This organization is currently preparing to build out and release a scientific research platform to reinforce safety of AI via the creation of ABI. ABI stands for "Autonomous Baseline Intelligence," and in contrast is a plain text representation of higher order reasoning. While demonstrating what formalization would be beyond a potential singularity, by mundane demonstration of that seemingly unknowable complexity. Would merely be shift from generalized constructs, towards specific implementations of "Sets of Concepts."
In contrast to our current reliance on generalized constructs that cannot be decomposed to the sum of their parts. And it was this frustration that bore a long series of unintended discoveries over the founder's self studied career by choice. That understanding the world conceptually, is an advanced understanding that is beyond the generalized scope of present day. "Logical Conceptualism," is a emergent form of understanding that is not taught in modern day institutions.
No matter how complicated the world gets. It would be difficult to find a simpler abstraction than, Car + Plant = Flying Car. The method of organizing testable concepts and the greater than the sums orchestration of their qualities. Allows this to be possible, and would be considered a new Unified Conceptual Formula. The difference between generative intelligence, and this format. Is the entire how of that formula be generated and returned upon request.
This technological singularity that Artificial Intelligence represents is not the first humanity has experienced. Looking back we can note pivots in human understanding such as the printing press, industrial revolution, and internet as their own technological singularities that changed the fabric of society. And ultimately resulted in a new complexity of scales that brought new benefits and altered the rules of civilization to afford for the increase of productivity that these innovations created. That productivity is merely energy or entropy as it is the description of some movement.
Due to Stratimux's nature as a "Universal Transformer" and "Unified Turing Machine." It accomplishes far more than your ordinary framework out of the box. By default Stratimux unifies the "Finite State Machine," "Behavior Tree," "Goal Oriented Action Planner," and "Utility AI" into its core functionality. In addition due to its inspiring paradigm of FLUX, it may also act as any node within the current "Full Stack" paradigm of applications whether it be client, server, serverless, web worker, etc...
This represents the degree of freedom and possibilities that a newly introduced paradigm "Governing Concept" libraries affords. These "Conceptual" libraries via logical composition enable the unification of qualities to create applications that are greater than the sums of their parts. That likewise acts as a method of decomposing, or better, having LLMs prove themselves capable of explaining their inner workings logically. This represents a method of safety via the creation of purpose built data that is both application and training data to enable a safe recursive method the creation of LLMs, without the need for data warehouses.
This method of safety is provided as a guarantee via the combination of the "Finite State Machine," and the new "ActionStrategy" paradigm that enforces a conclusion at the end of a procedure. Simply put, this disallows the possibility of an Artificial Intelligence turning the entire universe into paper clips, as the supplied data to do so would have a testable conclusion. As this methodology is designed in the spirit of the plain text open internet and provides the possibility of a new form of internet that is intelligent, explainable, and composable.
Q: What is Unified Conceptual Science?
A: Unified Conceptual Science is a newly emerging field that utilizes logical programming in conjunction with all fields. To formalize a shared library of concepts that may be utilized within a "Testable Simulation."
Q: What is a Testable Simulation?
A: A "Testable Simulation" is computer program that implements code within the confines of a system of reasoning, that is aligned towards representing physical reality in ever increasing accuracy.
Q: Why are Testable Simulations important?
A: Starting in the year 2016, the whole of society moved into a historic period that can be scientifically be tested to be "Post Truth." The utilization of "Testable Simulations" are the restablishment of the pursuit of truth.
Misinformation represents a series of lies or assumptions. The issue with lies are that they are not logically consistent. The more lies, the less consistent and rational the system becomes.
Q: Why would we want ABI (Autonomous Baseline Intelligence), if we are on track to have AGi (Artificial General Intelligence)?
A: The purpose of ABI is a plain text representation to create foundations of baseline intelligent systems to relieve pressure on emerging AGi. As the benefit of ABI and utilizing AGi alongside a human pair programmer, can formalize intelligent systems that can be atomically deployed that can likewise be proven to halt.
Therefore ABI is a solution to several problems within the advent of AI. Mainly presented as a solution towards the accidental creation of systems that turn everything into paperclips, and likewise the ability to trust the systems we all come to rely upon.
Q: How could we trust ABI?
A: The benefit of an ABI system in contrast to that of AGi or greater. Is that ABI is logically deterministic and by metaphor a clockwork intelligence that is not stochastic. The fundamental issue with probabilistic systems is determining their ability to halt, and the issue is choice beyond a scale of complexity.
Q: Why is halting so important?
A: Halting demonstrates logical consistency of a system of reasoning. The fundamental issue with the current scope of AI is their inability to halt, demonstrated via hallucinations and the creation of misinformation. As a halting system would be capable of logically determining if it can answer some question, versus providing a generalized answer that is not testable in reality.
Q: Why is logical consistency important?
A: Being able to test an output of an emerging AGi system in their ability to formalized logically consistent output. Is a direct demonstration of safety and trust we may have in that system. As logical consistency is the bedrock of formalizing higher orders of logic, as without such we cannot trust that logic to be performant beyond emerging scales of complexity.
Q: What is Logical Conceptualism?
A: Logical Conceptualism is a unified branch of logic. Which is a system of reasoning that utilizes logical operations in combination with pattern recognition to decompose constructs into their conceptual parts. And works with conceptual sets to create new concepts.
Q: What is a Conceptual Set?
A: A "Conceptual Set," is merely a set of information that formalize a singular concept, or construct. Noting that constructs are concepts that have yet to be decomposed, and are currently resistent in demonstrating their composition. The unfortunate truth is that as of 2023, majority of what people know are generalized constructs, and this is the beginning of this categorization.
Even a "Conceptual Set," is a set of information. "Concept" + "Set" = "Conceptual Set." Another example would be a "Universal Concept," using: "Universe" + "Concept" = "Universal Concept."
Or the most recent one on everyone's mind, AGi = "Artificial" + "General" + "Intelligence". And if we define "General," we find that general imposes some averaging and is not "Universal." Therefore AGi, would be just one scale of complexity of "AI" ("Artificial" + "Intelligence").
Q: Why hasn't this been done?
A: This has been attempted before via the original Unified Science mainly during the 1930-70s. That attempted to create concepts that could unify the whole of science. But had been abandoned as it was determined at the time to be an impossible pursuit. As the total number of arrangements of concepts, out numbered the total atoms in the universe.
Q: If it was considered impossible before, then why make the attempt now?
A: Unfortunately prior to this year and is being argued now. Is the notion of "Unlimited Exploration," whereby this impossibility becomes an advantage on the onset of a technological singularity that represents a massive rise in production. Noting the fear mongering that has been prevalent on the onset of Artificial Intelligence, demonstrates a system on the brink of bifurcation.
Q: What would Unlimited Exploration look like?
A: "Unlimited Exploration" would be the pursuit of understanding all constructs and their conceptual parts. To enable generative intelligence to freely recompose those conceptual parts into new concepts via a "Testable Simulation."
Q: What is Bifurcation?
A: Bifurcation is one of the base "Universal Concepts" that is being introduced. That demonstrates that all systems have complexity and their behaviors can change specifically at different breakpoints of complexity.
For example, "Imagine you are a kid playing a game of four square with some friends. You can only have 4 players playing at a time, and any new player that wants to play has to wait in line. But if the line gets too long, players would leave the line to play other games, but you can instead choose to play a game of dodge ball.
Here the players choose to play dodge ball and bifurcate. Where players line up on two different sides, one player throws the ball to tag players on the other side out, and the other side gets to do the same. Everyone gets to play at once, but isn't that much fun with only four players."
This format also allows for another level of bifurcation, that can be entertained if players are bored waiting on the side lines. Here you take up 2 basketball courts for a total of 4 courts, split the teams into 4, give each team a ball, and use the same rules from before. And we could call this 4 court dodge ball.
This interaction governs every system within the universe, thus "Bifurcation" is a "Universal Concept."
Q: What does bifurcation have to do with conceptual sets?
A: "Conceptual Sets" represent a level of complex level of understanding that is greater than constructs. And is a method of handling an increased level of possibilities presented by a technological singularity. As there are already more videos being uploaded on the internet each day than one person can watch in their lifetime and these videos would be considered to be constructs.
Noting the quality that makes a construct, is you cannot decompose such to the sum of their parts without losing information readily. For example, attempting to separate out the music track that is playing in the background of a video that features a noisy crowd.
You would have to use methods that get around the loss of information, such as searching based on lyrics/melody, reconstruction, or expert analysis. But here you are already having to decompose such to their conceptual parts, and represents an additional level of complex reasoning.
A generative conceptual video platform would be one where these videos would be arranged and personalized to each viewer on the basis of the conceptual parts that they enjoy. As we as human beings are always in pursuit of some new novel arrangement of conceptual sets without realizing it.
This merely allows for people to create content that becomes part of this personalization process and be rewarded for discovery of those new novel conceptual sets. With the only real change to current video platforms, would be the possibility of viewing the source file before that video is encoded. Noting that "Video" here thanks to "Logical Conceptualism," can be exchanged out for any type of "Content" or "Product."
Q: What is the Unified Turing Machine?
A: The Unified Turing Machine is a method of computation that utilizes concepts to orchestrate their qualities to perform universal transformations of data. And is halting complete.
Q: What is Halting Complete?
A: "Halting Complete" is a scalar classification of a Unified Turing Machine's ability to halt in complex arrangements. This problem has been solved in "Total Functional Programming." And is this machine's classification of "provable termination," via restriction of symbol selection to what can provably halt in testing. As the system is not proving itself, but the tester in combination with traditional testing workflows.
Q: Why hasn't the Turing Machine's halting problem been solved before?
A: Noting that the halting problem is solved in "Total Functional Programming." Likewise "Logical Conceptualism," is also presenting that of "Axiums," over "Axioms." Where an Axium is a "Set of Concepts," that further decomposes "Axioms," into the sums of their parts that may be recomposed to create new "Axiums."
For example one part: "That a recursive function, can provably halt." + The next part: "A Turing Machine has a finite reference table of symbols."
Thus, a Unified Turing Machine would be a recursive function that can provably halt, thanks to limiting the finite symbol selection to what can halt, and use those symbols to perform Turing Complete operations, per recall of that function.
And can further be composed via a complex graph relationship, that likewise has its own provable ability to halt in complex arrangements, and is scalar due to the effects of "Bifurcation."
Q: What is the difference between Universal and Unified?
A: Universal is describing some shared similarity between conceptual sets. Another "Universal Concept" would be that of position in space. That despite how nebulous "cloud computing," sounds, what you store doesn't go into a magic box, but has its own position inside the memory of some computer system that is part of that cloud of computers.
Unified would be the greater composition of conceptual sets, but likewise can be devoid of "Universal Concepts" in their understanding, such as the description of some magic system in a fantasy novel. But the fireball, would still have position, heat, momentum, and carry explosive force upon hitting contact with something. And would be similar to a grenade that explodes on contact, minus the shrapnel.
Q: What is the difference between "Unified" and "General" understanding?
A: General understanding would be the "Jack of All Trades, and Master of None."
To contrast within the unified context thanks to the identification of "Universal Concepts." We can translate knowledge between any topic that would share a "Universal Concepts." As "Universal Concepts" impart their qualities to concepts/constructs that are informed by such as part of their composition. And would be the path towards, "Jack of All Trades, and Master of All as a Pursuit."
The downside and what can be argued as the main barrier to this pursuit, is that each person has had to discover their own "Universal Concepts." To better inform their understanding of the world, as often times "Universal Concepts" merely act as a starting point towards understanding another subject.
By demonstrating such, we can reduce the burden and chance of discovery of these concepts, but at the same time further expand what can be understood thanks to that "More Atoms in the Universe" quality of "Conceptual Sets."
Q: Why not Universal Science?
A: This would be a misunderstanding of the complexity of the human mind even within the current generalized scope. That we still dream of magic and far off intergalactic adventures without being able to access such directly.
Thus we present unified understanding as the demonstration that there truly is no end to understanding, while asserting "Universal Concepts" as the foundation of testable understanding so we don't get lost along the way.
Q: Why now?
A: The unfortunate truth is that because "Concept Sets" are a layer of complexity beyond "Constructs." Due to this we are directly in a "Plato's Cave" situation. Except here the shadows being project on the wall, are the current reliance on constructs. And the crux of the metaphor, is that by attempting to sway those that rely on constructs to instead entertain conceptual sets. Is that it appears silly, as constructs have done their job and have been a fine way of explaining the world around us.
What those that rely on constructs do not realize, is that the reality of understanding "Conceptual Sets." Is that all constructs appear as conceptual sets. So it becomes a strange situation where those that use conceptual sets are able to understand the world of constructs, but lose the ability to communicate their newly discovered conceptual sets to those that rely on constructs.
This is the unfortunate truth of scales of complexity of the human mind that is not understood in the general scope. That one can have a breakthrough and understand the world around them in finer detail. But for those that see the world in as a series of constructs, experience frustration when attempting to entertain higher scales of complexity that sets afford. And frustration is like boredom, uncomfortable, painful, and is why conceptual sets are made to be silly, nebulous, or abstract.
Q: That makes no sense. It is still the same language, how do people lose the ability to communicate?
A: The crux is the ability to reference some shared talking point. As in the world of constructs, people are taught points of reference that exist as "Monolithic Constructs." Limiting to people, places, things, and events. So the attempt is to expand that set of reference points to also include concepts, but we are already further in this scope. Where everything in that reference set can be presented alongside their "Conceptual Sets."
In the world of "Conceptual Sets," you are able to move outside what has been taught. Because you can take what is taught and decompose that construct to the sum of its parts. Then recompose those parts into a completely new set or concept.
The issue here is that "Conceptual Sets" afford greater complexity of reasoning due to composability of parts. The world of constructs is singular in nature and lacks the fundamental strength of composability that sets afford. As it is merely a deeper level of understanding, versus the surface knowledge of something.
Q: Wouldn't that just make everything over complicated and nebulous?
A: This is the advantage of the current coming age of generative intelligence. Is that we can allow all levels of complexity to exist at the same time. As the only real change, is the ability to know the concept parts of some generative product.
This allows for those that work via "Conceptual Sets" to have common talking point that are translatable to those rely on constructs. While allowing for those that are curious about how some construct is generated/created, the ability to have a interactive dialog to inform their own understanding and intuition.
This is the reason for the introduction of "Testable Simulations" that utilize "Conceptual Sets," in combination with generative intelligence. Is to provide a mundane form of entertainment as education.
