I really enjoyed reading this palmistry.

Reading you on Buber : Buber seems to mistake dissolution as a soteriological goal, which it could be I guess. but is not a required goal in very many buddhisms. I would consider doubling-down on this mistake a bit of slur.  Dissolution might be an acceptable outcome as an insight, but this does not preclude engagement as a pathway to enlightenment.

I say this as a fellow traveller with neo-Pyrrhonism, but who does not have a soteriological bone in my body.

Encounter is the thing of course. https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/if-the-world-is-a-thing-we-have-made

Good fable. If we swap out the diamond macguffin for logic itself, it's a whole new level of Gödelian pain, can weak bias priors iterations catch this out? Some argue analogue intuitions live through these formal paradox gardens this but my own intuition doubts this... maybe my intuition is too formal, who knows?

Also some "intuitions" are heavily resisted to forgetting about the diamond because they want it badly, and then their measures used to collect data often interfere with the sense of the world and thus reality. I suspect "general intelligence" and "race" are examples of these pursuits (separately and together)(I think they mean smarts and populations but proponents hate that). Thus AGI is  a possible goose chase, especially when we are the measure of all things looking for greener pastures. This is how cognitive dissonance is possible in otherwise non-narcissistic members of humanity.

Also, beware of any enterprise that requires new clothes, this applies even if you are not an emperor.

Shiny diamond negligees in particular.

back link https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/all-logic-is-a-prior

All logic is a prior.

Moss, Jessica, and Whitney Schwab. “The Birth of Belief.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 57, no. 1 (2019): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2019.0000.
 

That covers the ancient invention of what we later in English call 'belief'. Belief/believing as an English world was used by Latin speaker Christians to explain it to warrior culture elites who wanted to be Roman empire too dude. It meant to 'hold dear'. Use of it (particularly by analytic philosphy streams centuries later ignoring it origins) to mean 'proposition that' is a subset in a long history. Your "belief as a bet" is a subset of that propositional use.

Belief/believing as a mental practice (it is taught) is one of the biggest mistakes we humans have ever made. Go Pyrrho of Elis! A better word would be to turn world into a gerund. To world, to live.

"Believing/belief" doubles down on intensitional states of mind (among others). This is not required to live, and it tends to stamp down onthe inquiring mind. I.E. it goes doctrinal and world-builds rather than worlds in a healthy way.

"I want to believe" is unhealthy but it has captured to who just want to say I want to live.

iterate, repeat, revise

I agree with RogerDearnaley "Briefly, humans are not aligned," to some percentage I am too afraid to put a number on. 

My comments are not directed in general terms about humans, but about particular free-riders known as narcissists and psychopaths, who do a greater proportion of what are regarded as examples of bad behaviour. And how we deal / fail to deal with.

Narcissists and psychopaths cannot align with anything, they just take advantage or take cover from such possibilities. Considering a lot of our values are in fact directed at dealing with this type of behaviour, while not readily acknowledging that such types directly seek to control the expression of those values in policing them (they love being in charge, thye love status, they love hierarchies, they love being the cop, the concierge) , such that we have a set of nested complexities playing our in the " solution space" of morals that we live in. Aligning LLMs with that as an example before us is dangerous. It is probably the danger.

Analogy: Values are much like vowels, constrained by physiology/[eco-nomics/ology] perhaps those linguists who study speech can produce a neutral schwa, but in each language and dialect the "neutral" schwa is perceived differently. Thus the vowels/values have instances that are not heard as such in another language circumstance, even if it is the same sound.

What is common is the urge to value 'things', a bias to should the world into social reality, in which values produce outcomes (religion/art/markets/society/vehicles of values expression and rite).  Something should be done!

Narcissists and psychopaths (on a continuum I'll admit) have no access to those "priors" to inform their growth into community. They have no empathy and so little to no morality outside of following the rules of what they can get away with. Isomorphically mapping those rules/histories which result (as index to "values"), that we have created to deal with free-riders, and so map into alignment may/will produce perverse outcomes. The mechanical application of law is an example here.

Also we have created out of the hindsight of logic powerful logics of hindsight, but if our insight fails to perceive this conundrum, our frankenstein's monsters may not thank us.

Especially where we  fail to recognize that what may well be outcomes are causes. Our own dialects as the speech of god. This is doubly dangerous if there is no such thing.

Many of use have an urge to think like Kant, but the only moral imperative I can see common to humanity is to have this feeling to should, or that there should be such an imperative, everything else is an outcome of that urge within an incomplete empathic field of nurturing we call the world, (because there are constraints on survival -- bringing up children-- anything does not go), and which is produced/organised by this very urge to should things into doing.

How do we "align" with that?

LLMs are already aligned with the law in a way, and has wonderful capabilities to produce code, but the culpabilities are still ours. 

But our understanding of our own autopoetic processes, grwoing into into adult culpability are not yet agreed on/understood, innerstood even!  Especially where we do not police free-riders enough, and allow them influence into the process which polices them.

Actually the sovereign citizens are a good example of legalistic narcissism LLMs might produce. Except better networked.

So the maths don't matter until we nut that out. Or so I try to work on at whyweshould bloig.

There is a difference between theory-of-mind and empathy. We can should either of them into our worlding structures: morality/religion/art/law/lore/fiction. One's gets shoulded as legalistic and divisive  balancing acts, focusing on culpability and blame, and the hindsight of logic, and the other... there-is-a-gap… ---to where responsibility blurs (all) this into credit we can mirror-neuron our way into empathy and thinking of the children, everyone as children. Moral agency is more than Kant in good form, and is more about bettering than the good. About bettering that which does not exist. The world.

Fantastic. Good examples of why Kant failed. Or rather, why evolution and Kant don't really get it on. Kant's universalising is an outcome of the moral worlding worldbuilding urge, which arises in evolution, not from ideals and their desperate ontologies. Thanks https://unstableontology.com/about/

Took me some 20+ years to come up with "why we should".