Theme: AI

  • ONCE WE PUBLISH CHATGPT CAN HELP EXPLAIN OUR WORK –“Q: I assume you will post o

    ONCE WE PUBLISH CHATGPT CAN HELP EXPLAIN OUR WORK
    –“Q: I assume you will post once Volume one is available. I’d like to purchase one ASAP.”–

    Of course. But again, our work is quite technical. Though we strive to make it as accessible as possible. Thankfully ChatGPT knows…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-26 19:44:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1861496186961797189

  • Of course. But again, our work is quite technical. But we strive to make it as a

    Of course. But again, our work is quite technical. But we strive to make it as accessible as possible. Thankfully ChatGPT knows our work, and if you get stuck in the book it can explain it to you.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-26 19:35:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1861493934058545508

    Reply addressees: @AllDeadPrezzys @orion_pulse @EMichaelJones1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1861491159379718510

  • AN AUTHOR’S FRUSTRATION WITH THE LIMITS OF ANTHROPIC’S CLAUDE @AnthropicAI #Clau

    AN AUTHOR’S FRUSTRATION WITH THE LIMITS OF ANTHROPIC’S CLAUDE
    @AnthropicAI #Claude
    1) Claude is much better at writing than its competitors. There is no comparison. GPT is infinitely better all around than competitors, but Claude’s composition is better than competitors.

    2) Despite paying the fee:
    … (a) I hit the message limit after a trivial number of exchanges in a chat. I can’t even make it through reviewing a third of a chapter before hitting that limit.
    … (b) the same is true for chat length. I can’t even upload the set of chapters for Claude to ‘understand’ before I hit the chat limit. This results in Claude recommending what’s covered in later chapters – and this dramatically impacts the rest of the recommendations, rendering each section reviewed as pointless.

    3. NET: I would prefer to use Claude to help me write for publication, because Claude’s production of readable prose despite the complexity of my work, is in fact superior. But it’s pointless because the context window is simply too small to assist in more than ‘marketing and email spam’.

    Why this limit in Claude? I don’t hit the limit in ChatGPT and even then it updates it’s memory to retain a general understanding of my work. So starting a separate chat to continue is relatively easy.

    Color me sad so to speak. But you know, MS/OpenAI are closing in on ‘infinite memory’ at present. And that’s without their (a) pursuit of step-by-step reasoning (b) followed by recursion (self testing) (c) followed by adversarial competition between responses. At that point, it’s over. Other than neuromorphic hardware that gets over the cost of training, and awareness of evolution of global state (‘consciousness’) that’s all that’s required for GAI.

    FWIW: My workflow consists of Grok (current activity), Perplexity (research papers), ChatGPT (writing) and when possible Claude (reviewing). (And I find Geminii useless.)

    ALSO: IMO: The tests being used on math and programming and rudimentary logic are ‘errors of reductio ad absurdum’. They do not expose the sophistication or lack of it in the models. My work consists of operational language and constructive logic of first principles without the use of symbols. This work immediately exposes the problems of textual probabilism in LLM layers, and puts greater stress on the conceptual networks of meaning behind the terms used. In other words, Math and Programming are ‘cheating’ by using a reserved vocabulary that circumvents the demonstration of the depth of intelligence in human language, which constitutes the repository of human knowledge.
    And this is why ChatGPT has no near competitors at all whatsoever at this point. Semantically it’s unparalleled.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-26 16:15:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1861443573469847552

  • ( And it was speculative. And they always fight the last war so to speak. But lo

    ( And it was speculative. And they always fight the last war so to speak. But look what’s happened since the use of drones in Ukraine… And FWIW they will be very reluctant to give up planes as reusable weapon delivery devices. And they will likely produce drones that protect…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-24 18:27:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1860752068216332730

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1860723476333547904

  • (Diary – Training AIs) So I’m running into the problem every single time, that t

    (Diary – Training AIs)
    So I’m running into the problem every single time, that there is either a limit to tokens or a limit to attention that prevents me from having the AI write as declaratively as I do. Why? Operational Language, causal coverage (enumeration), causal chaining, and constructive logic all put more burden on the AI than ordinary language.
    They can each explain what I’m doing – how I’m writing. But they can’t do it.
    I haven’t spent enough time with programming languages to see if asking it to write in object oriented code or pseudocode solves the problem. I’m going to try. But unfortunately the only AI with enough tokens is Google’s and it’s crap compared to OpenAI and Anthropic.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-23 05:52:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1860199667486928897

  • RT @truthb4face: Self-regulating autism is truthb4face. It refuses* the hyper-fa

    RT @truthb4face: Self-regulating autism is truthb4face. It refuses* the hyper-fake masculine bullshit psychology, feminism and AI that have…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-23 03:17:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1860160764360950261

  • If it is a matter of scale, meaning that the artist has produced a small work, a

    If it is a matter of scale, meaning that the artist has produced a small work, and is using a machine to scale it to monumental size, then it is no different from the work of most of the ancients who did it with pantographs, sticks, string, and LOTS of workers.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-23 01:32:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1860134369744290290

    Reply addressees: @partymember55

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1860119466761420989

  • We can, but apparently my (our) work is sufficiently expressed in the publicly a

    We can, but apparently my (our) work is sufficiently expressed in the publicly available data that it’s not necessary. I’m currently experimenting with the difference between training as we do it, and tuning it specifically and that experiment will tell us which way to invest in. Though, if the expansion of memory continues as promised then it won’t be necessary. Instead we’ll move to model Openai o1 which is more orintented to breaking down tasks necessary for the strict construction (constructive logic) we use.

    Reply addressees: @bryanbrey


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-19 03:52:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858719990444437504

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858680117431529810

  • (NLI) Another update: Filled two holes in the prompt. For those who are followin

    (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…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-18 20:56:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858615352252658151

  • (NLI) Another update: Filled two holes in the prompt. For those who are followin

    (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.]


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-18 20:56:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858615351963250691