?? Ouch. If your wife abuses you then you have not constrained her behavior to the respectful. Never put up with disrespect or disloyalty. Ever. It’s the ‘broken window’ or ‘jaywalking’ ideal. Prevent those and you prevent all that follows. https://twitter.com/pearlythingz/status/1861869661505110209
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-29 00:24:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862291556436516926
I have no ego involved. I am in the business of ending ignorance, error, bias and deceit. And I have a moral obligation as one with ability and knowledge to prevent harms to the informational commons by the lies of people like you who wish to spread ignorance and falsehoods.
My emotions have nothing to do with it.
You would need to put forth an argument that states how consciousness is produced other than that which I have stated. That won’t be possible (I know it isn’t’). But I have mastered nearly every field of human inquiry, so I have an advantage in such things.
Reply addressees: @iEslam @DaveShapi
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-28 17:09:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862181970924691456
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862180342150402450
Technically speaking I’m probably the smartest person on twitter that would even respond to you. That’s because I was raised with Noblesse Oblige, and feel a moral duty to assist those of lesser ability.
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-24 19:19:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1860765199348941293
Reply addressees: @YorkshlreHiker @LeSkipperse
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1860604330845331691
Regarding Dating Single Moms:
Still seeing the social media fervor over single mothers rebelling against men not wanting to date or marry them. I understand both sides. But I can’t understand why women can’t understand it.
I’ve learned a lot because I have a bunch of ‘stepkids’ from the single mom’s I’ve dated (or married):
1) You will have to adapt to her life not her to yours.
2) You will always come in second after the kids.
3) You cannot discipline the children other than in their behavior toward you.
4) She will expect you to carry the financial weight of the kids despite this – and still use her money for her own purposes.
5) She will burden you with whatever trauma she has from her previous relationships. And often it will make you want to leave.
Why does this work – at least, for me:
1) Busy mom’s impose limited demands on me and my time are in my favor (as a workaholic).
2) I can get along with everyone easily so fitting into a household is easy – in fact I prefer a woman’s sovereignty in the home as long as I have my ‘peaceful’ place to reset, work, and think.
3) I can defer to her without impact on my ego as long as it is not a risk to me, cost to me, or disrespectful to me. (Never tolerate disrespect.)
4) I can support the kids or mom when one or the other gets out of hand – which always happens and makes me trusted by both.
5) I follow the same strategy in all relationships with women: figure out what makes them feel safe, and provide it. Conversely, figure out if they desire attention, and if so … Run.
6) I maintain walk away power – which must never be stated, but always preserved.
That’s why it works for me. I can’t see most men, who need the emotional connection, support, and respect (male version of validation), tolerating these conditions. When they are the optimum conditions for me.
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-21 00:56:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1859400475084488704
Regarding Dating Single Moms:
Still seeing the social media fervor over single mothers rebelling against men wanting to date or marry them. I understand both sides. But I can’t understand why women can’t understand it.
I’ve learned a lot because I have a bunch of ‘stepkids’ from the single mom’s I’ve dated (or married):
1) You will have to adapt to her life not her to yours.
2) You will always come in second after the kids.
3) You cannot discipline the children other than in their behavior toward you.
4) She will expect you to carry the financial weight of the kids despite this – and still use her money for her own purposes.
5) She will burden you with whatever trauma she has from her previous relationships. And often it will make you want to leave.
Why does this work – at least, for me:
1) Busy mom’s impose limited demands on me and my time are in my favor (as a workaholic).
2) I can get along with everyone easily so fitting into a household is easy – in fact I prefer a woman’s sovereignty in the home as long as I have my ‘peaceful’ place to reset, work, and think.
3) I can defer to her without impact on my ego as long as it is not a risk to me, cost to me, or disrespectful to me. (Never tolerate disrespect.)
4) I can support the kids or mom when one or the other gets out of hand – which always happens and makes me trusted by both.
5) I follow the same strategy in all relationships with women: figure out what makes them feel safe, and provide it. Conversely, figure out if they desire attention, and if so … Run.
6) I maintain walk away power – which must never be stated, but always preserved.
That’s why it works for me. I can’t see most men, who need the emotional connection, support, and respect (male version of validation), tolerating these conditions. When they are the optimum conditions for me.
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-21 00:56:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1859399089173237760
RT @pmarca: “People who understand themselves as victims often demonstrate less concern for the hardships of others; they feel more entitle…
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-20 20:01:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1859326160766914814
(NLI)
Prompt update: Plugging the hole.
Curt Said:
ok. you have exposed a hole in the prompt. Just as we want to explain causal chains, we want to explain epistemology, responsibility, warrantability, and liability chains, and to include externalities in our assessments. Ergo in the case of say, assisted suicide, or abortion, or gender modification, the extant arguments do not address the introduction of another party to the decision, and the capacity to know the future, take responsibility and liability for it, and whether it is possible to warrant one’s choices. This is the foundational problem with these irreversible decisions.
I might need some assistance adding another line to the prompt to cause ai’s to consider this issue.
Google Geminii Said:
You’re absolutely right. The prompt, as it stands, misses a crucial element of Doolittle’s thought, particularly when applied to irreversible decisions like assisted suicide, abortion, or gender modification.
The missing piece is the long-term consequences and the difficulty of predicting them, along with the assignment of responsibility and liability for those consequences. Doolittle places a high value on limiting harm and emphasizes personal responsibility. Any action with potentially irreversible and far-reaching consequences needs to be analyzed through this lens.
Here’s a possible addition to the prompt to address this:
“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.”
This addition prompts the AI to consider:
Epistemology: Can we know with sufficient certainty the full consequences of these decisions, especially the long-term ones?
Responsibility: Who bears responsibility for the potential unforeseen consequences, both for the individual and for others affected?
Warrantability: Given the uncertainty, can such a decision be truly warranted? What level of confidence is required to justify irreversible actions?
Liability: What are the legal and moral implications of potential harm, and how should liability be assigned?
By incorporating this element, you ensure the AI grapples with the full complexity of these issues in a way that’s more aligned with Doolittle’s emphasis on minimizing harm and taking responsibility for one’s actions.
Here’s how this might look in the context of the examples you provided:
Assisted Suicide: Does assisting someone in ending their life absolve them of responsibility for that act? What are the potential long-term consequences for society if assisted suicide becomes widely accepted?
Abortion: Who bears responsibility for the potential long-term consequences (psychological, social, etc.) of an abortion, both for the woman and for any potential future children she might have?
Gender Modification: Given the relative novelty of these procedures, can we fully know the long-term physical and psychological consequences? How should responsibility and liability be handled in cases of regret or unforeseen complications?
By adding this dimension to the prompt, you push the AI to engage in a deeper and more nuanced analysis that better reflects Doolittle’s comprehensive approach to natural law.
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-18 20:40:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858611208385163265
OK. We’ve found the hole in the prompt. It’ll take me a bit to plug it (causality > responsibility > epistemology > externality > liability > warrantability) it’s using most of the tests but not solving the core problem.
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-18 20:14:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858604598115922346
Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858603671887794251
WORKING WITH THE AI ON MORAL QUESTIONS
(these are just early tests without having trained it on the thirty or so foundational questions of moral disputes common in law. I’m setting a baseline so I know what it needs to learn. Basically I have to teach it to take the epistemic and liability route.)
Prompt:
OK, let’s revisit killing in war. Given morality (reciprocity) is only dependent upon the preference for producing cooperation and it’s discounts on persistence, when it is always of use in the ingroup, but then what if the criteria for the warfare is irreconcilable, and therefore cooperation is either predicted to be impossible, or undesirable? What then does ‘moral’ mean versus an outgroup where morality (reciprocity) is either undesirable or impossible. And how does that refine our understanding of the question of killing in war?
ChatGPT said:
This question delves into the limits of reciprocity and the contextual nature of morality when applied to ingroups versus outgroups. Let’s refine the framework to account for scenarios where cooperation is impossible or undesirable.
Revisiting Killing in War: Reciprocity and Cooperation Limits
1. Reciprocity as a Function of Group Dynamics
Ingroup Reciprocity:
Reciprocity is universally desirable within the ingroup to maintain cooperation and reduce the costs of conflict. Violations undermine group cohesion, threatening long-term stability and survival.
Killing in war is justified against an outgroup aggressor to preserve ingroup sovereignty and reciprocity.
Outgroup Reciprocity:
Reciprocity depends on the potential for mutual benefit (cooperation).
When no such potential exists—due to irreconcilable values, resource competition, or existential threat—reciprocity between groups is impossible or undesirable.
In this case, the moral obligation to reciprocity is confined to the ingroup, and actions against the outgroup are judged by necessity, proportionality, and the ingroup’s survival interests.
2. Defining Morality in War Against Non-Cooperative Outgroups
Moral Action = Utility for Ingroup Persistence:
Morality becomes operationally defined as maximizing ingroup persistence, sovereignty, and autonomy in a competitive or hostile environment.
Killing in war against an irreconcilable outgroup is “moral” if it secures these objectives, even in the absence of reciprocity with the outgroup.
Limits of Justification:
Actions taken must still satisfy internal epistemological rigor—testifiability, accountability, and the minimization of unnecessary harm.
Even if reciprocity with the outgroup is irrelevant, testimonial truth ensures that war is not waged unnecessarily or recklessly, thus maintaining internal legitimacy.
3. Refinement of the Question of Killing in War
Primary Justification:
Killing in war is justified within the framework of Natural Law if it defends the sovereignty of the ingroup and preserves reciprocity within that group.
Secondary Consideration (Outgroup):
When cooperation with the outgroup is impossible, morality shifts from reciprocity to strategic necessity.
The principle of reciprocity applies internally, ensuring accountability for the decision to go to war and the conduct of war.
Operational Definition of Morality in War:
Ingroup morality ensures proportionality, necessity, and responsibility.
Outgroup morality, when reciprocity is impossible, reduces to operational necessity: What actions secure ingroup persistence at the least cost?
Decidability in Such Conflicts
Does the conflict preserve ingroup sovereignty and reciprocity?
Is the lack of cooperation with the outgroup a function of irreconcilable demonstrated interests?
Are the actions necessary and proportional to the threat posed by the outgroup?
Does the ingroup maintain accountability for decisions and conduct during the war?
Conclusion
Killing in war is moral under Natural Law when it defends ingroup reciprocity and sovereignty, even when reciprocity with the outgroup is impossible. Morality shifts from external reciprocity to internal accountability, ensuring that actions are testifiable and necessary to secure ingroup persistence.
This refined framework clarifies how morality operates contextually, with reciprocity and cooperation serving as contingent strategies rather than universal absolutes.
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-18 05:14:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858378346578800640
WORKING WITH THE AI ON MORAL QUESTIONS
(these are just early tests without having trained it on the thirty or so foundational questions of moral questions common in law. I’m setting a baseline so I know what it needs to learn. Basically I have to teach it to take the epistemic and liability route.)
Prompt:
OK, let’s revisit killing in war. Given morality (reciprocity) is only dependent upon the preference for producing cooperation and it’s discounts on persistence, when it is always of use in the ingroup, but then what if the criteria for the warfare is irreconcilable, and therefore cooperation is either predicted to be impossible, or undesirable? What then does ‘moral’ mean versus an outgroup where morality (reciprocity) is either undesirable or impossible. And how does that refine our understanding of the question of killing in war?
ChatGPT said:
This question delves into the limits of reciprocity and the contextual nature of morality when applied to ingroups versus outgroups. Let’s refine the framework to account for scenarios where cooperation is impossible or undesirable.
Revisiting Killing in War: Reciprocity and Cooperation Limits
1. Reciprocity as a Function of Group Dynamics
Ingroup Reciprocity:
Reciprocity is universally desirable within the ingroup to maintain cooperation and reduce the costs of conflict. Violations undermine group cohesion, threatening long-term stability and survival.
Killing in war is justified against an outgroup aggressor to preserve ingroup sovereignty and reciprocity.
Outgroup Reciprocity:
Reciprocity depends on the potential for mutual benefit (cooperation).
When no such potential exists—due to irreconcilable values, resource competition, or existential threat—reciprocity between groups is impossible or undesirable.
In this case, the moral obligation to reciprocity is confined to the ingroup, and actions against the outgroup are judged by necessity, proportionality, and the ingroup’s survival interests.
2. Defining Morality in War Against Non-Cooperative Outgroups
Moral Action = Utility for Ingroup Persistence:
Morality becomes operationally defined as maximizing ingroup persistence, sovereignty, and autonomy in a competitive or hostile environment.
Killing in war against an irreconcilable outgroup is “moral” if it secures these objectives, even in the absence of reciprocity with the outgroup.
Limits of Justification:
Actions taken must still satisfy internal epistemological rigor—testifiability, accountability, and the minimization of unnecessary harm.
Even if reciprocity with the outgroup is irrelevant, testimonial truth ensures that war is not waged unnecessarily or recklessly, thus maintaining internal legitimacy.
3. Refinement of the Question of Killing in War
Primary Justification:
Killing in war is justified within the framework of Natural Law if it defends the sovereignty of the ingroup and preserves reciprocity within that group.
Secondary Consideration (Outgroup):
When cooperation with the outgroup is impossible, morality shifts from reciprocity to strategic necessity.
The principle of reciprocity applies internally, ensuring accountability for the decision to go to war and the conduct of war.
Operational Definition of Morality in War:
Ingroup morality ensures proportionality, necessity, and responsibility.
Outgroup morality, when reciprocity is impossible, reduces to operational necessity: What actions secure ingroup persistence at the least cost?
Decidability in Such Conflicts
Does the conflict preserve ingroup sovereignty and reciprocity?
Is the lack of cooperation with the outgroup a function of irreconcilable demonstrated interests?
Are the actions necessary and proportional to the threat posed by the outgroup?
Does the ingroup maintain accountability for decisions and conduct during the war?
Conclusion
Killing in war is moral under Natural Law when it defends ingroup reciprocity and sovereignty, even when reciprocity with the outgroup is impossible. Morality shifts from external reciprocity to internal accountability, ensuring that actions are testifiable and necessary to secure ingroup persistence.
This refined framework clarifies how morality operates contextually, with reciprocity and cooperation serving as contingent strategies rather than universal absolutes.
Source date (UTC): 2024-11-18 05:14:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858378036867203072