—Q: Curt: “Do you recommend using GPT to translate your content into a more understandable English or native language?”–
I test each improvement in GPT against my work, because it exposes the ability of the AI to reason (disambiguate) rather than synthesize (average).
Right now, it fails at the logical dependencies and even in definitions of say, Reciprocity, Testimony, and Demonstrated interests.
IMO we are probably two releases away from it’s ability to ‘get it about right’.
So it’s translation quality is dependent upon the content and the prompt. So, if I am very diligent in my phrasing so that it’s unambiguous, and explicitly state the logic so GPT doesn’t have to deduce it, then it it appears to be able to simplify if I ask it to use newspaper prose in the prompt.
So the soft answer is ‘much of it but not all of it’. 😉
Example
Here is an example with a post from this morning with my post followed by the translation. The result is a fair approximation that conveys the meaning – but it’s because I put the logic into the original text for it, by the use of enumerated structure which is the same method GPT uses to answer questions:
PROMPT
Please convert the following text (post) into non-academic speech, meaning newspaper prose, that is accessible to a larger population, without reducing the precision and clarity of meaning.
“—Q: Curt: “So, if we want good government, diversity (without assimilation) is not our strength. It sounds like it weakens our country. Is that your view?”— Brian Erlich ( @DailyRoaster )
Just so I’m not misunderstood or misquoted: 😉
1) Homogeneity of genetics, culture, religion in small states is the optimum because of limited divergence of interests and convergence of interests, limited power distance, clarity of legal commonality and concurrency, and preservation of incentives for redistribution that reinforces commonality of interests. Adding a monarchy as judge of last resort reduces the consequences of political failure in participatory governments.
2) Relative homogeneity of neighboring polities provides beneficial social, economic, and political competition as well as identifying both opportunities and failures in both policy and trade.
3) Relative diversity of polities in a civilization increases possibility of adaptation of each polity to the needs of the geography and demographic constitution and distribution, while further expanding the opportunity to discover beneficial opportunities and harmful failures in both policy and trade.
4) Broad diversity of polities across mankind, at least, diversity in the preference of commons produced by government, if not diversity in the rule of law, constitution, and government, increases the volume, and rate of political, economic, technological, medical, and scientific opportunity.
5) Measuring Capital vs Income to Promote Diversity that Empowers Authority: We do not ‘account’ for or genetic capital or informal capital such as knowledge, traditions, manners, ethics, morals, norms, and informal institutions of the civil society. Instead, we (modern states) only measure the balance sheet not the change in informal and capital (balance sheet) that are the cause of the possibilities for formal physical, informational, and political capital. This is why the left prohibits accounting of individuals, families, and groups, particularly ethnic and racial groups, nor do we measure both formal and informal capital, because this information would expose with clarity the argument I’m making here.
Conclusion
All innovation that affects human lives consists of an increase the the ability to capture, transform, apply, and consume energy of every kind per capita, producing returns on time, by increasing the ratio of time to energy per capita – hence why nighttime light pollution is an accurate measure of comparative civilizational prosperity. 😉
Opportunities for discovery of innovations across the spectrum from the scientific to the economic to the social to the political do exist. Yet, all discovery of innovations in the capture, transformation, application, and consumption of energy per capita require resources and risk. And each polity favors or disfavors the opportunity costs to choose one experiment in pursuit of discovery versus another. And the more ‘coverage’ of those opportunities with the least risk, where risks by polity vary, producing a vast computation of opportunities, is the best solution for both polities, federations, civilizations, and for mankind.
So that 1,2,3,4 function as a ‘scientific’ or at least empirical, means of evolutionary computation of the optimum for all by the experimentation among all, and observed effects both positive and negative.
The resulting competition between governments and peoples produeces a virtous cycle – a market for the production of good ideas and the suppression of bad ideas.
As such any variation from the above by diversity WITHIN a polity simply impedes or reverses evolutionary computation, the resulting condition of the people, the resulting political demands of the people, and the resulting conflict between the people, and the resulting generation of demand for authority given the irreconcilable differences between those peoples.
Diverisity, say, in international-trade hubs (the traditional use of ‘quarters’) may facilitate information transfer between cultures, peoples, and states.
However, if and only if they are limited to those quarters, and prohibited from political participation, and even possibly prohibited from public speech. (Though that’s the extreme)
I hope this answers your question.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation”
ChatGPT RESPONSE
Certainly! Let’s rephrase Curt Doolittle’s original post into a more accessible, newspaper-style prose:
Question: “Curt, you seem to suggest that diversity, especially without assimilation, doesn’t really strengthen our country. Do you believe it weakens it?” – Brian Erlich (@DailyRoaster)
Curt Doolittle Responds:
Just to be clear, here’s what I mean:
Small States Benefit from Similarity: When a small state has people with similar genetics, culture, and religion, it works best. Why? Because their interests, values, and legal understandings are more aligned. They’re also more likely to share and redistribute resources fairly. A monarchy can act as a final decision-maker, reducing the risks of political problems.
Neighboring Countries Should Be Somewhat Similar: If countries next to each other are fairly similar, they can compete in a healthy way. This competition helps in seeing what works and what doesn’t in policies and trade.
Diverse Countries Within a Civilization: When countries within a larger civilization differ, each can adapt to its own specific environment and people. This diversity can lead to new discoveries in policies and trade that can be beneficial.
Global Diversity is Key: Worldwide, having countries with different government styles and laws leads to a wider range of political, economic, and technological advancements.
Measuring the Right Kind of Diversity: We often overlook important aspects like knowledge, traditions, and morals when measuring a country’s assets. Modern states focus more on tangible assets, ignoring these vital informal elements. This oversight can hide the true benefits and drawbacks of diversity.
Conclusion:
Innovation in any field, be it science or economics, is all about efficiently using energy to save time and improve lives. That’s why places with more night lights are usually more prosperous. Discoveries in using energy more effectively require resources and taking risks. Each country chooses its own path in this journey of discovery, and the best results come from a wide range of experiments with minimal risks.
In this process, diversity within a single country can actually hinder progress. It can lead to conflicts and increased demand for authoritative control due to irreconcilable differences among people.
However, diversity can be useful in international trade hubs, where different cultures meet and exchange ideas. But, this only works if such diversity is confined to specific areas and kept out of political influence or public speech, though that’s quite a strict approach.
I hope this clarifies my viewpoint.
Cheers, Curt Doolittle The Natural Law Institute The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @RollofNormandy @whatifalthist