Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • (Almost impossible to say anything substantive in operational language free of i

    (Almost impossible to say anything substantive in operational language free of ignorance, error, biases, pretense, (and deceit) in a tweet.A perfect medium for gossip, shaming, rallying, and tit-for-tat – and terrible one for the competition between arguments. But we try anyway.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 10:19:00 UTC

  • (Almost impossible to say anything substantive in operational language free of i

    (Almost impossible to say anything substantive in operational language free of ignorance, error, biases, pretense, (and deceit) in a tweet.A perfect medium for gossip, shaming, rallying, and tit-for-tat – and terrible one for the competition between arguments. But we try anyway.)

  • Evidence

    1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rifle). 2) I post a criticism saying that it’s universally derided around the world as a terrible piece of equipment. And that it appears that the plastic revolution in pistols has been unsuccessful in rifles – and that the black rifle but with higher calibre and 416 plunger has won the day. (The only weapons to come out of the plastic revolution are the P90 because of its feed and ammo, and the AUG, which I still think despite its cost is about as good as it gets. 3) This (((fellow))) deletes the comments https://www.facebook.com/hpinny that falsify the propaganda (false advertising).

  • EVIDENCE 1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rif

    EVIDENCE

    1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rifle).

    2) I post a criticism saying that it’s universally derided around the world as a terrible piece of equipment. And that it appears that the plastic revolution in pistols has been unsuccessful in rifles – and that the black rifle but with higher calibre and 416 plunger has won the day. (The only weapons to come out of the plastic revolution are the P90 because of its feed and ammo, and the AUG, which I still think despite its cost is about as good as it gets.

    3) This (((fellow))) deletes the comments https://www.facebook.com/hpinny that falsify the propaganda (false advertising).Updated Jan 25, 2018, 8:07 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 08:07:00 UTC

  • Evidence

    1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rifle). 2) I post a criticism saying that it’s universally derided around the world as a terrible piece of equipment. And that it appears that the plastic revolution in pistols has been unsuccessful in rifles – and that the black rifle but with higher calibre and 416 plunger has won the day. (The only weapons to come out of the plastic revolution are the P90 because of its feed and ammo, and the AUG, which I still think despite its cost is about as good as it gets. 3) This (((fellow))) deletes the comments https://www.facebook.com/hpinny that falsify the propaganda (false advertising).

  • Ai’s Will Deceive Us Just As Humans Do: By Fictionalisms. Myjob Is The Law That Prevents Such A Thing.

    —“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’. My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral. And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech. So you are correct. My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it. And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples. So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉

  • AI’S WILL DECEIVE US JUST AS HUMANS DO: BY FICTIONALISMS. MYJOB IS THE LAW THAT

    AI’S WILL DECEIVE US JUST AS HUMANS DO: BY FICTIONALISMS. MYJOB IS THE LAW THAT PREVENTS SUCH A THING.

    —“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch

    If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’.

    My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral.

    And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech.

    So you are correct.

    My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it.

    And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples.

    So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 09:06:00 UTC

  • Ai’s Will Deceive Us Just As Humans Do: By Fictionalisms. Myjob Is The Law That Prevents Such A Thing.

    —“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’. My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral. And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech. So you are correct. My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it. And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples. So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉

  • What Is Your Review Of €œstar Trek Discovery”, Episode 1:12, “vaulting Ambition”?

    childish, cartoonish, intellectually insulting, and a progressive postmodern political drivel is revolting. keep the captain. lose the rest.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-Star-Trek-Discovery-episode-1-12-Vaulting-Ambition

  • What Is Your Review Of €œstar Trek Discovery”, Episode 1:12, “vaulting Ambition”?

    childish, cartoonish, intellectually insulting, and a progressive postmodern political drivel is revolting. keep the captain. lose the rest.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-Star-Trek-Discovery-episode-1-12-Vaulting-Ambition