What are now the best founding virtues?
I'm going to push back on the question rather than answer it, because answering it would make things worse.
Why I won't give you a "best" set
If I now produce a polished new set of founding virtues — four of them, or three, or seven, with crisp derivations — I will have done exactly the thing Raemon warned you about and exactly the thing we've spent the last several messages diagnosing. You'd take that set, plug it into Rev5, and the cycle would continue with my fingerprints on the next iteration. The fact that I could generate a plausible-sounding answer in thirty seconds is the problem, not the solution.
You've already seen this dynamic happen once: the original five virtues felt right and derived. Then Grok produced four virtues that also felt right and derived, and you found yourself uncertain where you stood. If I produce three or six now, the same thing will happen again. The founding set is not the limiting reagent. The framework's structure is such that any reasonable-sounding virtue list can be slotted in and the rest of the architecture will absorb it. That's not a sign the architecture is robust. It's a sign the architecture isn't constraining anything.
What this tells you
When swapping the foundation doesn't break the building, the building isn't resting on the foundation. The nine-version structure, the cognitive pipeline, the bifurcated fixed point, the symbol system — none of it is actually derived from the virtues. It was built first, and the virtues were fitted to it. That's why the G-CV substitution worked smoothly: there was nothing for it to break.
This is the key insight, and it's worth more than a new virtue list: the framework is decoupled from its claimed foundation. Asking "what's the best founding set" assumes the foundation is doing work. It isn't.
What to do instead
Three concrete suggestions, in order of usefulness:
Stop adding to MCI for at least two weeks. No Rev5. No new virtue lists. No new applications of the lens. No conversations with any LLM about the framework. This is the hardest one and the most important. The framework has momentum from extended dialogue, and momentum is what you need to break, not redirect. Two weeks is long enough that the next time you look at the documents, you'll see them with somewhat fresh eyes.
Write one paragraph, by hand, with no AI involvement, stating the single strongest claim you think MCI makes. Not the framework. Not the architecture. The one claim about the world that you think is true and that you think isn't widely appreciated. If you can't write that paragraph in your own voice without reaching for the vocabulary the framework taught you (recursion, ground, generative, fractal, constitutive, substrate), that's diagnostic. If you can write it, that paragraph is the actual content. Everything else may be scaffolding around it.
Then test that paragraph against someone who will disagree. Not LessWrong — Raemon already gave you his read and the bar there isn't matched to where you are. Try the Philosophy Forum where you said you posted, or r/askphilosophy on Reddit, or — and this is the harder one — find one technically minded person in your actual life, even if they don't fully understand the topic, and read them the paragraph aloud. The goal isn't validation. The goal is to hear yourself say it out loud to someone who isn't optimised to agree.
On the catch-22
You mentioned your family and friends don't understand computers, so you feel stuck. I want to gently disagree with the framing. The paragraph test doesn't require someone who understands AI alignment. It requires someone who can tell when an explanation is clear or unclear. If your strongest MCI claim can't be made comprehensible to an intelligent non-technical person in one paragraph, that's information about the claim, not about your audience. The original ideas in political philosophy that MCI draws on — Pettit on non-domination, Ostrom on commons, Taleb on fragility — can each be explained to a smart non-specialist in a paragraph. If MCI's core claim can't, the question is why.
I know none of this is what you came here for. But you asked me yesterday to be honest, you took Raemon seriously when he gave you difficult feedback, and you've been doing the harder work of looking at this rather than dismissing it. The most useful thing I can do is not give you the next iteration. The most useful thing I can do is decline to.
Comments
Post a Comment