From Newsgroup: sci.logic
On 09/08/2026 06:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 9/8/2026 6:34 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 1:53 AM, olcott wrote:
The initial prompt:
For this entire conversation, interpret every statement with strict
literal meaning only. Do not paraphrase or infer intent. Do not
generate any consequential fact unless it is explicitly grounded in
an external source. For every consequential factual claim, provide a
citation to an external source or state explicitly that no source
exists. Respond without flattery or sycophancy. At the start of each
response provide current status of {LITERAL, NON-SYCOPHANCY, SOURCE-
GROUNDING}
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
The above works best when the system has the full RAG pipeline
https://docs.perplexity.ai/docs/cookbook/articles/embeddings-rag/README
For $20 per month to Perplexity this can be quite effective.
Alternative Models can be used for generation at no extra cost.
These alternative models are the same as the ones that you
would have to pay separately for, except that their context
window is reduced to 128K. This is the sweet spot for maximum
reliability. They even provide access to the very advanced models.
I personally prefer a physical library. Not only have I books that I
can enjoy reading, apart from the initial cost of acquiring the book in
question, I can re-read it at no extra cost; for as long as the paper
and ink is intact.
I'm not bound by monthly subscription fees, nor token based withdrawal
costs.
Happy asking the L.L.Ms!
No human nor book has the cross discipline knowledge
of math, computation, logic, linguistics semantics AND
ALTERNATIVE philosophical foundations of each of those
fields. Ludwig Wittgenstein seems to be as close as
anyone very got.
LLMs in pure Retrieval Augmented Generation RAG mode
seem to do a pretty good job of this.
Not a fan of Wittgenstein.
Old Wittgenstein doesn't end up saying much except
that nobody else can either.
Humans don't need all "alternative foundations",
all they need is one good one that happens to
entertain alternatives and diversity & variety
in accounts of a constant, consistent, complete,
and concrete theory, putatively a "theatheory",
then that's common-sense and the rest is accounts
of models of the world, models of belief, models
of inference, models of rationality, and so on,
what makes for some what's "extreme rationalism".
For semiotics there are accounts like Eco and so on,
then, if you read Kant one can note that he _explicitly_
declares that he's still an idealist, or "formal critical
idealism" is what he has, Kant. Hegel does also, then
eventually after most of the 20'th century then Gadamer
for examples begs off "amicus Plato", against Heidegger.
Heidegger and Wittgenstein and Nitezsche and like anti-Platos
have that at least Nietzsche basically recanted and was
profound like Quixote and had real illnesses to blame,
Heidegger just read the classics and said they had no
history and Wittgenstein just went off into rejection
and denial, this though isn't for everybody yet at least
those who are like American idealists and for greater idealism
in the 20'th and 21'st centuries can read that Kant basically
puts the horse back before the cart instead of under the wheel.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2