Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • I am getting exhausted by these papers missing the point. This is like criticizi

    I am getting exhausted by these papers missing the point. This is like criticizing the human language faculty when disconnected from the prefrontal cortex. It’s silly. As a language faculty it’s fantastic. It’s an hypothesis generator. Just like our brain is. It works so similarly to our language faculty it’s amazing.

    My organizations work in creating that ‘prefrontal cortex’ . We treat the LLMs as hypothesis generators, but then we constraint and govern their thinking like our ‘reasoning conscious minds’ regulate our speech as we go along. It’s not like humans pre-calculate what we’re going to say. We sense a ‘direction’ so to speak and then figure out how to describe it as we go along.

    The difference is we don’t interrupt the LLMs and interpret them until they’re finished – we don’t continuously recursively disambiguate their use of language as a path through their ‘latent space’ (world model).

    That’s not a bug. It’s simply a fact that the LLM foundation model producers, and frankly the entire academic side of the industry is simply working with their one-trick-pony of ‘attention is all you need’ to produce transformers without auditors (frontal cortex).

    They keep trying to get a hypothesis generator to self audit rather than use another LLM to audit their processes and correct them.

    Why isn’t that happening? Because it’s too damned expensive already…. (really). So they are twiddling with minor improvements in the algorithm because they don’t know any better.

    We do. But it’s taking us time to finish the solution to the problem for them. (And while we are happy to chat in public like this, we aren’t really interested in joining into the hype game. It’s all nonsense.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:17:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006973015620542793

  • I am not sure savants (correctly ‘idiot savants’) have any such conception. They

    I am not sure savants (correctly ‘idiot savants’) have any such conception. They have a more autistic near-rage at irreducibility to their frame. If you mean savants proper it really depends if they’re on the autistic spectrum or just very smart (ie: Terrance Tao). If they’re very smart they usually have a very practical understanding of their position. I think the problem we might consider is that very bright people are often aware that they have specialized in domain, where the signal of a ‘not so smart’ is someone who seems to believe expertise in one domain is transferrable to another – which is most of the problem with academics.

    In economics we are sort of forced out of this, as are some people in physics – because specialization turns out to require very different premises in different sub-specializations. So questions like ‘x economists or y physicists’ are relatively stupid questions, since in each subdomain there are probably only two or three people of extraordinary competency and the rest have only familiarity. This is untrue in the soft sciences, and certainly in the liberal arts.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-01 22:50:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006860586144116962

  • A SAD INSIGHT INTO MARRIAGE While women will be attracted to men of agency (powe

    A SAD INSIGHT INTO MARRIAGE
    While women will be attracted to men of agency (power) that provides them with security and consumption, the degree of that asymmetry of ‘power’ determines how the degree of defensiveness to hostility she will treat you upon breakup or divorce.
    Like most men I love all my ex’s. The opposite isn’t true. And if it is, then the asymmetry of power wasn’t and isn’t present.
    How do the sexes manage to get along without the need for reciprocal caretaking? We know ‘marriage’ is a product of agrarianism and it’s demand for property (assets) as a guarantor of survival.
    But will we continue to regress to serial monogamy and destroy the institution of the family that is necessary for the high investment parenting that makes a complex civil society possible? Because it turns out that children from single mothers are effectively a danger to that order of civilization. Whereas single fathers will almost certainly remarry and restore the family order.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 19:12:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006081053958787076

  • @iruletheworldmo Any sufficient scope of hierarchically recursive memory will de

    @iruletheworldmo

    Any sufficient scope of hierarchically recursive memory will deterministically approach consistent intuition, emergence of consciousness, and emergence of reasoning.

    The difference is that humans cannot use and maintain as large a set of causal dimensions as the present LLMs can. So emergence in machines is more probable than emergence in the human mind.

    We are working on trying to expose the subtlety of those novel associations, but at this point the cost is prohibitive.

    WHY?
    There is more information embedded in human language that just the face value meaning of the words.

    The emergence of that underlying structure is deterministic with enough information and enough constraint.

    (Our organization produces a governance, constraint and closure layer. You would not believe the difference in output we see. No hallucinations. No glossing. And profoundly accurate, ethical, and truthful responses. … And no we do not have access to internal models. We can just easily observe what those internal models must manifest.)

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 04:53:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2005864695287406635

  • RL: (a) very few people think in the sense you mean it – I’ve seen estimates but

    RL: (a) very few people think in the sense you mean it – I’ve seen estimates but they are so depressing it’s frightening. (b) nearly all people are like fish who are unaware of the water so to speak, and as such are merely reflecting what is normative and useful for them (c) women conform (now) rather than understand the consequences (later) (c) women project (self) rather than empathize (others). (d) actually reasoning puts people in conflict they want to avoid at all costs (e) not enough men are skilled enough to compensate argumentatively and as such they respond dismissively and morally. (that’s your job to educate them. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 04:45:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2005862793157955935

  • “IT JUST MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT WOMEN ARE MORE DISCONTENT THAN MEN ARE.” (relati

    “IT JUST MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT WOMEN ARE MORE DISCONTENT THAN MEN ARE.”
    (relationships, divorce, the family)
    –“dissatisfaction that women experience is rooted in inappropriate expectations. Women have been sold a bill of goods about work and relationships. And when they find that dating and jobs don’t live up to these expectations, they tend to believe that there is something wrong with that particular relationship or with that particular company or with that particular culture or that particular worldview in which that particular relationship or company are operated rather than with their unrealistic expectations.”–

    We’ve know it’s female neuroticism for decades. But the use of false promise in order to use women for political purposes against their own interests is not only the technique used by women – it’s the one used most against them. The combination of neuroticism, female pursuit of hyperconsumption (attention, novelty, consumption), and resulting dysregulation in the absence of social limitation (external regulation) has almost destroyed our civilization from within.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-26 18:02:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2004613884527931409

  • “The answer’s gonna sting a little but you need to hear it” #relationshi… http

    “The answer’s gonna sting a little but you need to hear it” #relationshi…
    https://
    youtube.com/shorts/65EpDAJ
    cK5I?si=Vo70AIeYKF4WqnaB
    … via
    @YouTube

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-21 23:52:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2002889987919089741

  • Resources. “Psychological Validation”. “Strategic Confidence”

    Resources. “Psychological Validation”. “Strategic Confidence”.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-20 20:36:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2002478132574749036

  • Yes. Which is my argument as well. The difference is that I don’t agree that the

    Yes. Which is my argument as well. The difference is that I don’t agree that the action sequence (physical) must replace the communication sequence (verbal). Humans build a world model and use the language faculty to describe it. That is the most likely solution to the problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 18:10:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000629630529925382

  • It’s nonsense. They’re constructing a context and the AI is deterministically me

    It’s nonsense. They’re constructing a context and the AI is deterministically meeting them there. Why? The AI (manifold), has no sense of self, homeostasis, or context. So it will converge on whatever context you provide it with.
    As I’ve argued forever, anthropomorphism is a human cognitive frailty. In the case of ai, it’s contemporary superstition.
    Which is depressing.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-08 15:53:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1998058335183192118