With all the love and care, my personal example of how I did all this. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yzquFnvNapay9otjW/to-raemon-bet-in-my-personal-goals 

Wow! I post here without expecting much feedback, and when it comes, it gives me a thrill. Well, as a practical example, I asked Claude.IA to simulate detailed use of the framework. here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EPFpZDLDDMaAjsK7q/if-we-can-educate-ais-why-not-apply-that-education-to-people-1 I have an apk with the functional model that I store in CSV format. Also, if you're interested in seeing it installed, I can send it to you.

Thanks for your attention. I'm going to answer you with my dyslexia, because it seems better than going through an LLM and something less personal. Be prepared, haha.
Yes, it was difficult for me, but I read the rationality from A to Z and everything, and I see that there's a lot of sense in everything here. I just miss that more rational connection. I'm saying, take a leap of faith, without showing all the inferential steps necessary for the conclusion.
Yes, I see that it's more poetic and inspirational, even though he didn't explicitly cite it, it seems the most likely.
Yes, I see many signs of Yudukowski's struggle. He's the Bayesian rationality fighter I love the most, both for his goals and his style.
However, I'm particularly looking for that, how to structure latent virtues or values with the fewest possible inferential steps. Level of objective greed: very difficult. Risks: even more so. Haha.
And you, how are you trying to be better?

Thanks! I was eagerly awaiting feedback. And I see something in common, but you don't see any significant difference?

Hello! Here is a practical use https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/iByJhF2cLQmtTGFht/estimat-8-identities

I'm going to do it with the moments of peak motivation.

don't see why we shouldn't apply the same logic to corpus callosotomy. Destroying the major connection (though not the only one: there is also the anterior commissure, posterior commissure, and hippocampal commissure) between the cerebral hemispheres damages the brain; obviously. The parts that have previously cooperated fluently now have a problem to cooperate. The split-brain syndrome is a result of the damage. However, despite that, the split-brain patients typically maintain a unified sense of self and personality, it's just that some of their information processing systems are disconnected. Which makes it even less likely that in people with intact corpus callosum the two brain hemispheres secretly act as two different personalities.

That reminds me of Descartes' Error — how Damasio argues that any damage to one system tends to affect the whole, since reason, emotion, and embodiment are deeply integrated. It feels analogous to social systems too: once a channel of integration is disrupted, even if others remain, the total coherence suffers. So yeah, even when split-brain patients seem unified, it’s still a case of partial systemic breakdown.

• El cerebro izquierdo prefiere Android, el cerebro derecho prefiere iPhone

Bueno, admito que me inventé el último. El resto es una simplificación excesiva.

haha i see

hahaha, a god point!