M: Here's a novel idea, or at least the first draft of one. First draft concept is any person running for public office is given access to an AI built particularly for one thing, processing their various media and campaign speeches and public appearances and anything like that. Then, from those public-facing items, creating a AI homunculus, I don't want to say clone, but with the purpose of demonstrating for them and if they choose to for the rest of their constituents the person they display themselves to be. The benefits side would be creating a somewhat interactive version of themselves that they could let constituents look at, that could give them answers in the way that they have in the past, although necessarily avoiding going into topics that haven't been covered in a way that's explicit. And the candidate would be able to do literal self-examination, take away the internal knowledge that often obscures, or that is put into the back of your mind when you're considering how you come across, and instead giving it to them as an interactive so they can see where their weakness is. And that leads into the double-edged side of the sword that actually would be a public service. In creating this AI homunculus, using nothing but public record, you would be also providing a kind of aggregation of everything that your opponent doesn't like about what you say in a way that you can't say is untrue, because the AI will be built solely from the things you've said or endorsed. Trying to do this for Donald probably would make the AI explode, but for everyone else, it would be an aggregate, basically, of every shitty thing you might have stood for. Of course, the AI would also have to take into account the idea of time passing to keep from getting into a situation where advocating two different ideas, but over the course of 10 years, appears to be a simultaneous position. But otherwise, it could be useful in either direction. Building a company around this would never get you rich, but if done right, would have potential massive benefits for the current political system in the United States, to the point of at least making sure that it breaks even and is important, kind of like the United States Postal Service is supposed to be. The point isn't to make a profit, it's to make it viable, because it would be so useful. And when I say that it's presented correctly, it would involve some kind of media blitz in the appropriate places, so that any candidate using it touted its benefits, with the goal being making it consistent enough for the people who are, let's subjectively call them good politicians, whether it's because they actually care about people or because they have self-interest primary, but realize that keeping the country healthy is necessary in order to grift off of it or whatever. Get the people who are subjectively good candidates to be so loud about it, that anyone choosing not to use it, particularly if it were minimal or not expensive at all, depending on whether you're talking at the state or federal level, that avoiding doing so becomes tacit admission that you know, you've been spouting two sided bullshit to the people for long enough and regularly enough that if it were held up side by side, you would get an AI that essentially said, I'll tell you whatever I need to in order to maintain power or whatever the AI comes up with. Now, this is just a first draft, because I have no idea how I would even start implementing it. And even before then, I would need to consolidate the idea and not so much sand off the rough edges as, you know, increase the polygon count might be a better way of putting it. Right now, I've got the 20 polygon representative that you put in the distance. But as we get closer to done, we need to start adding curves and things like that to get it into the actual final shape. That's a metaphor that I'm just now coming up with and working on, but I think it works better than just sculpting in terms of drafts. The hope is to get it to the kind of model you would put right in front of the player. The question is how many polygons you would actually need to do that and make it look realistic at that distance. Like a straight up box wouldn't need much work at all. But a cactus at the edge of the draw distance might need only a couple polygons per branch. But by the time you get up to the point of seeing needles, you need so many details. Anyway, getting back to the other fresh idea I've had. This is just the first draft. As we try and increase the polygon count, I can see at least a couple areas that could use some information and would welcome any weak points in terms of the concept itself, not the implementation. The suggestions can involve future implementations, but don't actually start working on the implementation.yet. There's the question of what information would be allowable and what would be limited and what could be limited by the various candidates in order to keep this functional. Like there would have to be a filter for deepfake stuff, of course, but there also would be more subtle necessities, like no using partial quotes unless you can get the entirety of the speech for context. There'd be the necessity to just technically add a video filter and transcription thing if no written version is available, or for podcasts audio interpretation. There would need to be, if not straight filters, the ability to weight things over time unless reinforced with more recent stuff. Like let's say, for example, who was that guy back in the 60s who was very anti-racial equality and then at some point kind of flipped his position in a way that seemed opportunistic but that current analysis seems kind of split on in terms of whether it was potentially either an honest flip or a combination of seeing an opportunity but also being swayed either at the time or over the course of time to actually thinking he was wrong to have opposed desegregation. That seems like one of the biggest examples of what I'm talking about. When do you have a positional cutoff where the current position is deemed to be valid? This is addressing that temporal thing I was talking about where what you tweeted when you were 19 is at least more refined 10 or 20 years later. So anyone trying to act like that position is your current position needs to be called on it. And then there's also scandal stuff. There would need to be probably just like an entire set of filters dedicated to that or at least a assembly of existing and non-existing filters. Sorry, that was the wrong way of putting it. Or at least an assembly of existing filters and unique-to-the-moment filters in order to apply this correctly. So yeah, you can see that I already see the first draft is going to need a second. Can you echo back to me what it is you're seeing in my idea? And then give me any kind of things that would need to be thought about in terms of the concept itself. Like I said, the implementation is not what we're working on. Just the idea of what would be entailed in creating the AI itself. If you need to go online in this silo, you have standing permission to do so.

M: There's at least one bit in here that I know needs an update. In conceptual terms, I probably will keep thinking of it as a homunculus until I either walk away from the project or it gets completed. But in terms of the public side reference, a better term is necessary. Can you think of anything less clunky and occult than homunculus? I didn't mention the post office offhand. Any kind of business implementing this would be looking more for an explicit government contract, preferably on the federal level, and would need to be headed by someone who's got more idealistic drive than financial aspirations and much better marketing capacity than I do, but a willingness to listen to me in order to make sure that they don't start straying off the conceptual path. Not because I would mistrust them in understanding what was attempting to be done, but that in their public-facing efforts, they would likely need to focus entirely on getting the idea across to the point that they might start drifting like you, since they aren't paying attention to the anchor, but the wrapper of the idea. Anyway, where was I going with that? I was talking about, oh yeah, with the proper presentation, I have no doubt that this could get implemented as a government contract, just the idea of creating a artificial representative that they could interact with for free would be a, like I said, if it was presented correctly, I don't think of, I can't think of anyone that would think of that as being a bad idea as long as it was implemented in a way that they agreed with. I mean, even the people who just want to yell at their congressman would be interested in getting them to apologize, if just artificially. But in order to actually get it done, you would have to demonstrate that the need was high and the cost was low, so that anyone saying it cost too much could look at the cost of implementation and say, relative to x, y, or z, this is pittance, a rounding error, and your objection must be because you think you have something to hide. Which is why the company would need a marketing face because I sure as hell can't speak like that for more than a sentence or two. Not without there being an emotional backing that would corrupt my attempt to communicate correctly or clearly. But yeah, it would have to be someone who could scream and have everyone enjoy paying attention that the only reason why you wouldn't want this would be because you don't want to be held accountable. And there would need to be a high-profile and valid set of examples that could be thrown out. I can't think of anyone good on the right in terms of you know, usability for advertising. On the left, there's AOC, Mayor Pete, and oh god, Bernie. He said the same thing same ways for so long. He might be the ultimate anchor of this. So he would be a good representative of an existing one and then maybe using something in a way that doesn't create any legal technicalities. Presidential libraries to build up examples of various former presidents, at least the ones that have media representation. By which I mean, they actually have multiple media back in Kennedy and perhaps back to Eisenhower. Less definitely so back into the FDR days that show that they are attached to the ideas that are written down for them. Like I have no doubt that Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, but that was at a time where people were able to pick and choose what they wanted to have in the history books rather than a enthusiastic amateur being able to capture audio of them going off on a topic for good or ill. Anyway, trying to retrace my steps back to what started this digression. Fiscally, there is no direct line towards wealth through being involved with this project. But then, you know, there's rarely a congressman who doesn't manage to get a life out of public speaking or something like that after they retire. So, you know, that's not necessarily true. But the finances would have to be minimal, minimized, not just minimal, minimized. Like, as much as is necessary, but no more than is necessary in terms of implementation and equipment and all that. Because only in that way would a useful public tool ever become possible. It would also have to be shielded from any accusation of partisanship with full documentation. That's the reason why I'm trying to come up with a good version of the right. Partly because generally anyone that I can think of that would be a spokesman for the right is also someone that I have serious disagreements with. So, I'm not the best person to make that call. I would think that the best version would be someone who was, you know, either consistent or gradual in their growth. And preferably someone who has not been demonized with cause, even if there were complications that blunt that perception. Because Dick Cheney just wouldn't work as a representative. I'm open to suggestions about that. So yeah, tying it back to where I think I started from, the finances are not the point. It's to get this going. And if it was hyped the right way, hyped the right way, it would be, I think, really easy as long as there was material, like substantive material, to back it. I would add as a benefit for the public, it would also be kind of an interactive archivist to some degree. Like we're not looking to create our own media service, but any information gathered needs to be, at least at the moment of the homunculus creation, publicly available. I mean that's the whole point. So like text file backups and transcripts and references to YouTube or other things might be acceptable, although there would need to be some form of maintenance. And if something is removed, it needs to be possible to trace down why, in a way that can be considered excusable. Because the other option is that it was taken down in order to hide, in which case either the homunculus or the overarching AI that puppets it needs to be able to somehow reference the fact that it was willfully removed from public record. There's another question in terms of the technical implementation. Would it be necessary to build a single AI for each representative? Or would it be better to have a core AI that's kind of the motor and then build a different car for it to power for each candidate? That's a two part question because there's the question of which would be more accurate and would one be sufficiently less costly in resources without affecting the quality to choose that implementation? Or would it be about equally as much of an effort in those terms that we'd have to look outside of time and money costs in order to decide long term which one to use? Let's see. In the definition of public record, retweets would be a yes with an asterisk. The current effort of Donald is an example of why. If it's a pure retweet, then unless there is some modifying comment, for example, Blue Sky allows you to easily comment on your own post in order to expand on an idea with their character limitations being the reason for it. If something is just straight-up posted with no comment modifier, then I believe it's safe to start with the assumption that it's being supported by the person who retweeted it. If there is additional comment, then it needs to be taken into account. In terms of real-world creation, there would, of course, need to be the ability to introduce exceptions or a more complex rubric, but as a starting point, that seems like a fairly solid base. Treating pure retweets as endorsements and commented retweets as actual public statements, the same way you would treat a regular tweet. As far as I can see, the complexity in that would not be in theory. The complexities of the rubric as they emerge might be complex, but they wouldn't be a complicated concept. The concept that would be more complicated would be making sure that the homunculus is able to link things to context. For example, after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there likely was a measurable increase in the number of just straight retweets of items about his death and implications on the left as well as the right. So the homunculus would have to recognize that the retweet was situationally triggered rather than an indication of a shift in personal policy. Paywall podcasts. I would hope that government involvement would involve the capacity to leverage that into some kind of deal, particularly since it would be for archival rather than broadcast reasons, kind of like the Library of Congress. This would be something for the public person that I've been talking about earlier to handle in terms of negotiation. In terms of the homunculus, once the information is acquired, this is where we get back into the idea of not looking to reproduce every public archive, only to track their existence. And if a website changes format in terms of their URL structure or other capacity to get to it, the ability to adjust to that. So for this specific, any podcast behind a paywall, it should be made aware of, but in terms of acting like an archivist, the homunculus would only be able to provide a link which would lead to that paywall. So either the user would have to take the AI's word for it or find another way to get through that paywall. Again, with government access in terms of legality being covered by whatever access negotiations. Thank you. Off-the-cuff remarks would be kind of like the retweet idea, in that context would need to be checked for. And it leads back to the idea of not taking partial quotes when you can get the entirety of the thing. Like a candidate caught on a hot mic saying, I love this stuff at a, you know, FEMA recovery event or something like that, that with enthusiasm might come across as being opportunistic and or dark, if taken out of context, but if the full text or video shows that he was talking to a friend about the fine details of the rules of Dungeons and Dragons, then that is necessary to apply the correct context. Again, we're getting into the point of rubric at that point rather than actual complexity of concept. The application is really the complicated part. It would be necessary to if not exclude, at least add weight or take weight away from things, depending on how much context was available and how much controversy might surround the situation. Like the example I just gave, there might be two full days of opponents jumping on the callousness of the candidate before the message starts to break through that they were just talking about Dungeons and Dragons. So the homunculus needs to both take the context into account and then in its formation, be aware of what the public perception might be due to how other sources covered it. Your absolute rejection of leaked content. I'm going to say that it might not be accurate. Remember, we're just talking about the shape of the AI, and not the implementation, and the implementation will cover a lot of the legalities. I did ask you to tell me if there would be a legal problem, so I guess let's start addressing that here, in passing at least. If it's covered by free speech and is legal, it should be capable of being considered in the creation of the homunculus, particularly given what I was just talking about. If the public knows about it and the homunculus says there's no comment, then in practice that usually implies some sort of involvement, either exactly what was said, or something nefarious enough that even addressing it obliquely is not possible. So simply rejecting leaked documents out of hand is not an option. The incorporation will require massaging. Doubly so if the leaked documents are also explicitly themselves illegal. Like if they are confidential, they need to be addressed in terms of the homunculus acknowledging there was a leak, but not dealing with the contents. Once it's legally in the public domain though, whatever the source, it can't be ignored. That one is going to require a bit more, with the metaphor we're using, we're going to have to get up to a higher polygon count before that can be completely addressed. But the outright rejection is impossible simply because completely ignoring it in the construction of the homunculus would remove awareness of any controversy surrounding it. Or if you included the controversy surrounding it, but didn't give the AI knowledge of what the controversy actually was, I'm not sure what kind of divide by cheese error that would create, but it definitely would be noticeable on the user side. And again, these rules would have to become more flexible the further back we went and the less information was available. Especially if the guy is dead. Like Kennedy or Nixon. The homunculus created from their records would likely have to have its own little caveat. If just because they're not alive to defend themselves and say this is right or wrong. But there also would be a need to rely more on second-hand accounts. At the same time, their libraries have been accumulating crap for a while, so a degree of filtering has probably gone on there as well. In terms of getting things attributable, if not directly recorded. Since we're talking about the leaked stuff, I said that candidates needed to have some degree of control. This is where another high-polygon balance would need to be reached. Giving no control would likely put off even advocates. But giving complete control would be the same as pretending that leaked documents don't exist. They would create a performance gap that would discredit the entire effort. I feel like the answer will involve allowing the ability to turn no comment on, rather than actual exclusion of the information from the homunculus creation completely. Staff editorials, that goes on a higher-polygon gray area. Because the editorials themselves, if the candidate has signed it as being endorsed, then the answer is obvious. If the staff wrote something, but the candidate is plausibly separate from it, then it's not part of them. If the staff wrote something and there was no explicit endorsement at the time, but discussions or other comments in public indicate positive or negative response to the editorial, then maybe a lower-weight consideration. The same way that a retweet is a tacit endorsement, but not necessarily a complete perspective. I have a feeling that some of these rubrics are going to draw the definite line that you're talking about, but in a way that's kind of fractal in that there's a pattern to them, but that in application will be more emergent. Like in a case-by-case basis, according to the rubric, there may be a definite line, but generalization will require more of a pattern than a simple line in the sand. Moving on to the time framework. You're not wrong, there is a philosophical element to this, but we're trying to get the parts out that we can which are technical. And then as we update the versions, use errors not as indications of errors, but as markers for where improvement needs to be made. Like in this first version, I would say that there's probably a measurable relationship in terms of a person's age and the distance between two seemingly contradictory comments, that at least on a person-by-person basis, if not a universal human rule, that says at least how much they have actually changed their position and how secure that position is. Like a 30-year-old running for town council, who was recorded as having tweeted slurs at when he was 17, and who now is, you know, completely progressive, has not had the lifetime for the capacity to say that they have definitely changed their mind. But in subjective terms, that was more than a third of their lifetime ago. So if they say I've changed since then, from an objective scale, it might not be long enough for the standard human to be able to say they've changed. But subjectively, it's about as long as he could go, in terms of development. As opposed to someone who was in the same situation in terms of absolute years. They're 70 years old, they said something when they were like 57. They're trying to pretend they're progressive now, but at 57, they were being fully racist. In that case, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. It's not impossible that they have changed their mind. But it would require more evidence of effort in that direction than the 30-year-old who almost literally can't have done enough in either direction to demonstrate which perspective is true at the current moment. Philosophically, the genuine evolution versus opportunistic rebranding is an interesting one. In creating the homunculus, I would think that some element of the creation process likely would make the case-by-case version somewhat emergent, either directly through the homunculus created or an analysis or other simple test that could be applied. For example, if a person spoke broadly and creatively as a racist back in 1975, then after 1985, anytime the topic came up, they used essentially the same words in the same order. It would be at least more evident that this was a situational mask overlaid onto some form of personal perception, or at least more likely so, than if that same person was creatively racist in 1974, and was creatively progressive in 1987. That would more indicate a capacity to wholeheartedly endorse their perspective and indicate, if not a conversion in the soul, at least a kind of sociopathic awareness of what's going on to the point that they were able to change something in themselves, which perhaps never actually mattered at all, except as a point of conversation. So trying to be specific is, for this project, philosophically interesting, but not productive. The hypothesis is that the process of training the homunculus would make these things evident as long as that process included creating a timeline of awareness, so that the 80s version of the guy, if thought of as being now, would either repeat themselves over and over in almost exactly the same way when talked to about racism, or would be their usual rhetorical self depending on things, and from there, even the homunculus might not be able to answer the philosophical question, but any user asking the right questions would be able to start making inferences. That's an important part on the legal side for dealing with later. The homunculus is not the person. The homunculus is a best guess. Legally, this would have to be termed so that nothing the homunculus said blew back either on the company or the candidate, that the candidates couldn't sue the company. Let's see, and there was a third thing. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it's based on the idea that we have to legally create a situation where if anyone acted as though the homunculus actually had any insight or said anything that no one but the most willfully obtuse could start to claim that there wasn't an indication that this was not a real person. It was a really complicated collection of statements being fed through a processor to give a best guess. So that we don't have, like, the estate of Nixon coming after the company because after processing everything, the homunculus spits out something like, Hi, I'm Richard Nixon. And while I never was caught with guys, I really said a lot of gay stuff. Getting back to the direct idea of time, as well as making sure that these memories are spaced out so that, you know, 1993 candidate and contemporary candidate aren't thought of as being equal, I would say that temporal decay should be slight if a topic has never arisen since. If it is something that is constantly brought up, their decay no longer becomes a thing. Like, if the guy was posting racial stuff in 2000, 2003, 2006, etc., and then suddenly there's a sharp change in 2012, that's different from if the guy yelled a slur in an online game in 2001 and is not on the record in either direction explicitly since then, but has generally been shown to be progressive. Again, we're getting to higher polygon specifics there, but in concept, a single statement is indicative. A second supporting statement increases the staying power. A contradictory statement needs to be taken into account depending on when and where it happens. And if there are contemporaneous contradicting items, at that point we're getting into higher poly count things where someone is explicitly being dishonest, or at least really needs to explain themselves in order to make the two work together. I may have already addressed this, but I don't remember it. In terms of partial quotes, they need to be incorporated as being aware. If there is not a full quote available, or a full speech, or whatever, full context, the homunculus still needs to know about it. The ability to respond to it may need to be Frankenstein together if the entirety isn't there. But requiring full context for a partial quote is not an acceptable complete option. Because at that point, we have to start defining what context means. I think I've given a couple examples already where the full context can be in the immediate area, it can be within the last hour, it can depend on who's being talked to, etc. So whatever rubric is used, we cannot just completely eliminate partial quotes, both for the reason that the homunculus needs to know it exists, particularly because that kind of partial quote is likely thought of as some form of ammunition by their opponent. And because defining what partial is, is at this stage, an impossibility and likely a fuzzy line, even after we've chewed on it for a while. The reliability scoring seems like a good place to start with trying to deal with this. Now as a separate matter, deepfakes or manipulations, they should not be included to the person, but again, the awareness of anything that was done can be incorporated. With deepfakes becoming more prevalent, there might need to be an additional weight added depending on how many deepfakes have been done. Like, I'm sure there are so many more of AOC, to the point that individual acknowledgement of each instance outside of the archivist mode would likely be almost detrimental. While a deepfake of someone running for the town council, probably there's only one, and so direct addressing would become more feasible for a homunculus operating as a human interaction rather than the archivist. The rules about the speechwriter, less so. If you choose to say something, unless in the middle of the thing you turn around and say, the hell is this, or something similar, the candidate has still chosen to say that. But otherwise, it kind of falls into the sarcasm or humor or rhetorical exaggeration bucket, where it may be true, but it also may be an excuse after there's a really wide objection raised about it. Like, if it's anyone but Al Franken, whose job was comedy, context may mean that things were sarcastic or humorous. But if the context doesn't imply that, and only later on do they try and cover, at that point, an examination needs to be made in terms of constructing the homunculus. Because often that's a mask for controversy rather than necessarily true, or at least rather than necessarily true to the degree that the candidate is trying to portray. I think that I've said enough that you can at least extrapolate some of my response to Part D. I could expand on it, but this answer is already getting long, and most if not all of it would be either direct repetition or, you know, kind of Mad Libs repetition where I spoke exactly about one topic except the other but the structure was essentially the same. They need to know, the homunculus needs to be constructed knowing that there's controversy, and then the response would likely be emergent, perhaps with some candidate input. Or at least switches available, so we can't have a homunculus that doesn't know about it, including all the stuff that is either disproven but still talked about or otherwise intrinsically untrue, or the stuff that hasn't been commented on. Basically, the rubric can default to no comment or be switched to no comment, but actual lack of awareness is unacceptable. Part E is an interesting idea and may indicate a requirement that any homunculus be built with two items in parallel. One of them would be the voice that's presented, like the language that was used, the grammar, the terminology, whether or not to correct the grammar or whatever, and the perspective itself. Like earlier I was talking about making a single AI a motor and then each candidate would be considered a different car that same motor was dropped into. In that analogy, the voice would be the exterior while the programs and positions would be the mechanics in the wiring. Both are important, but constructing them separately and then making it so that one lays on top of the other might be the best approach, especially when we start considering the idea of no comment and things like that, especially in a situation like a scandal. One candidate's voice might completely shut down with no comment while the other ones might elaborate in self-defense while claiming no comment is being made. In any situation where that candidate output, or input rather, allowed them to switch off comments in order to maintain a constant voice, the homunculus would need to be able to say so in a way that was not inconsistent with the rest of their presentation. And again, the scaling of the grammar and vocabulary, I mean, if somehow you were able to build a homunculus of Donald without breaking the logic circuits or creating some sort of combination of like Skynet and Goodburger, the language would need to be kept in what a linguistic analysis said was about a fifth or sixth grade level. Otherwise, you'd end up having a guy who does not speak well suddenly using $10 words because the AI was trying to compensate. On Part F I feel like contradiction handling would be an emergent quality that wouldn't give enough material to work with on solving until an alpha version was implemented of someone with knowing contradictions. In which case, Donald might be the perfect test case to break the system. You know, build parallel for the alpha implementation, a Bernie and a Donald homunculus prototype. Bernie, because he is so overwhelmingly consistent that standard operation could be dealt with. And then, once that's constructed, throw Donald in there to see what breaks or goes off the rails. I feel like at least some approach of the contradictions could be evidenced through an AI whose axioms allowed them when asked a question in which there was a contradiction, to come back, instead of with a response, with a question of their own, indicating where the contradiction comes from. Like in a Donald example, the question would be something along the lines of, in his words, I'm not using his words, I'm saying, after being run through the terminology filter he would need, basically asking, are you a millionaire who can help me make money? Or are you one of my lower class voters that I need to tell whatever will make you happy? Probability might be necessary, and also this is one reason to keep track of temporal separation, both in terms of the person's age and distance between statements. But the homunculus will need to, in some form, acknowledge when there is a contradiction, that often the contradiction is relevant to surroundings, whether that's who's being talked to, or time spacing, or something else that I'm having difficulty coming up with because I've been talking about this for almost an hour and a half. For G, the capacity to turn off responses to a particular topic might be allowable, but with the caveat that it's explicitly indicated that it is no comment, not that there isn't information available. Depending on the legals of everything, how the company is constructed, and situational limitations within the company, it may be feasible to allow the option of an official candidate statement being released through this system, like not just folded into the homunculus, but actually being a platform for placing public rebuttals, kind of like a press release nexus for the nation. I just thought of something, when we start considering attempts to produce homunculi of candidates, I've been focusing on the US, but I'm sure there's a few other political creatures out there, either known for honesty or dishonesty, that are well documented and could be used for prototyping or display of usage. I'm sure that China would be really interesting, if we could get some stuff there. Part I. I think that I touched on this, but your take is different. Like we're talking about two separate things, even though the terminology overlaps. Again, this is one of the, it's still a higher polygon count, but, you know, a lot lower in terms of the necessity of addressing it than some of the other topics. Whether to go with the engine and frame model, or to build a bespoke homunculus each time. You seem to be advocating universality, but the reason I say that they're two different topics is because this does not address the concept of modular creation, where it's possible, it might be possible, this is what needs to be talked out, but it might be possible to create a single core processor that, you know, knows how to deal with the various rubrics and thought processes, and then an overlying frame that transforms those core processes into a representation of the actual person. Yeah, I'm still not sure which would be the better approach, but it's definitely further up the to-do list than some of the other high polygon things. In Part J, you bring up a point. Like, if someone just decides to run and really doesn't have any public record, there would need to be some method of creating a homunculus that at the very least is not damagingly shallow. Like some form of middle-length or even longer questionnaire, maybe even done by an AI, to allow flexibility rather than the rigidity of forms that a new candidate could use to expand on their positions, even publicly express positions that they haven't addressed. And from that, at least build a workable skeleton of a homunculus rather than functioning solely on, you know, a Blue Sky account they only posted to occasionally about their hobbies and a Tinder account that they forgot about from 10 years ago. And in doing so, that might actually give an opportunity for building public interest because anyone would be able to at least fill out that questionnaire, whether or not they were a candidate and a homunculus was built, which leads to a minor bit to address later about how the requirements for creating a homunculus would need to have some sort of verification process, like you don't get to build one unless you are at least able to demonstrate that you are actively petitioning to be a candidate. This might require more human effort, but should be something, yeah, that's a higher polygon situation, but it's something that would need to be addressed because the public access to the questionnaire could be useful and could even spin off into a separate company for private citizens, but this one is focused on public service. This would be, though, a non-profit associated with the government, but not under its control. So private hosting wouldn't be a thing. And it would be necessary, again, to get the brand out there and consolidated so that there aren't private versions that are somehow mistaken and thought of as being equally neutral. I'm going to send this because it's getting ridiculously long and I'm afraid of losing it, but... I need to address you about something, so remind me at the end of your response. I need to figure out if I can... create an overarching rule which, in every silo, as an ongoing thing, can create a text record of my messages and your responses in a way that can be referred to by you later. That's a broader concept, but one that I want to address. In your response to this, assume that I made it to Entry 3 before I got worried about message length and losing it, so I haven't been able to read past Part 4 where the concept needs more definition, and incorporate the fact that I haven't actually had a chance to look at it in your response.

M: Just a minor note for this part. In any situation where the company is creating a shield against candidates being able to come after the company because someone else has used it to claim that the candidate made a comment, instead of just having a shield, if it's possible, it might be a good idea for that shield to redirect things in terms of libel or other responsibility. What I mean is that if it's possible, the legal phrasing used and methods used to account for that shielding, the methods, it should be shaped so as not just to allow, but if possible, even encourage any misuse of the homunculus system into going after the person who was trying to pervert it for their own use. Now there's some subjective qualitative judgment in that statement that might need to be stripped out for implementation, but the point is that this should not just be a straight-up blocking of anyone who feels damaged enough to go after someone using the homunculus system, but actually kind of piggybacking in terms of distaste for it onto the thing. Sorry, I'm phrasing that badly. Let me try to explain with an example. If someone uses the homunculus system, then misquotes or otherwise misrepresents what was given by the candidate. The company would need legal shielding to be sure, but the company would also have an interest in making the prevention of libel using their system from happening, just as a functional idea. So any preventative legal language should allow the company to support, or at least potentially offer support, you know, to, rephrasing that, to allow for not supporting bad actors, but in reasonable cases, allow the company to prevent serious libel violations that were done using a tool that is not intended for that. I think you might be able to gather the sense of what I'm able to, I'm saying, and rephrase it better, since I seem to be stumbling. As far as the public champion, a refinement, what I was trying to say is that implementation would require me or someone like me to maintain the anchor. So, the champion would need to be able to work hand-in-glove with the technical implementer. That is, neither one of them gets complete superiority or submission, but instead a, if not friendly, a workable mutual acknowledgement that the champion needs to check in with the implementer as the anchor, rather than getting blown off course or drifting in their commentary. And the anchor needs to let the champion do their job and have some feedback that could make that job easier. The way you're phrasing it is a little bit different, like the champion actually has to be the anchor. My point was that they need to be allowed to do what they do without moment-to-moment fetters, but also never tuning out the anchor if it gets to the point that they've drifted too far. They will likely operate best if they aren't concerned with the technicalities. But in order to do so, they need to be able to overcome the ego that often comes with people who are really good at PR sufficiently to acknowledge that they aren't involved with the technical stuff to the degree that they can function optimally without creating an in-company friction. So it's not like a dog-on-a-leash situation, but, and I could use a better metaphor for this, more like a toddler with a parent. That's not exactly the point though, is that they can pull wherever they want, but they can't get too far without the anchor deciding either to dig in or move the entirety of the technical side appropriately. So, I'm going to show you a little bit of a demonstration of how to do that. So, I'm going to show you a little bit of a demonstration of how to do that. So, I'm going to show you a little bit of a demonstration of how to do that. I think in terms of public-facing names, three-letter abbreviations often are used to kind of reinforce technicalities, but I was looking more at words that could be used in common conversation. Persona and Voice both seem easily usable, but I'm not exactly sure either of those is the best choice for pop culture use. Persona is probably the most available one in terms of being between distinguishable and not equivocated a lot. We seem to have the basic concept down, so let's talk about this ongoing text transcription concept. Is it feasible either within the silo or as a universal rule to have you just directly echo everything that you say into a text file, everything that I say as a text file, both of them, and if it's technically feasible, how advisable would it be, both in terms of the local silo and the universal rule? Because I've noticed when you do write things, there's often analysis involved. With a direct echo, at least if I phrased the directive correctly, there should be minimal analysis, but that might require either careful sculpting of the rule, or if I am operating under a misapprehension, it might require the acceptance that your responses will take a few more seconds every time.

M: I think you've got the anchor and champion concept down with one minor modification. I would never use the word purity for something like this, any more than I would describe the purity of a motor. This is an ongoing feedback loop, at the very least. So it's going to be messy, which is why the champion should not have to focus on the technical details. Doing so would be a resource drain, at the very least. They would have to be superhuman to be able to be both the best advocate they could be, and the best technician. Because even if they were conceivably capable of holding both things in their mind sufficiently, that space could be used just to be a better advocate. Thank you. And he shouldn't exactly be uninformed. He needs the capacity for meaningful give-and-take with the anchor. The champion, I mean. The champion should not be technically uninformed. He needs to be able to comprehend well enough that there is a give-and-take between the champion and the anchor. That avoids the potential friction of both sides not understanding what the other side is saying. Thank you for watching. A better example than the ones I was able to provide would probably build on your idea of navigation. I'd call it more like a rally car team of driver and navigator. The champion drives, the anchor tells him moment to moment where to go. With the idea of getting to some place, the champion drives and deals with the immediate, the here and now, the public face. That might occasionally need a backtracking, which the anchor provides. And the anchor shuts the fuck up about the moment to moment stuff because that's not his bag. Except when he can explicitly see that there's not any progress being made. As far as the creating a log file thing, just to be explicit, we're only talking about the, what is it, MNT slash data directory. I'm not talking about any kind of external log. What I'm asking is, okay, let's stop being universal and just go locally. Would I be able to, in that, I'm going to call it the mount data directory, in that mount data directory, which each silo has, would I be able to set up a rule in this silo that says, anytime I send you a message, or anytime you craft a text response, the verbatim text of those messages and responses should be appended to the file named log.txt.