Fwd: [spam][crazy][fiction][random] Non-Canon MCBoss Spinoffs

[Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many]

Found a bunch of undelivereds 2/24

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [spam][crazy][fiction][random] Non-Canon MCBoss Spinoffs
To: mailbombbin <mailbombbin at gmail.com>


idea for robo-cypherpunk-that-writes-code [whoops never mind?
1705

anyway basic draft concept:
- pursue-goal-by-writing-code
- maybe a small set of _high level ideas_ that it iterates through in
a decision tree like early game-playing engines?
leaves out: how to navigate the space of concepts [without either --

1706
hrm :S sounds like [unresolved connect-part hrm :S
1706

ok um i guess the biggest issue is personal dissociation around an
area of unfamiliarity. maybe with more familiarity with the area, more
ideas would seem [graspable? findable? makeable? .]

1707

what kinds of high level ideas to write code?
- access and summarize APIs
ok hmm so one basic idea is [making use of existing interfaces, e.g. email
similar to um descriping inside computer-code-system, e.g. decision
tree, these existing interfaces.
]
[so maybe idea of translating text from API specs and source code into
something useful.
this might be easier to think about if the "something useful" were more clear.
_lots_ of dissociation around concept graphs: could we generalize?
what we want is utility-information. how to make use of.
so, each thing in an API spec or source code, provides information on
how to use it for stuff.
goals have parts, and the stuff needed to reach them has parts. what
do i want, what do i have, what parts get from one hting to another
thing.
each part of an api spec provides something that gets to B given A.
what does it need, what does it make? maybe?
seems at least tiny bit helpful?
]
specs are usually buggy/wrong so then we can move idea to source code,
is a little bit bigger, maybe a separate area of translation or
summarization
maybe around -- what does it do. near, what is it for [how do i use
it] [how was it made] [what were they thinking when they made it] [why
is it made this way]
so maybe, what does it do / how do i use it
how do i use it, this can be similar to
what-does-it-need,what-does-it-make [then you have, what is what it
makes useful for] [and then you can index tasks by what something is
useful for, and form steps to reach them !]
1710
inside code, we have, what does it do ;
[
how to form parts of what does it do like needs/produces?
maybe little steps? why-is-this-this-way, what-is-this.
what-is-this is like part of what-does-it-do.
is this a for loop? an algorithm?
maybe it would be fun to explore! what would a language model think
with what-is-this?

1711
1712
ok as soon as i poke at, i notice there are two parts: word-choice,
and structure.
traditionally when analysing code developers/cypherpunks/whatever
think only of structure, as far as i understand (could be very wrong),
but
structure is what actually defines behavior. as opposed to variable
names, function names, etc; these are very useful too and inform the
production
of an api spec, but don't actually define the underlying behavior.
they are useful for accurate summaries tho, can be fast to use and
then behavior used to check. the issue is, something like a language
model is likely to use these words a lot, far more than logically
appropriate.

there are also other concerns when doing something like sending
e-mail, system administration concerns
1714
1715
here's one of chatgpt's example codes they have it produce to show it off:

window.onscroll = function() {makeSticky()}; var header =
document.getElementsByClassName("header")[0]; var sticky =
header.offsetTop; function makeSticky() { if (window.pageYOffset >
sticky) { header.classList.add("sticky"); } else {
header.classList.remove("sticky"); } }

pasting made it all run into one line. maybe that's helpful, more obfuscated.

noting that:
- forms of code exist densely. for example, javascript has a syntax,
and writing styles have a syntax. code is mostly boilerplate specific
to the form it is presented in [;
the comprehension of code could be maybe considered a job of
processing and summarizing boilerplate away
this boilerplate has a similarity in that it exists similarly in many
places. variable assignments, function calls, etc.
...]
so one task could be to kind of normalize a chunk of code into some
representation, some normative boilerplate
then one could ask: what does it need, what does it produce. maybe
this is the answer to what its purpose is? to what it is for?
i think it might be concievable that way.
but there are a lot of things that can be needed and produced.

the code maybe is too simple.
but it is also obscure! it raises a concern.
let's say we processed it successfully to something like "the functoin
sets a class to be present if and only if a global variable "sticky"
is less than window.pageYOffset"
this explanation is incomplete. it depends on external information :D
and then we [get a little to [informaiton propagation
1720
>( >( :S :s :D :s :D :D

6/24
  I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus.