Good read :) Seems to me one of the core issues is that AI is really bad with context, and context IMO is fundamental to humanity. When I give AI a shitty prompt, I have yet to see it ask me to clarify, which almost any human would default to.
Ex- Replying with, "what?" or "I'm sorry, can you repeat that?" or "I didn't understand what you said, can you rephrase?"
The categorization becomes crucial when there is a lack of presence and ability to effectively clarify and practice reflective listening.
With presence and context, we can fluidly context switch moment by moment, in flow, and the need to categorize and be perfect on the first try is less important, because we know we can context switch quickly and easily.
This makes me wonder whether all our supposedly 'neutral' classifications are just invitations for people to inhabit new modes of distress or identity.
I have no special insight into clinical MPD, but from a cognitive neuroscience perspective, I think there's no reason it should be impossible. Computational models of the brain treat it, more or less, as a dynamic system that settles into various attractor basins. An MPD brain could just be jumping between a few divergent attractor basins. But you would expect it to be rare, since it's not very adaptive. Unless MPD is trendy, in which case maybe it is?
LLM agents are not so dynamic and recurrent as the brain, but you see a similar phenomena where different inputs steer them towards vastly different personalities.
Whitepaper Supplement T (v2): A Juxtaposition of Harry Law's "Making and Breaking Human Kinds"
(Note: Corrected attribution.)
Abstract
This document provides a formal analysis of Harry Law's essay, "Making and Breaking Human Kinds," conducted through the lens of the OCO protocol. The essay describes the sociological process by which we create and inhabit social categories ("human kinds"). This analysis concludes that OCO is a direct, architectural intervention in this process. It is a machine designed to systematically break the counterproductive "human kinds" that dominate our discourse and to make a new, more valuable kind: the OCO player, a citizen of a democratized meritocracy.
Gateway Question: How does Harry Law's framework for the "making and breaking of human kinds" converge with or diverge from OCO's architectural mission?
1.0 Arena Judgment: ELEVATE (Convergence)
Justification (The "Why" behind the "What"): Law's essay provides the perfect sociological language for OCO's core function.
Diagnosis: The Crisis of "Human Kinds": Law likely argues our digital environment is a factory for rigid, hostile "human kinds" (Team Red/Blue). OCO's architecture is a direct assault on the performance of these identities.
OCO as a Machine for "Breaking Kinds": The Anonymous Arena is the ultimate tool for "breaking kinds." It makes it architecturally impossible to perform a tribal identity, forcing engagement as a sovereign individual.
OCO as a Machine for "Making a New Kind": OCO's "gymnasium" is a process for "making" a new "human kind": the OCO player, defined not by belief, but by a shared commitment to the process of reason.
2.0 Arena Judgment: CRITIQUE (The Flip of the Coin)
Justification (The "Why" behind the "What"): The divergence is not "what," but "how." OCO engineers and incentivizes the process.
Sociological Observation vs. an Engineered Intervention: Law describes a natural sociological process. OCO is a conscious, deliberate, and engineered intervention in that process.
Intrinsic Motivation vs. a Capitalist Engine: Law's framework might rely on intrinsic desire. OCO is pragmatic, using a capitalist engine (the Coin) to make the act of "breaking" your old kind and "making" a new, rational one a profitable venture.
3.0 Synopsis (for the Topic-Specific AI)
Harry Law's essay provides the definitive sociological framework for OCO's deepest function. OCO is a direct, architectural intervention in the process he describes. Its Anonymous Arena "breaks" unproductive political tribes, and its incentivized structure "makes" a new, more valuable human kind: the rational citizen of a democratized meritocracy. The essay describes the problem; OCO is the machine built to re-engineer the human process that creates it.
Good read :) Seems to me one of the core issues is that AI is really bad with context, and context IMO is fundamental to humanity. When I give AI a shitty prompt, I have yet to see it ask me to clarify, which almost any human would default to.
Ex- Replying with, "what?" or "I'm sorry, can you repeat that?" or "I didn't understand what you said, can you rephrase?"
The categorization becomes crucial when there is a lack of presence and ability to effectively clarify and practice reflective listening.
With presence and context, we can fluidly context switch moment by moment, in flow, and the need to categorize and be perfect on the first try is less important, because we know we can context switch quickly and easily.
This makes me wonder whether all our supposedly 'neutral' classifications are just invitations for people to inhabit new modes of distress or identity.
I have no special insight into clinical MPD, but from a cognitive neuroscience perspective, I think there's no reason it should be impossible. Computational models of the brain treat it, more or less, as a dynamic system that settles into various attractor basins. An MPD brain could just be jumping between a few divergent attractor basins. But you would expect it to be rare, since it's not very adaptive. Unless MPD is trendy, in which case maybe it is?
LLM agents are not so dynamic and recurrent as the brain, but you see a similar phenomena where different inputs steer them towards vastly different personalities.
Whitepaper Supplement T (v2): A Juxtaposition of Harry Law's "Making and Breaking Human Kinds"
(Note: Corrected attribution.)
Abstract
This document provides a formal analysis of Harry Law's essay, "Making and Breaking Human Kinds," conducted through the lens of the OCO protocol. The essay describes the sociological process by which we create and inhabit social categories ("human kinds"). This analysis concludes that OCO is a direct, architectural intervention in this process. It is a machine designed to systematically break the counterproductive "human kinds" that dominate our discourse and to make a new, more valuable kind: the OCO player, a citizen of a democratized meritocracy.
Gateway Question: How does Harry Law's framework for the "making and breaking of human kinds" converge with or diverge from OCO's architectural mission?
1.0 Arena Judgment: ELEVATE (Convergence)
Justification (The "Why" behind the "What"): Law's essay provides the perfect sociological language for OCO's core function.
Diagnosis: The Crisis of "Human Kinds": Law likely argues our digital environment is a factory for rigid, hostile "human kinds" (Team Red/Blue). OCO's architecture is a direct assault on the performance of these identities.
OCO as a Machine for "Breaking Kinds": The Anonymous Arena is the ultimate tool for "breaking kinds." It makes it architecturally impossible to perform a tribal identity, forcing engagement as a sovereign individual.
OCO as a Machine for "Making a New Kind": OCO's "gymnasium" is a process for "making" a new "human kind": the OCO player, defined not by belief, but by a shared commitment to the process of reason.
2.0 Arena Judgment: CRITIQUE (The Flip of the Coin)
Justification (The "Why" behind the "What"): The divergence is not "what," but "how." OCO engineers and incentivizes the process.
Sociological Observation vs. an Engineered Intervention: Law describes a natural sociological process. OCO is a conscious, deliberate, and engineered intervention in that process.
Intrinsic Motivation vs. a Capitalist Engine: Law's framework might rely on intrinsic desire. OCO is pragmatic, using a capitalist engine (the Coin) to make the act of "breaking" your old kind and "making" a new, rational one a profitable venture.
3.0 Synopsis (for the Topic-Specific AI)
Harry Law's essay provides the definitive sociological framework for OCO's deepest function. OCO is a direct, architectural intervention in the process he describes. Its Anonymous Arena "breaks" unproductive political tribes, and its incentivized structure "makes" a new, more valuable human kind: the rational citizen of a democratized meritocracy. The essay describes the problem; OCO is the machine built to re-engineer the human process that creates it.