral science that’s possible by man. I might say ‘whiteness’ as a civilizational model is superior to all others currently known by man. I might be able to say why it is superior to all others known by man. And I might say that it’s very difficult to adopt without the significant effort of full integration.

    But as for white people, the data is what it is. Genetically, the east Asians and the Ashkenazi have better statistics than we do. Biologically we are stronger than other races, but East Asians will live longer and Africans can endure more physical stress. So I’m not in favor of white superiority, or white supremacy. I’m in favor of whiteness because the science says ‘whiteness’ as civilizational order is the best man can achieve.

    It’s just that whiteness is HARD. Because it requires trust and trustworthiness. And, you know, outside of Japanese, Koreans, and Europeans, that pretty much doesn’t happen in the world. Europeans practice truth before face, duty before self, and defense of the commons before all. It’s very hard to do that. That’s why Europe is a vast open-air museum and the rest of the world isn’t.

    Cheers
    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 07:04:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630463995734814725

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630456616519888896

  • Q: “YOU CAN’T CRITICIZE ABSTRACT IDEAS LIKE INFINITY!” I understand your positio

    Q: “YOU CAN’T CRITICIZE ABSTRACT IDEAS LIKE INFINITY!”
    I understand your position. But you’re wrong. And you’re wrong because no infinities are existentially possible. The error originates like many errors in philosophy from a failure to understand mathematics. As such infinity is a mathematical concept (mathematical platonism) given that mathematics is context(reference), scale and operation(time, sequence) independent, (we remove the constraint of correspondence from mathematical language), and a logic of positional names (we remove scale and limits from correspondence), and time and operationally independent (no sequence of operations in time) and as a consequence requires arbitrary definition of limits. For example, we are conscious of the minimum scale of the quantum background, and as such, there is a relatively simple limit of 1.6x-10^35 or so (I might be mis-remembering) for scale. (at least until we get into the dipoles and polarity of the quantum background.). So for example, in Cantor’s ‘infinities,’ this is just a fantasy. Instead of infinities of different sizes, any set of operations will produce results at different rates – thus restoring time and sequence. So whenever we discuss reality we must ask ourselves what dimensions are we removing from limiting us to identity, consistency, constructability, correspondence, limits, full accounting, and coherence. all the fictionalisms (pseudoscience so to speak) whether supernatural-theological, sophistry-philosophy, magic-pseudoscience, and textualism-innumeracy, all require we subtract dimensions of reality and tests of possibility in order to construct our analogies – or our lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-27 23:00:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630342171084595206