XPost: sci.lang   
   From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk   
      
   On 13/01/2026 04:21, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 1/12/26 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
      
   >> The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it   
   >   
   > i'm defining the algo, so i say it does   
      
   This is the god complex. While it's true that definition is a volition,   
   like transforming into a jupiter-sized victoria sponge it is not always   
   a free choice.   
      
   Also, people often use "define" to mean "define a constraint for", you   
   can define a constraint as freely as you can describe it without needing   
   the god complex but perhaps there is no definition of a solution for a   
   system of constraints that includes it.   
      
   I want to know the right terminology for what you did in your statement   
   "i'm defining the algo, so i say it does": you have one meaning for   
   "defining" in "i'm defining the algo" which is "defining a constraint   
   for", but a different meaning in a re-interpretation of the supposed   
   world that's referenced by "so" in "so i say it does" which is actual   
   defining.   
      
   --   
   Tristan Wibberley   
      
   The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except   
   citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)