Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • FWIW: Its more that I applied my analytic approach to art, and that it was the f

    FWIW: Its more that I applied my analytic approach to art, and that it was the first subtantive work I did, demonstrating anything can be disambiguated into first causes.
    Knowing how to analyze art is just like any other set of measurements we have produced.
    However, some of those measurements require knowledge of the technology and materials used in the producdtion, the skill of the craftsman in producing it, the time and place of that production, the movement (fashion) that it was influenced by, and whether or not its a canonical example of that movement.
    Interpreting the content and messaging does require some knowledge of history and usually of mythology. In other words some art, like some plays and some literature is conceptually dense.
    So, while we can state the science of evaluating art, and in doing so provide a map for investigating any given work, set of works, movement, etc. But it still takes a bit of work from there.
    However, like weapons training, the first 20% gets you 80% of the way there. 😉

    Reply addressees: @DanAnde23836316 @JarradDMartinez @ToddNQuick1

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 04:39:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643473390202765312

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643467873543925760

  • The smart money is on this going nowhere. IMO this might end up meaning ex-presi

    The smart money is on this going nowhere.
    IMO this might end up meaning ex-presidents can only be prosecuted by the congress just to prevent a repetition.
    Because the activist lawfare begun in the sixties has resulted in the supreme court reversing on lawfare cases and ending the practice – most notably on abortion and 2nd amendment. We’ve seen them end bureaucratic lawfare with constraints on regulators ending the managerial state. And now they have their sights set on lawfare in political prosecutions. I mean, I’m pretty confident that I’m not the only person thinking of the best Amicus Brief to submit to the court. And the argument I would make is merely the one outlined here. And as far as I know it’s a slam dunk for the court.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 04:18:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643468218709712898

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    The ‘experts’ are making the case that the narrower interpretation in NY is relevant, and that it’s meaningful. I am, and others will, make the case that its not a violation under federal and supreme court interpretation, and that it’s not meaningful. Why? Because it breaks the federal prohibition on prosecution of presidents unless for high crimes. Why? To prevent political prosecutions.
    So this case will be interesting in that it attempts to circumvent federal constraints on political prosecution of presidents past and present.
    In other words we should not have tolerated the prosecution of Clinton for his nonsense, nor trump for his nonsense. These are not high crimes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584

  • The smart money is on this going nowhere. IMO this might end up meaning ex-presi

    The smart money is on this going nowhere.
    IMO this might end up meaning ex-presidents can only be prosecuted by the congress just to prevent a repetition.
    Because the activist lawfare begun in the sixties has resulted in the supreme court reversing on lawfare cases and ending the practice – most notably on abortion and 2nd amendment. We’ve seen them end bureaucratic lawfare with constraints on regulators ending the managerial state. And now they have their sights set on lawfare in political prosecutions. I mean, I’m pretty confident that I’m not the only person thinking of the best Amicus Brief to submit to the court. And the argument I would make is merely the one outlined here. And as far as I know it’s a slam dunk for the court.

    Reply addressees: @mandisuzanne3 @GimelAnthony @crcwilkinson @JesseBWatters @dbongino

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 04:18:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643468218604847105

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    The ‘experts’ are making the case that the narrower interpretation in NY is relevant, and that it’s meaningful. I am, and others will, make the case that its not a violation under federal and supreme court interpretation, and that it’s not meaningful. Why? Because it breaks the federal prohibition on prosecution of presidents unless for high crimes. Why? To prevent political prosecutions.
    So this case will be interesting in that it attempts to circumvent federal constraints on political prosecution of presidents past and present.
    In other words we should not have tolerated the prosecution of Clinton for his nonsense, nor trump for his nonsense. These are not high crimes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584

  • KINGDOM OF WOMEN I’ve written about this group before. But there are very narrow

    KINGDOM OF WOMEN
    https://t.co/JDH17V8eOQ

    I’ve written about this group before. But there are very narrow conditions under where this works.
    (a) extreme poverty where women can do the physical labor (b) lack of competitors (c) export of men for labor or the death of men in war.
    In these communities, women run the household with sons, brothers, uncles etc, and men ‘visit’ between women’s households. The men take care of the heavy work like the animals, and women the rest.
    Now, if you’re an even vaguely competent economist, explain why this works for this rare circumstance and why it doesn’t work anywhere else? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-03 22:53:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643023928921653249

  • JUSTICE IS A “LIE-WORD” – AND THE LEFT LIES (justice vs fairness vs equality vs

    JUSTICE IS A “LIE-WORD” – AND THE LEFT LIES
    (justice vs fairness vs equality vs equity vs proportionality)
    Well technically speaking, as aristotle stated, and hayek confirmed, justice is unknowable (an ideal, not a real). Justice can occur in a particular (court case). But we then try to scale it as a dishonest pretention for ‘fairness’. And it can’t scale.

    The proper term for fairness is not equality, or equity, but proportionality (meritocracy). What we use instead of justice, fairness, equity, or equality is ‘pervasive reciprocity within the limits of proportionality’. That means do everything as morally as possible, but if morality starts causing people to ‘defect’ because they’re left behind or outcast, then we must work to restore proportionality.

    Why? everyone pays the ‘tax’ of not doing evil for participation in the reciprocal markets. What if I don’t do evil but I still can’t participate? Well that’s a market failure. Now the left wants to do evil. That said, is it true that we have violated proportionality?

    Of course it is. That’s why we have people not benefitting from our current state of development. The difference is, some of us know why that’s happening (rent seeking, corruption, free riding, labor arbitrage, investment arbitrage). And we (or at least I) know how to fix that problem to restore proportionality without violating reciprocity, but by restoring reciprocity.

    Only once we’ve restored reciprocity (elminated all the bads) will we know if there remains a violate of proportionality. And ingeneral, in anglo civilization, in germanic civilization, we strive to produce commons to reduces costs in perpetuity for all, instead of engaging in redistribution in the moment that doesn’t.

    The point is that we try to restore responsibliilty, As long as people are responsible (don’t do bads, and the left does bads), then we must provide a means of restoring proportionality.

    And there is no metric for it. We can only observe it in human behavoir. And then determine whether it’s because of a violation of proportionality, or it’s another leftist attempt at a crime.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-03 22:06:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643012132890456064

  • JUSTICE IS A “LIE-WORD” – AND THE LEFT LIES (justice vs fairness vs equality vs

    JUSTICE IS A “LIE-WORD” – AND THE LEFT LIES
    (justice vs fairness vs equality vs equity vs proportionality)
    Well technically speaking, as aristotle stated, and hayek confirmed, justice is unknowable (an ideal, not a real). Justice can occur in a particular (court case). But we then try to scale it as a dishonest pretention for ‘fairness’. And it can’t scale.

    The proper term for fairness is not equality, or equity, but proportionality (meritocracy). What we use instead of justice, fairness, equity, or equality is ‘pervasive reciprocity within the limits of proportionality’. That means do everything as morally as possible, but if morality starts causing people to ‘defect’ because they’re left behind or outcast, then we must work to restore proportionality.

    Why? everyone pays the ‘tax’ of not doing evil for participation in the reciprocal markets. What if I don’t do evil but I still can’t participate? Well that’s a market failure. Now the left wants to do evil. That said, is it true that we have violated proportionality?

    Of course it is. That’s why we have people not benefitting from our current state of development. The difference is, some of us know why that’s happening (rent seeking, corruption, free riding, labor arbitrage, investment arbitrage). And we (or at least I) know how to fix that problem to restore proportionality without violating reciprocity, but by restoring reciprocity.

    Only once we’ve restored reciprocity (elminated all the bads) will we know if there remains a violate of proportionality. And ingeneral, in anglo civilization, in germanic civilization, we strive to produce commons to reduces costs in perpetuity for all, instead of engaging in redistribution in the moment that doesn’t.

    The point is that we try to restore responsibliilty, As long as people are responsible (don’t do bads, and the left does bads), then we must provide a means of restoring proportionality.

    And there is no metric for it. We can only observe it in human behavoir. And then determine whether it’s because of a violation of proportionality, or it’s another leftist attempt at a crime.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-03 22:06:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643012132693213184

  • EMBEDDING P-LAW IN LLM’S: TURNS OUT, YES. All; So getting down in the weeds on t

    EMBEDDING P-LAW IN LLM’S: TURNS OUT, YES.
    All;
    So getting down in the weeds on the new LLMs, particularly GPT4. And the emergent properties are fascinating. It’s not self aware, and so self falsifying, or moral testing, but it *is* producing the equivalent ‘framing’ (paradigming) a context. The addition of reflection, and falsification (recursion) appears to work. And it’s clear the community understands the problem at this point but I’m not really sure why the solution to GPT’s “bad hypothesis’ problem isn’t obviously adversarial falsification, and recursion. I mean … what do you think the social function of our brains is? Predicting others behavior so that we falsify our own intuitionistic behaviors that are more selfish.
    This turns out to be another problem of CRD (continuous recursive disambiguation). In that the knowledge needed to ask an unambiguous question may not be present prior to the production of an ambiguous answer. 😉 Which is obviouvs – and that’s why discourse is necessary (and why we can be a bit ‘mad’ if we don’t have others to test our ideas against.
    So what does this mean for NLI and our formal algorithmic natural law of cooperation, economic ethics, morality, politics et all?
    It means that I SHOULD take time out to work on integrating NLI’s method, definitions, science, first principles, etc into one of the LLMs.
    But to do that means I have to complete the work on the first few articles of the constitution that formalize the rest of the ‘sciences’.
    I’m pretty sure that I could make GPTX write law. And even decide law – incrementally, recursively, untiil it could decide unambiguously.
    #AI

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-03 15:18:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642909406642708482

  • THE DISPROPORTIONATE SUCCESS OF LANGUAGE MODELS (reverse engineering turns out t

    THE DISPROPORTIONATE SUCCESS OF LANGUAGE MODELS
    (reverse engineering turns out to work)

    Kind of humorous that in training GPT we are running out of training data. 😉

    We have voice and image as well as text now. we are working on video.

    So I’ve always thought we’d have to start with embodiment and build up to language, but OpenAI uses language models to start with language and work backward – to embodiment (the set of possible physical, cognitive, and emotional changes in state.)

    But it turns out the number of parameters (like dimensions of language) needed is smaller than we thought.

    Similarly, developers are discussing the possible limit of tokens (input data) is limited.

    So, I wonder if we can simple reduce embodiment to a small number of parameters that describe all human possible changes in state, whether physical, or emotional, and possibly logicl.

    If that’s true then the ‘working backward from language’ might get us to AGI. And that’s … well, at least unexpected by me.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-31 14:36:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641811631381311490

  • THE DISPROPORTIONATE SUCCESS OF LANGUAGE MODELS (reverse engineering turns out t

    THE DISPROPORTIONATE SUCCESS OF LANGUAGE MODELS
    (reverse engineering turns out to work)

    Kind of humorous that in training GPT we are running out of training data. 😉

    We have voice and image as well as text now. we are working on video.

    So I’ve always thought we’d have to start with embodiment and build up to language, but OpenAI uses language models to start with language and work backward – to embodiment (the set of possible physical, cognitive, and emotional changes in state.)

    But it turns out the number of parameters (like dimensions of language) needed is smaller than we thought.

    Similarly, developers are discussing the possible limit of tokens (input data) is limited.

    So, I wonder if we can simple reduce embodiment to a small number of parameters that describe all human possible changes in state, whether physical, or emotional, and possibly logicl.

    If that’s true then the ‘working backward from language’ might get us to AGI. And that’s … well, at least unexpected by me.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-31 14:36:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641811631205130243

  • GREAT HEADLINE –“Goldman Sachs: Confidence in banks has been lost because of pl

    GREAT HEADLINE

    –“Goldman Sachs: Confidence in banks has been lost because of plumbing issues”–

    True. Anything driven by banks parking cash in fed bond prices is nonsense.

    The response rate of world governments since 2001, and much more so since 2008, has done a great job of preventing spirals. The world’s financial problems are substantial and will need to correct, especially if we see continued reduction of world patterns of transport and trade, as we continue to transform from USA-created world trade, back to ’empire networks’ of trade. And worse, as we see economic contraction impossible to pay down unfunded liabilities, combined with the declines(collapses) of population in the developed countries. There is a lovely perfect storm, that those of us who are contrarians (we predict where market cycles should collapse) have been consious of since as early as 92, but certainly by 04. And without either the USA figuring out how to tax the world to continue policing the seas, and ending the expnasionary ambitions of the three ‘evil empires’ remaining (russia, iran, china), its very difficult to see a world order that looks like the 20th instead of the 18th.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-31 01:55:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641620123239739392