Sigh,
Anthropic’s Claude fails the truth test. 🙁 https://t.co/dxdbrmOGbF

Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 14:19:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671160818791243777
Sigh,
Anthropic’s Claude fails the truth test. 🙁 https://t.co/dxdbrmOGbF

Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 14:19:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671160818791243777
RT @Explicatur1: Support for truth and free speech go away as women gain institutional power. Any political theory or movement that doesn’…
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 03:05:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670991342577545217
Paradox: “a statement or proposition that, despite apparently sound reasoning from stated premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.”
(That is not the same as counter-intuitive.)
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 00:12:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670947571668336642
Reply addressees: @KomondorDaugrin @Lawrenc77506644
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670942319917318149
That’s not a paradox that’s just counter intuitive, becaues all gains in knowledge provide opportunity for additional gains in knowledge.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:52:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670912528568680448
Reply addressees: @ToddNQuick1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670911940997287940
It’s common to confuse a statement of paradox with a statemetn that’s counter intuitive. That’s like calling a faith a belief, a trust, or act of confidence. It’s an inflation by conflation. Liars paradox is the most common example, and it’s everywhere in everything. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:50:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670912083611844609
Reply addressees: @ToddNQuick1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670909911562330113
CHALLENGE “THERE ARE NO PARADOXES”
There are no paradoxes. Instead, every known paradox only appears so, because (a) it’s a violation of the first rule of grammar and (b) you don’t know the first rule of grammar (c) because no one did until Chomsky explained Turing’s insight in linguistic terms.
Worse, there are no hard puzzles, questions, or problems in philosophy. Almost all of it is vaguely childish grammatical ignorance: sophistry.
As far as I know I can falsify every commonly known paradox and philosophical quandry.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:22:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670904817558978560
Joscha Bach @Plinz With The Right Answer – and some additional insights:
Joscha says we need:
1) Individual (Personal) AI’s.
2) That don’t lie.
But…
3) Joscha argues that there is no universal commensurability and therefore decidability in manners, ethics, and morals – but my work and our organization have demonstrated that’s not true – at least, that all conflicts over demonstrated interests are universally decidable independent of opinion. In-group moral bias may be an arbitrary evolutionary artifact. But cross-group (cross-individual) moral violations of substance are universally decidable. Leaving the only question open one of manners (signals).
However…
4) That, however, does not impact the choice of what’s preferable for you and good for you and yours at the scale of your agency.
5) We know that the fundamental problem as ability and knowledge decrease is auto-associative prediction and the difficulty in compensating for ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and self-and-other deception. Yet Personal AI’s can increase universal commensurability and increase cooperation by advising us on falsehoods, manners, and irreciprocities, and alternative solutions thus limiting much of the cooperative (if not productive) challenges of cooperation, whether interpersonal, social, economic, political, or strategic.
Therefore…
6) So Joscha’s point is more to be reduced to the importance of individual AI’s and the risk of corporate or government (or religious) AI’s that can be chartered with irreciprocities and malincentives, which only personal AI’s can defend us from.
7) And that we can’t regulate what we don’t yet understand ( I think we can by prohibiting ai’s from lying and irreciprocities (criminal, ethical, and moral), and by limiting military AI’s to carrying out specific orders.)
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 20:31:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670892000617308161
VACCINES: “NO RICHARD, THAT’S NOT RIGHT.”
Instead, Restore Rule of Law, Truthful Testimony, and Juridical Defense to the Court of Public Opinion.
RE: https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1670667160971247617
Richard @RichardHanania;
You’re missing the point.
There were no terms under which we should have…
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 16:23:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670829623465197575
https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1670667160971247617
VACCINES: “NO RICHARD, THAT’S NOT RIGHT.”
Instead, Restore Rule of Law, Truthful Testimony, and Juridical Defense to the Court of Public Opinion.
RE: https://t.co/9lrTxhUBpz
Richard @RichardHanania;
You’re missing the point.
There were no terms under which we should have canceled people, especially in their jobs, for not taking the medication (it’s a therapy, not a vaccine). That’s coercion without juridical defense. And proxying the state through private industry is a violation of due process AND circumvention of juridical defense.
That’s the problem.
Y’all converted an issue that should have remained scientific (and could have) and instead created a moral and then political issue out of it. So just as the left rejects race differences, sex differences and IQ differences etc, the right will do the equivalent because y’all violated the most sacred of the right’s principles: self-determination and truth before face. And no, the illness was not severe enough for that forced vaccination, and no, the general public wasn’t threatened as much as the ‘unclean people, unfit people, comorbid people, and their caretakers and medical providers.
I can understand and test the science’ as well as anyone. And there isn’t that much of it that substantive enough to test. So, it’s not that hard. The number of nonsense papers, claims, headlines, and speeches, on both sides, was absurd. The CDC and WHO were unprepared because they’ve followed tradition and privatized the political institution for personal career gain rather than practicing for wargames as does the military; the academy saw funding opportunities and published trash on small data sets; and the politicals sedated the neurotic (leftist, female) faction with false promises, including the utility of masks, rather than just sticking with the truth:
–“We don’t know. We’re doing the best we can. We have mobilized the entirety of american and world medical care to do our best. If you want to protect yourself, get this shot, it’s not sufficiently tested against long-term effects; it’s not a preventative vaccine; it’s just a therapy that will seriously diminish your symptoms and reduce your risk of death. If not, then you’re carrying the risk. And if enough of you carry the risk and get ill, you will overwhelm the medical system that has failed to maintain domestic strategic supply reserves and production, and you will have a greater chance of dying. It’s your choice. And there is nothing anyone can do about it.”–
That’s what should have been said. That would have given most people who led unclean lives to take the shot. And those of us who lead clean lives not to.
What’s a clean life? We don’t interact with many people interpersonally; if we do, it’s with other high-agency, high-discipline, equally fastidious people.
Y’all violating the Western first principle of “Truth before face, regardless of cost.” When truth consists of what is testifiable by you – and not hearsay.
No more lies – even lies of convenience and conviction.
That’s the lesson y’all should take from this episode.
And we’ll probably have to legislate such lessons to prevent you and yours from doing it ever again. And I’m sure we’ll eventually push it through – as one of the many reasons to prevent governments from lying, denying, and wishful thinking, limiting those speaking in public, to the public in matters public, to TESTIFIABLE SPEECH.
We must restore juridical defense, rule of law, truthful testimony, punishment for perjury, and liability for defamation, or harm to the commons, to the court of public opinion.
And that’s what our organization is working to achieve.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 16:23:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670829623129649152
RT @ATabarrok: Fake research doesn’t just waste researcher resources it can delay cures and end up killing people. https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-18 17:14:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670480199736066054