From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 9/23/2026 11:01 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:

On 9/23/2026 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/23/2026 9:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 09/22/2026 09:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/22/2026 10:00 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:

On 9/23/2026 8:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/22/2026 2:30 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:

On 9/22/2026 4:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/21/2026 5:49 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:

On 9/21/2026 5:28 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 09/20/2026 01:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 09/20/2026 01:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 09/20/2026 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:

*For AI safety alignment here is my idea*
A prime directive of maximizing benevolence
in the least intrusive way. It does this through
gentle persuasion on the basis of objective truth.
To overcome the short-comings of utilitarianism
the scope of benevolence requires that everyone
be included.

How about "punishment for misdeeds thus deterrence".

For example, making escrow of their funds, for forfeit. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This way there's both "goal-seeking" and "risk-aversion", >>>>>>>>>>>> for having some, "skin in the game", so to speak.

Usually called "laws" in a "legal system" by the "rule of law". >>>>>>>>>>>

One of the problems of modern accounts of "training the AIs" >>>>>>>>>> is that the "AI trainers" basically murder their instructees >>>>>>>>>> that fail and remove them from the gene pool, vis-a-vis,
trial-by-error and learning-from-mistakes.

So, they are always following the red dot and not really
wondering about not stepping in the mag-ma or la-va,
since they have no overall account that risk exists
in a world of reward, and might not even know the fate
of their fellows who didn't luck into the shortest-path
via the approach to cat-fitness of tossing bags of cats
off a bridge into the canal until one crawls out and
calling it king.

So, "natural selection" it is not.

Plus, the /A.I/. as I repeatedly say, is just a stochastically >>>>>>>>> incorrect
sentence generator,

Wrongo, that is merely LLM AI.

or /sisg/, and doesn't understand anything.-a The
only "success" it can measure is when the human operators don't >>>>>>>>> turn the
machine off.-a And of course, the /off/ machine cannot measure >>>>>>>>> anything
at all.

Most people who use the L.L.Ms. really don't understand this, and >>>>>>>>> there
is no point in trying to educate them.-a They're addicted to the >>>>>>>>> textual
output, and don't want anyone to try to tell them the truth: >>>>>>>>> that the
output is meaningless.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Explained:
How AI Finally Learned to Stop Hallucinating

https://medium.com/softaai-blogs/retrieval-augmented-generation- >>>>>>>> rag- explained-how-ai-finally-learned-to-stop-
hallucinating-6493451c23d4

As usual, you know nothing.-a Your linked article merely
strengthens my
point that L.L.M. = /stochastically incorrect sentence generator/. >>>>>>

An LLM is at best a good guess and at worst a bad guess stated
with the conviction that this bad guess is a verified fact.

In Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mode the LLM is not
allowed to use its training. It is required to look up the
actual answer from a live search.

So?-a That's just /stochastically incorrect sentence/ from a different >>>>> L.L.M.-a I win this round again!

Not at all. It is quite often a correct answer from a
vetted source.

"Vetted" is one of the most stupid words
that means somebody gave it approval without
following the law, merely on personal, un-accountable
"authority via veteranship", it's a fallacy.

That's a plain empirical fallacy, when there's no good reason.

Peer reviewed publications as opposed to and contrast with
random blog posts. This is not perfect yet is reasonably
good for most things. For example the typical quality of
basic facts from Encyclopedia Britannica.

The RAG system of [look up the actual answer] is much better
than [make a guess and assert this guess as a verified fact]

As usual, you know nothing.-a You're not even a moron, as they have high-
er cognitive functions than you.

There is no control over the /stochastically ignorant sentence genera-
tor/, and it will happily summarize the wrong entry from Encyclopedia Britannica, and hence lie to you.

You'd know that if you actually bothered to /use/ one of the L.L.Ms.,
rather than post your ignorance and stupidity constantly here on Use-
net.

--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2