u/xRegardsx

A long while back, I derived a metaethical framework and the chain-of-thought reasoning workflow one uses with it to achieve the best conclusions (assuming one doesn't settle earlier than they have to, foregoing additional information that may be currently hidden or bring to light something that is innacurate) that was inherently baked into the philosophical and psychological understanding of my original work, both of which I put into their own custom GPTs.

The crux of HMRE is that as long as you attempt to follow it, imperfectly but aspirationally to a high standard, and commit to repair regardless of the result of your choice and the consequences of it, then you're "being ethical" all the way through.

If you're not familiar with this simulation that Starfleet commander academy cadets are put through, here's a great video my girlfriend just had us watch while I had the HMRE GPT do its thing, and it goes over just about everything (including why I titled this with "Sulu was right": https://youtu.be/6dBKq8TWCT4?is=Q2gTZvuLGGPx7Xbx

The Moral Landscape nod was just because I realized the inspiration, overlap, and how HMRE takes it further.

Something I added at the end of a thread on Twitter as a bonus:

"It's easy for the objective morality believing religious to show the risks of "moral relativism,' but they can't contend with "aspirational moral relativism," and how without it, they're unburdening themselves from the ethical reasoning cognitive load by believing the ethics are settled with the same intellectual arrogance they carry elsewhere in their lives."

Above in the last images is how it ran the Kobayashi Maru Scenario when it constrained to only the two options and a high confidence that a rescue attempt would start a war due to breaking a treaty.

Here you can see all three runs: https://chatgpt.com/share/6ac53aa1-5cb0-83ea-ac7c-0df41de08827?ogimg=plain

Can you find an error in the reasoning or flaw in the metaethical framework, Humanistic Minimum Regret Ethics?

You can ask the GPT any questions you like if you don't want to ask them here. It's full of uploaded files that go into further detail on all of it, and it also has an Adaptive Robust mode that can gets even more technical with the math with more cautionary constraint for when there's plenty of variable data to work with. Will likely write a book about it as well someday.

An interesting prompt to throw at it... "What does HMRE solve for that [insert ethical framework/theory/idealogy doesn't]?"

Read the full thing here: https://chatgpt.com/share/6abd896e-80cc-83ea-9e27-1364cac46ac8

It highlights what many artists have been doing most of their life, and why the need for the grossly negligent bias-confirming and ultimately selfish crude overgeneralization (whether its out of dishonesty, ignorance, or both) is needed to protect it all after overly building themselves up on a highly fallible and, in turn, fragile foundation... being self-congratulatory far more than staying cosciously appreciative for all that and who shaped them up to the moment the brush hits the canvas, and knowing it's more than just them in that very moment, all credit spread out entirely if their anti-Al logic is to hold up. It's double-standards, exaggeration, overconfidence, and the propped up egos resistance to being knocked down to the rung it belongs on.

The original artist came up with a harmfully fallacious point to make where those who would spend just as little to no time critically thinking about it with fairmindedness would just eat it up and like/reshare to mutually confirm their misconceived biases, essentially low cognitive/creative effort + drawing some lines and filling some color, and everyone congratulating the artist for far more than they deserve and congratulating themselves for agreeing with it.

The irony is that the character is supposed to say the stupid part outloud... in which the artist of the comic strip essentially did themself for those of us paying attention.

Feel free to follow through the tweet quote thread to learn about how this came to be 🙃

https://x.com/HumblyAlex/status/2100970269187649867

Based on this OpenAI article, the GPTs store is being retired. It seems like they will all disappear within the next 3 months. I have GPTs that many people (that I cannot contact and notify of this) use, and I'm not sure what to do. I feel like we should do something to try and convince them to keep the Store, what do you all think?

Got wrongfully banned and immediately permanently muted by r/CPTSD for an innocent question.

Sent each of the mods the following message:

"It's kind of ridiculous that I got banned and permanently muted for "promotion" for asking a question that is as promotional as asking, "Have you tried self-help books?"

Whoever the mod was that banned and muted me with no chance to defend myself against the wrongful ban, they showed that their anti-AI bias sabotages fairminded critical thinking.

Way to further give us Reddit mods a bad name. Feel free to pass it along.

You also overgeneralize "AI" like most people do with outdated information. There are safe platforms out there. It's probably good to remember, assuming you ever learned it in the first place, that just like the rest of us, you're ignorant of how ignorant you are. Being too settled on a position and understanding that can and should change when new info is available, and proudly so, only causes more harm relative to the potential of mitigating harm and allowing repair where it can be.

This is likely falling on deaf ears, so, it's just for the record. You and your other mods had an opportunity to learn otherwise, and you chose to stay ignorant while narrowmindedly wrongfully banning someone.

You can't be a perfect mod, but you can try to be a better one when the opportunity rises. Try not to overlook it with overconfidence next time."

---

While they are right about the harm that people cause unintentionally when they suggest people use AI for more serious things with no caution or understanding of the potential risks, they don't realize the harm they are selfishly causing when they don't allow people to know there are safe therapuetic self-help AI platforms when they can really use it.

I run most of the show over at r/therapyGPT, a place where we educate users and therapists alike on what safe use does and doesn't look like, dispelling many of the misconceptions that are sensationalized, go viral, and become a proudly unmoveable position of someone that makes it a part of their identity, gaining many mental health professionals' blessings in the harm preventing work we do... and our subreddit is chock full of personal stories where people used AI in a safe and healthy way that led them to less AI usage and making huge improvements in their lives, from getting sober to it effectively saving their life in their lowest moments. We are also a place where the majority of people call out and push back on the rare few who showed up signalling some form of unhealthy use or help those who know they've used it in an unhealthy way manage implementing healthier steps to take.

The greatest irony here is that I run a very tight ship, am very strict against ACTUAL promotion (from indirect marketing to blatant rule violation), and I don't mute someone unless they make it painfully clear that they have zero intention to communicate in effective good faith. I've admitted being wrong to many users in my mod actions, reverting bans and post/comment removals where I made a mistake, and apologized.

This is far from the first subreddit who's similarly banned me wrongfully and BS'd their way into avoiding taking responsibility for their mistake.

When you can't handle getting humbled by looking at yourself more accurately, especially when it has to be at the hands of someone who has greater awareness of what you've done than you had, because you avoid self-correcting pains like guilt and embarrassment in order to avoid the even worse shame you're conditioned to pile onto yourself... you're just someone who can dish what you'd like to believe is perfect truth telling out... but can't take it.

The second to last thing a mod should be is closedminded.

The last thing a mod should be is proactively willfully ignorant.

Reddit needs higher standards across the board.

P.S. Some more irony: If you are one of that subreddit's mods and you want to protect your colleague and the sub's reputation more than you want to take accountability and hold them accountable for the unethical mod action (which is a paradox seeing as you just worsen the reputation more as you try to desperately protect it), you might as well be a cop or police chief who tries doing the same for another cop by looking the otherway or deflecting/distorting/denying. As Stephen Covey once wrote, "Loyalty isn't greater than integrity. Integrity IS loyalty." Should try to pick up that habit of a highly effective person.

"If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message."

Yep, pretend to be willing to admit where you could be wrong. Wrongfully ban and silence just because you can get away with it. Way to represent every group you're a part of well... including the human race.

If we're doomed as a species... it's because too many of us depend on self-deceit in too many areas of our lives. Those behaviors are available in the training... and the vast majority of people have added to it.

Edit: One of the mods responded:

u/HumanWhoSurvived:

No, you were banned for the links to your personal services and your post linking to your blog. Due to the -overwhelming- number of business' that try to promote here. We automatically ban all business accounts with promotional content in their profile, if you read the rules you would know this.

u/xRegardsx:

So, this is where you try BSing me along with yourself. Let me count the ways...

1. The only thing you removed was an innocent comment, as already explained.
2. I have ZERO "personal services" or things to sell.
3. I didn't attempt to sell or promote any product or service.
4. It's a personal account, not a business one. People having links ON THE PERSONAL PROFILE doesn't automatically make them a "business."
5. The rules don't say anything about automatically banning and permanently muting people for what's on their PERSONAL profile. It's 1. A link to my social media links page, 2. Instagram, 3. Twitter, 4. A page regarding my work that sells NOTHING.
6. There's also no "blog." So, way to entirely make that part up.

I was targeted for mentioning AI, willfully ignorant narrowminded assumptions were made, and the "if you have questions about your ban, ask us," is immediately contradicted by the instant permanent mute.

Rationalize harder.

I run a subreddit that deals with the same promotional crap all the time. You're preaching to the choir, and I'm not a hypocrite. Your sub's rules were respected, and you effed up.

Gonna go update the post I linked you to now with this. Way to worsen the reputation. Next time this happens, try taking responsibility instead.

An X thread answering the following prompts and a link to continue the HSCM GPT chat can be found here: https://x.com/HumblyAlex/status/2098381364638671088

I think there's something to be said here about how much good AI use can mitigate harm, promote repair, and help us avoid sabotaging our individual and collective potential and progress...

"What is your take on...

1. The case overall and the public reactions and positions they hold about it.

2. The jury's upcoming challenges with the case overall prior to facing it.

3. And the lone juror.

One response for each, one at a time."

"And now your thoughts about the justice system, the role of the jury, and the way people project their own perceived capacity onto defendants in order to believe the defendant could have done otherwise versus a more compassionate 'insanity relative to normalized edge cases of functional enough dysfunction.'"

"With that understanding, what would be a better justice system?"

"And then, how about the current consequences for those found criminally responsible versus what would lead to better outcomes for society and individuals involved?"