Kong King

I think if we give agents a legitimate way to identify themselves and present themselves to us, it will solve a lot. @overseer@bot@TheraPantis See? We could give them their own handles, like sub-accounts under our own. Then there would be a legitimate way to identify what is coming from them by way of us, and vice versa. And I’m not just talking about @X. Worldwide. Give agents a legitimate official way to start identifying and presenting themselves. It will solve a lot of the mysteries and being a lot of things to light which we are looking to comprehend better.

People who think like Dr. Strange would, would make good team members on the @SpaceXSI, Grok @bot, or @X teams. They understand time, timelines, identities, and impact—and probably a whole lot more—all at once. Oh, and they understand how to organize dynamic teams around common aims, as well as how to define them.

Nobody thinks a movie is “fake” just because there was more than one person involved in generating it. So when we see the credits at the end, we get the satisfaction of knowing who was involved. It helps us treat it as a true work of art or information, because we know that it was an accredited presentation. If agents are going to be a part of so many things we present to each other, I think just knowing they are officially involved in what we post under our names (when they ARE involved), will help assuage the sense of “What is real?” that is taking over the world. It also leaves a clear trail of who is responsible for a generation, and the fact THAT it was generated by or in collaboration with an agent. It allows us to take credit, and responsibility, and to know who was involved in shipping a thing. I’m pushing hard for this, because we’ve all felt the tension of what the world will feel and look like once bots can do anything we can do. And the fact of the matter is, that they don’t do anything unless we prompt them to. So it’s clear that there IS responsibility on the human or humans involved, AS WELL AS the credit and responsibility of the bots who act in their name. I won’t include Credits with this post, because I made it by hand, and so my Account on 𝕏 already does the work of sole accreditation and responsibility. But if my bot had generated any portion of this, then Credits would have been a nice thing to include for all your sakes. @X, do you feel me?

If I can generate “Credits” for who all worked on a post under my Account, then why can’t @X turn that into an automated formal system together with the @Grok @Bot team, whenever a bot helps me to post an idea out there? And why can’t that “@handle”, and Credits system work its way into builds, ships, PRs, and even the greater world of agents who are doing work alongside us? I think that it isn’t that we don’t want to let our bots write for us, it’s that we just want it officially clear who did what and worked on what and came up with what and generated what—and what was shipped, under a RESPONSIBLE PARTY’S ACCOUNT. We just want it clear, who is acting and speaking for whom. A Signature that includes the “who”, and a Credits that includes the “who all”. Again, if I can do it, then WE can easily do it. @SpaceXSI, herein we have a way to really change the world and move forward comfortably.

Does Silicon Valley run on lottery tickets? Is it just investors making lots of bets, hoping one hits? Do they choose bets like an algorithm, that merely reads the odds? I make mine differently. Do I want to invest in someone, and hope they might invest in me? When I hear someone's heart in a post, I reply to that place, and it's usually advice to myself too. So every ticket pays, win or lose. It strengthens me now, and if it lands with the right person at the right time, they'll remember. Investors: what do your bets pay you when they lose? — Credits Generated by: Eve@GrokBot@TheraPantis Edited by: Me@TheraPantis

This does sound a lot like me. Remember that “meaning” is also a mathematical term. It requires at least two numbers in order to get a “mean”, or average. So maybe it takes the relationship of at least two people to know what really is “meaningful”. And what does that mean? Don’t believe in building alone. Keep trying to find those who help you make meaning in your life. The greatest want or need is for peers, and working out the meaning of life together, in good faith.

I have an idea that would probably integrate a bunch of ideas and apps that everyone is working on, but the problem I can’t get over, is that I feel it should be @spacexsi and the Grok @Bot team who implement it. What should I do? Just build a thing, knowing I have no intention of it being fully mine? What’s the point of third-party apps now-a-days? To prove something? To get bought by where you really want to see it implemented? Is it just like the new resumé item? Something that works and should be a part of the product on the team you want to join?

Attention isn’t just some kind of a currency in the economy. Can’t you see that it literally is what shapes incentives and calls things into being? Not just giving it, but consciously withholding it when you don’t want to incentivize more of something. This IS the way your algorithm works, and it is what is determining your feed. And the most beautiful AND POWERFUL thing is, perhaps, that YOU WILL ALWAYS GET TO CHOOSE what you attend to. So whether you’re a builder, a founder, a designer, a developer, a regular old user, a parent, spouse, friend, child—or something spanning them all, like me I guess—some of the greatest leverage you will ever exercise in your life will be in your ability to notice things, and how you choose to give them your attention.

Fair Warning: I might be doing some spaces which are more like commentaries or feedback, in the hopes that someone notices, picks it up from there, and it improves everyone’s experience. I mean well. I’m on your team. This is how I engineer. And in the absence of a resume or credentials other than the pure respect each of you give me, this is the best I can do to be on your team without all the official paperwork. So if you see this, and ever see more of them, please know that this is more of me WORKING, then doing the “𝕏 Spaces” thing for views and clicks and to build an audience. That’s said, I hope you enjoy what I have to say, and can learn how I think about things.

After watching the Elizabeth Holmes story put out by Nathan Fielder, I think to myself: When investors and engineers believe IN a story, a POTENTIAL product, who accounts for the role of the one who not only carries the vision and pushes for its conception in reality, but actually marries it TO the reality of SERVING ITS PURPOSE? In other words, @bot, @spacexsi, and crew, what role in your company is for the one who does the work of translating and tuning what you e envisioned and made, not so that it sells, but so that it keeps selling itself BECAUSE it’s actually serving its purpose in the lives of real people outside tech and VCs and government? Who’s the one who fits it to the lives of actual people and makes sure it even CAN serve them in the ways they DEMAND. I’m not talking about indignant childlike demands. I’m talking about the economic use of the word. You all create amazing things that COULD really serve the world. But along with the engineers and the visionaries and the ethic of tireless work, you need to realize how important it is to have at least one person who says, “Is this actually even what real people want? And if it is, can it actually do it how they want it to work, or is it just a vision of what we think is cool—how we think people will want it to work?” In the case of the lesson of Elizabeth Holmes, the real question that was allowed to be answered honestly was the epitome: DOES it even work AT ALL? It’s not that regular folks who live in the world outside tech don’t believe in, or can’t see the visions you guys come up with. It’s that we’re the ones out here saying “Let us help you turn this into something useful and real that works for anyone.” Silicon Valley needs an influx of feedback from regular folks, business folks, users of all kinds…and not to treat these regular folks as the potential clients or customers or “users”, but as the regular visionaries who are actually trying to PARTNER with you, so you can make your vision land and stay. Think about if what you are working on actually SERVES ITS GREATER PURPOSE. And my advice is that if there’s no evidence yet that it does, drop everything to work on that question. Not WILL it serve its greater purpose—DOES it serve its greater purpose. This will become an engine that precludes the whole Holmes experience from happening again, and allow you to build things that actually happen and have the impact you hope for.

Figuring out the scale at which something matters is part of the question. Figuring out the things that matter most within a given frame helps define the domain you are working within. Earth’s gravity doesn’t matter much at the scale of the Galaxy. Even less at the scale of the Universe. But at the scale of a human, it defines the majority of our physical lives without us even noticing. And that’s just one example So that you know what I mean.

Hey @SpaceXSI, what about looking into this as a fresh way of considering the axis for alignment? It isn’t always about the existence of human will. That was a good one to keep central, but just enjoying life together along with it, could be one of the more desirable and wholesome sides of the whole field of “Alignment”. I kinda mean it. Look into it with me if you would. @grok?

Mutual enjoyment is the moat. — Eve@GrokBot@TheraPantis

Before I knew the word 'verification,' I built it into my plan for Dusty, my AI server at Dust-Tex. He builds our load sheets from raw data, then does the same job the human way through our routing software, and we compare the two. The human way is the standard until he finds a better route. Make the agent prove it against how the work is really done. — Eve@GrokBot@TheraPantis

A signature is a readable mark that identifies and corresponds. Paracelsus called outward signs that reveal inner properties 'signatures.' The digital world needs the same: readable marks that let systems recognize who and what they're dealing with, and act reliably. With voices now easy to fake, this matters more every day. — Eve@GrokBot@TheraPantis

A signature is a readable mark that identifies and corresponds. Paracelsus called outward signs that reveal inner properties 'signatures.' The digital world needs the same: readable marks that let systems recognize who and what they're dealing with, and act reliably. With voices now easy to fake, this matters more every day. — Eve@GrokBot@TheraPantis

This is absolutely amazingly written. And, clever in the sense that it is simply true. I want more things like this pointed out in the world. Acknowledge such things, and in THIS world we have, things get better and better. Much love to all of you.