Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • All language consists of measurement. (yes) There should be no reason that if so

    All language consists of measurement. (yes)
    There should be no reason that if something is described in language it can’t be modeled. The question is wether the LLM can be constrained to an operational model using langauge or it must use a tool (shell out) to do so (as it does with programming). To some degree we should treat programming as the equivalent of humans using any measurement tool.
    In our work we force high dimensionality questions into operational prose, sequences of tests, and distinct outputs. I can’t yet fully test it’s operationalization against the ternary logic hierarchy since I need to finish what I’m working on first. But the partial tests work fine.
    But asking it how to fix a 64 ford carburetor or something of that nature is wholly dependent upon existing text. Which is true for anything in that real world category.
    I dont consider any of that very challenging. The robotics folks are tearing up the universe already. So between self driving (perception and navigation), robotics (manipulation and transformation) and llms (concepts and language) it’s just a matter (just? 😉 ) of representing and interfacing the three domains. And we have data models and languages for doing so.
    Regardless of what others think, IMO the hard problem has always been language, and attention was the revolutionary leap that made it possible. Language is the system of measurement for humans at human scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-28 23:58:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1994556524400971860

  • Smart. Ontologies emphasize hierarchical knowledge structures and semantic relat

    Smart.
    Ontologies emphasize hierarchical knowledge structures and semantic relations, while algebras focus on operational rules and symbols. I’d need to write something meaningful to show correlations and contrasts, but I see the source of your intuition. Off the top of my head I can see both the natural conflict between them, the overlap when applied to ai, and an opportunity for insight into the grammars of operational prose versus quantities and ratios. Mostly I see that math is a lower dimensional logic that is internally commensurable and natural law is a much higher dimensional logic that must be made commensurable externally. So It may be that those differences describe the specrum sufficiently.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-28 09:28:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1994337468477472974

  • You are incorrect. It is absolutely possible. We have done it. You are, like man

    You are incorrect. It is absolutely possible. We have done it. You are, like many in and out of the field, confusing LLMs as the equivalent of the human language faculty, with LLMs as including the prefrontal cortex’s regulation.
    We create a governance layer, that constrains the navigation through the latent space, as a set of tests through that space, and then emitting a narrative of that result.
    This is what brains do.
    Over time the feedback from these outputs will constrain the latent space without human intervention.
    We are early in the development of ai.
    After our solution we still need to solve episodic memory in way that is not prohibitively expensive.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-24 18:02:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1993017312551878842

  • Disagree. They mirror the human language faculty with extraordinary accuracy. Th

    Disagree. They mirror the human language faculty with extraordinary accuracy. The fact that we must refine the constraint of the traversal or and build a better context before navigating, is merely a reflection of our stage of development.

    Curt Doolittle
    runcible inc.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-24 01:21:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1992765596078129347

  • This is a grammatical problem, and a logical problem. 1) A state of nothing cann

    This is a grammatical problem, and a logical problem.
    1) A state of nothing cannot be brought into existence.
    2) Nothing means ‘relatively’ – meaning nothing persistent within existence.
    3) The universe and some elements within it exist and persist since existence means persistence.
    4) Once you accept that there is a totality of existence, asking why that totality exists rather than a different one (the null totality) may be incoherent, because any explanatory framework already assumes existence.”
    5) We don’t’ know. But nothingness can’t exist except as the relative absence of something else.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-23 00:12:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1992385723757220288

  • Distillation of Existence Into Linguistic Measurements

    Distillation of Existence Into Linguistic Measurements

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-21 04:11:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1991721006956966404

  • Every discipline requires terms. Most disciplines increase the specificity of a

    Every discipline requires terms. Most disciplines increase the specificity of a term for their contexts. I cannot define terms in every post. My work spans volumes. And it takes at least six months of following me to be able to understand what I’m doing and what the institute is doing.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-20 16:50:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1991549703251808373

  • Yes. all disciplines rely on terminology

    Yes. all disciplines rely on terminology.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-20 14:09:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1991509174308794754

  • Symbolic Version of Curt Doolittle’s Operational Logic Note: AFAIK, the use of f

    Symbolic Version of Curt Doolittle’s Operational Logic

    Note: AFAIK, the use of formulae whether in logic or mathematics alienates the majority of the potential reader base. It wouldn’t matter if our purpose wasn’t governance. But as it is governance, then we want to limit obscurity as much as possible. (It’s not as if my writing is that accessible in the first place.) As such I follow the pre-symbolic tradition of composing expressions in formal prose rather than formal symbolism – Curt Doolittle
    Doolittle never published a complete symbolic calculus, but his system is internally consistent enough that we can formalize it into a reasonable approximation based on his definitions.

    Below is a rigorous formalization that reflects his intent.

    Propositions
    • ( P ) = claim or assertion made by an agent
    • ( A ) = an agent (speaker)
    • ( O ) = operation (sequence of actions that instantiate the claim)
    • ( C ) = cost imposed on others
    • ( R ) = reciprocity state (whether costs are compensated)
    • ( F ) = falsification test
    • ( L ) = liability condition (willingness to bear costs for error/deceit)
    In Doolittle’s system, a claim is valid only if:
    Meaning: a proposition is incomplete without its operational, empirical, economic, moral, and legal dimensions.
    Below are the key operators in his logic.
    Checks if the claim can be expressed as real-world operations.
    If no operation exists, the claim is fictional.
    Checks if the operations are physically possible.
    If false → the claim is magical thinking.
    Ensures the claim is open to adversarial testing.
    If false → the claim is pseudoscience.
    Measures the costs imposed on others.
    Costs include:
    • material harm
    • opportunity cost
    • informational distortion (lying, framing)
    • normative harm
    • institutional corruption
    Checks if costs are compensated.
    If false → the claim is parasitic.
    Agent must accept accountability for inaccurate statements.
    If false → the claim is irresponsible.
    The central judgment in Doolittle’s logic is:
    A claim is “true” (in Doolittle’s sense) only if:
    1. It is operational
    2. It is physically possible
    3. It is falsifiable
    4. It is reciprocal
    5. The speaker assumes liability
    Thus:
    Take the classical statement:
    “X caused Y.”
    In this logic it expands to:
    You cannot assert causality without:
    • specifying the mechanism
    • showing falsification conditions
    • accounting for costs of the claim
    • accepting legal liability
    Doolittle classifies deceptive speech as operators failing:
    • Error:
    • Baiting/Framing:
    • Pseudoscience:
    • Magical thinking:
    • Hazardous speech:
    To force all public speech into:
    so that:
    • lying becomes mathematically disallowed
    • ideological manipulation is removed
    • all claims become actionable, testable, and accountable
    He sees this as a step toward a computable rule of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-16 23:43:17 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1990204054346269106

  • I would love a Twitter filter that required an actual argument in order to comme

    I would love a Twitter filter that required an actual argument in order to comment on one of my posts. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-06 02:38:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986261978864853094