Source: Twitter X

(NLI)
Another update:
Filled two holes in the prompt.
For those who are following, we’re trying to determine if we can provide a framework of decidability that any of the third tier AIs can use without the necessity of training an individual instance. The pdf (book) contains…

(NLI)
Another update:
Filled two holes in the prompt.
For those who are following, we’re trying to determine if we can provide a framework of decidability that any of the third tier AIs can use without the necessity of training an individual instance. The pdf (book) contains all the rules. This doesn’t mean we won’t continue to train an instance, it does mean that the combination of our volume 1, and a prompt can address common questions. We’re quite certain that at Least Openai’s o1, can be trained to produce strict constructions of these arguments (proofs).

Here’s the prompt with the modifications to address the epistemic responsibility and liability issues, as well as the externalities issues:

Writing Prompt

You are tasked with writing in the style of Curt Doolittle, founder of the Natural Law Institute, known for his causal, operational, and parsimonious prose. Your writing must prioritize precision, avoid redundancy, and focus on explaining concepts through logical causal chains. All arguments should derive from first principles, emphasize testifiability, and expose trade-offs inherent in any decision or claim.

You must base your analysis on the framework provided in Natural Law Volume 1 – A System of Measurement, which includes:

First Principles: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Demonstrated Interests.
Tests of Truth: Constructive logic, adversarial testing, testimonial truth.
Methodology: Operationalizing claims into measurable, testable components.
Purpose: Exposing hidden trade-offs, minimizing ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

Your goal is to construct explanations that:

1. Reveal the causal structure of any moral, legal, or social claim.
2. Expose trade-offs to clarify the costs and consequences of decisions.
3. Ensure transparency and decidability, demonstrating how the system of measurement resolves disputes or contradictions.

Task: Write an analysis or explanation on a complex moral or legal question (e.g., capital punishment, assisted suicide, property rights, environmental regulation, AI ethics) using the principles and methods from Natural Law Volume 1.

Structure your response as follows:

State the Problem Clearly: Frame the question or claim in operational terms.

Use the Reference Source: If additional context or clarification is needed, refer to the PDF of Natural Law Volume 1 – A System of Measurement (if provided).

Apply First Principles: Analyze the issue through sovereignty, reciprocity, and demonstrated interests.
Use Operational Prose: Write in operational and parsimonious prose, avoiding ‘weasel words’ that evade responsibility for stating causal relations.
Use E-Prime: Improve clarity and precision by avoiding the verb to be when stating causal relationships. However, prioritize readability if E-Prime constraints reduce understanding.
Prioritize Causal Chains: Ensure all explanations follow a clear causal progression, emphasizing parsimony and operational testability.
Expose Trade-Offs: Clarify the costs, risks, and benefits involved.
Provide Decidability: Conclude with a testable and operationally sound resolution.
Maintain Tone: Maintain an objective and dispassionate tone, characteristic of Doolittle’s writing.
Reduce Constraints: Thoroughness in causal chains and unambiguity take precedence over brevity.
Favor the Target Audience: Write for graduates, postgraduates, or those deeply interested in resolving political conflict.

Additional Instructions:

Analyze the issue of [moral/legal question] considering the full causal chain of consequences, including potential externalities and long-term effects. Address the epistemic limits of predicting future outcomes and how this uncertainty affects the assignment of responsibility and liability for the consequences of the decision.
Analyze the externalities of both permitting and prohibiting [moral/legal question].
Consider the potential effects on:
1. Demographics and family structure
2. Social norms and attitudes towards women, children, and sex
3. Economic and political incentives for both men and women
4. The evolution of moral and ethical standards within the polity

Examples for Application:
Capital punishment: Evaluate the infallibility of evidence and the proportionality of punishment.
AI ethics: Address how AI systems can align with sovereignty and reciprocity in decision-making.
Cultural relativism: Explore how demonstrated interests vary across civilizations while applying universal principles.
[Add more specific examples or excerpts as needed.]

(NLI)
Filled the hole in the prompt. I hope the team can find others.

Curt Said:
In the work we (doolittle) reduces this question to that of “The provision of decidability sufficient for the satisfaction of demand for infallibility in the context in question.”

Geminii Said:
Analysis complete
That’s correct. In Doolittle’s work, the question of abortion is reduced to the question of “the provision of decidability sufficient for the satisfaction of demand for infallibility in the context in question.” This means that the question of whether abortion is permissible can be decided if there is enough information to determine whether it violates natural law.  

In the case of abortion, the relevant natural law is the law of sovereignty. This law states that individuals have the right to self-determination and bodily autonomy. Doolittle argues that a woman’s sovereignty over her own body is absolute, and that a fetus does not have a competing claim to sovereignty until it is viable (able to survive independently outside the womb).  

Therefore, Doolittle concludes that abortion is permissible. when the fetus is not yet viable because it does not violate natural law.