When I started my project many years ago, I had quite a few people tell that what I had envisioned was crazy and that it was impossible.
Now it seems everyone is starting to follow in the same direction.
I can't compete with Elon's network effect or Deep Mind's deep pockets, but I'm not going to stop, even if I come last, I'm going to finish it.
Onward to the next stage of The Object Model.
(This will be the basis of the script for my next video update)
The Object Model
I'm aiming to get a minimal CRDT system that the system can explore self-modifying in the future.
No, I'm not using something off the shelf. I need to write everything in a way that can eventually be substituted by the evolvable base code, and then the code that invokes it is ported into a similarly self-modifiable orchestration/scaffolding. All in the same language and the same codebase, structured in a way where its code and architecture can be optimally reasoned with by LLMs.
It's the best clear bootstrap path that scales, other than GPT-9000 farting it out fully formed as an afterthought.
Even that path is covered, though, by the same strategy.
While the system as a whole is more inspired by
@DavidBrin's Practice Effect (as per my last video), I kind of feel it will initially run without an effectively impressive mutation for a long time before we see something small, but exciting, like the cell simulation in @gregeganSF's Permutation City. Like a work of art ticking over, where we all "Monitor the Situation" :D
My project is one part serious, three parts "The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations’ Millennium General Assembly" and with a tiny pinch of TempleOS because to attempt something like this, you have to be a little bit touched.. even though now it seems that all the serious players are heading in the same direction.
What I have right now in the OM is a teeny, tiny minimalist CRDT.
I need to extend it just a little further to allow horizontal merges. In this scenario, multiple nodes mutate a common object, and as they push the changes back up to the root, the changes are merged deterministically.
It's perilous because it's easy to make a change with unforeseen circumstances. Locks, knots and two smoking servers.
It and my orchestration system need to be kept as a diagrammatic, local‐rewrite system with small, commuting steps guaranteeing a global invariant or convergence to same.
That will make it safe and deterministic.
Interaction nets and CRDTs share a common foundation with knot theory in local, confluent rewrite systems. I have a highly speculative/fringe hunch that every NP problem has a reduction to something knot-theory-ish, so a minimal framework rooted in knot-theoretic moves might offer new insights into P vs NP.
If I had infinite money, I would snap up @VictorTaelin's @higherordercomp now, hire a busload of knot theory PhDs, and steer them to build what I wanted.
James (DrMiaow)
Hello, Cruel World!
When I started my project many years ago, I had quite a few people tell that what I had envisioned was crazy and that it was impossible.
Now it seems everyone is starting to follow in the same direction.
I can't compete with Elon's network effect or Deep Mind's deep pockets, but I'm not going to stop, even if I come last, I'm going to finish it.
Onward to the next stage of The Object Model.
(This will be the basis of the script for my next video update)
The Object Model
I'm aiming to get a minimal CRDT system that the system can explore self-modifying in the future.
No, I'm not using something off the shelf. I need to write everything in a way that can eventually be substituted by the evolvable base code, and then the code that invokes it is ported into a similarly self-modifiable orchestration/scaffolding. All in the same language and the same codebase, structured in a way where its code and architecture can be optimally reasoned with by LLMs.
It's the best clear bootstrap path that scales, other than GPT-9000 farting it out fully formed as an afterthought.
Even that path is covered, though, by the same strategy.
While the system as a whole is more inspired by @DavidBrin's Practice Effect (as per my last video), I kind of feel it will initially run without an effectively impressive mutation for a long time before we see something small, but exciting, like the cell simulation in @gregeganSF's Permutation City. Like a work of art ticking over, where we all "Monitor the Situation" :D
My project is one part serious, three parts "The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations’ Millennium General Assembly" and with a tiny pinch of TempleOS because to attempt something like this, you have to be a little bit touched.. even though now it seems that all the serious players are heading in the same direction.
What I have right now in the OM is a teeny, tiny minimalist CRDT. I need to extend it just a little further to allow horizontal merges. In this scenario, multiple nodes mutate a common object, and as they push the changes back up to the root, the changes are merged deterministically.
It's perilous because it's easy to make a change with unforeseen circumstances. Locks, knots and two smoking servers.
It and my orchestration system need to be kept as a diagrammatic, local‐rewrite system with small, commuting steps guaranteeing a global invariant or convergence to same.
That will make it safe and deterministic.
Interaction nets and CRDTs share a common foundation with knot theory in local, confluent rewrite systems. I have a highly speculative/fringe hunch that every NP problem has a reduction to something knot-theory-ish, so a minimal framework rooted in knot-theoretic moves might offer new insights into P vs NP.
If I had infinite money, I would snap up @VictorTaelin's @higherordercomp now, hire a busload of knot theory PhDs, and steer them to build what I wanted.
3 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 7