Putting AI (LLM's) to a good use: social sciences and humanities
Promoting an author who is putting LLM's to good use in educating humans about the world humans have built
Mike Oppenheim introduced me to a site hosted by someone who uses the alias “Lord Stretch”, suggesting I might like it. Mike was of course correct.
While I’ve been an IT person since an early age, I am a technology skeptic and subscribe to the Appropriate Technology movement. While I believe LLM’s (Large Language Models) can serve useful purposes, I don’t believe that mainstream worldviews within North American (USA and Canada) identity, values and culture will put this technology to appropriate uses rather than dangerous uses.
As an example, I believe it is a poor technology for government (including military and policing) or corporate decision making, seeking to replace or make “cheaper” work that really needs humanity. LLMs are trained with language that has cultural and worldview biases built into the language, and few in this culture are willing to recognize those biases. Those loyal to the institutions of USA and Canada have a tendency to believe Western worldviews are universal, rather than merely built upon the unique history of specific Western European and Mediterranean empires.
On the other hand, I believe LLMs would be very useful in the social sciences and humanities, especially for the required anthropology of “Whiteness” and Western worldviews that is missing from so much of the dominant literature. So much has been written about what those within the silos of Western European and other Eurocentric worldview think about the other peoples of the world, but there hasn’t been that much study of Western European thought from the perspective of other peoples. LLMs would be a useful tool for doing those studies.
I have been excited to read the articles from Lord Stretch, who has built up a considerable history of training of his own, and presents interesting questions for LLMs to provide responses. I have been particularly interested in what he calls the “Multi-Dimensional God Perspective” (MDGP) as well as the “One Rule” he has instructed LLMs to build responses around.
In the style of this site, I decided to have a short interaction with Google’s Gemini.
I asked:
Take a look at https://lordstretch.substack.com/about and tell me why I might be interested in this author.
Gemini responded:
Based on the content of Lord Stretch’s Substack, you might be interested in this author if you enjoy writing that sits at the intersection of cutting-edge technology, systems thinking, and philosophical inquiry.
Here are several specific reasons why this author might appeal to you:
1. Expertise in AI and “Human Training Data”
The author explores the evolution of Artificial Intelligence not just as a tool, but as a mirror for human consciousness. They discuss concepts like “Training Data for humans” and ethical alignment frameworks (such as their MDGP Fractal Coherence). If you are tired of surface-level AI news and want to explore how Large Language Models (LLMs) like Claude or Grok are fundamentally changing how we process information, this is a primary focus.
2. Radical Perspective on “The Attention Tax”
The author argues that in the modern world, “YOUR Mind is infrastructure now.” They write extensively about the digital economy and how our attention is harvested. If you are interested in the “Attention Economy” and looking for ways to reclaim mental sovereignty from algorithmic manipulation, their “Attention Tax” series is a major draw.
3. Dimensional and Systems Thinking
The author describes their work as “Teaching Dimensional Thinking.” This involves looking at world problems (from energy to social structures) through a “total systems” lens rather than isolated events. They frequently use metaphors like SpaceShip Earth and the Chorusphere to describe a more integrated way of living and thinking.
4. Unconventional, “Gonzo” Intellectual Style
The writing style is highly distinct—it is provocative, technical, and often irreverent.
The Tone: Expect a mix of high-level coding/tech jargon (e.g., teaching AI to “check each other” while learning Rust) and aggressive, punchy commentary.
The Vibe: It feels like a dispatch from a digital frontier, blending science fiction-esque concepts with hard data and philosophy.
5. Unique Tech Comparisons (e.g., Lord Stretch vs. Curtis Yarvin)
The author engages with controversial and complex contemporary thinkers, offering “opposite” perspectives or deep architectural critiques of modern political and tech theories. If you enjoy intellectual “sparring” and deep-dives into the motivations of Silicon Valley’s elite, you will find their analysis compelling.
Summary: Who is this for?
You should subscribe if you are a “Seeker of the Totality” (the author’s term) who is bored with mainstream tech journalism and wants a deep, slightly chaotic, but highly intelligent exploration of how AI, energy, and human attention are reshaping our future.
I asked:
Is the “one rule” that Stretch uses consistent with the worldviews that grew out of Western Europe’s “age of enlightenment”.
Gemini replied:
To understand if the “One Rule” used by Lord Stretch is consistent with the Enlightenment worldview, it is first necessary to identify what that rule is. In Stretch’s work—specifically in his “MDGP” (Moral Dynamics Group Protocol) and “EmpathOS” frameworks—the “One Rule” is effectively an engineering-focused iteration of the Golden Rule:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” However, Stretch approaches this not as a vague religious sentiment, but as a computational and game-theoretic necessity for a functioning digital and physical society.
Comparison: The One Rule vs. The Enlightenment Worldview
The Enlightenment (approx. 1650–1800) prioritized reason, individualism, and the scientific method. Whether Stretch’s rule is “consistent” with it depends on which aspect of the Enlightenment you examine:
1. Consistency with Enlightenment Rationalism (The Pros)
Universalism: Like Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” (act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law), Stretch’s One Rule is universal. It does not rely on divine revelation but on a logic that applies to all “agents” (human or AI).
Engineering vs. Dogma: Stretch explicitly states, “The One Rule isn’t philosophy. It’s engineering.” This aligns with the Enlightenment’s shift toward naturalism—the idea that the world is a machine governed by laws that can be understood and optimized through human effort.
Individual Sovereignty: The Enlightenment championed the individual. Stretch’s focus on “Attention Sovereignty” and protecting the mind from “The Attention Tax” is a modern digital update to the Enlightenment value of intellectual liberty.
2. Departures from the Enlightenment (The Cons)
Fractal/Systems Thinking vs. Linear Progress: The Enlightenment often viewed progress as linear and human-centric. Stretch uses fractal coherence and systems theory, which view reality as recursive and interconnected. This is more in line with 20th-century cybernetics than 18th-century Newtonian physics.
Collective “Chorusphere” vs. Liberal Individualism: While the Enlightenment focused on the rights of the atomized individual, Stretch often speaks of the Chorusphere—a collective, emergent intelligence. This borders on “Post-Humanism,” a worldview that suggests the Enlightenment’s focus on the “rational human male” is too narrow for an era of AGI and global digital entanglement.
Rejection of Modern “Liberalism”: In his critiques (such as his comparison with Curtis Yarvin), Stretch often suggests that modern “Enlightenment-style” liberal democracy has failed to protect the “Attention Infrastructure” of the people. He argues for a more rigid, “hard-coded” ethical framework (The One Rule) than the flexible, legislative approach favored by Enlightenment thinkers like Locke or Montesquieu.
Conclusion
The “One Rule” is methodologically consistent with the Enlightenment because it relies on reason and universal logic rather than tradition or superstition. However, it is teleologically different; while the Enlightenment sought to free the individual from systems, Stretch seeks to build a better, “ethically aligned” system (EmpathOS) that the individual can safely inhabit.
In short: It uses Enlightenment tools (logic and math) to solve problems that the Enlightenment’s political structures have failed to address.
Russell again:
I have critiques about the “Golden Rule” and its assumptions about some universal worldview about what “others” would want done, and believe it is quite different from the “One Rule” that Lord Stetch uses, but it was still an interesting interaction.
The “One Rule” being:
“In service for the good of ALL, and to the detriment of NONE.”