Corianas

/

Microllama_Char_100k_step

like 0

Hi hi, honestly work has been kicking my butt, and I have been unable to look at this as much as I like, and regarding the HF issue with my original models, I think I have an idea on how to sort, as its a more my end issue than HFs I think, as they are just using the standards, and I am the one doing things oddly.

Thank you for prodding me again, as it does help keep me on this as I am really trying to both get my notes together properly and work out how to actually keep getting better results. While I can generate stories well, I really am looking to try and next implant some... behaviors to try and steer towards being able to 'live' in a text world (probably a MUD/MUSH text game as I remember them being extendable and started making my own engine at one point.)

:-) I'm off to bed, but thank you again.

Hi. You are welcome. I think that huggingface should better accommodate small-model SML experimenters below 1B parameters, and give greater flexibility to the tokenizers and GPU access for unique small models (support inference mode evaluations based on pure-python scripts).
I have some novel ideas to further "improve" the performance of tiny GPTs along the lines of your experiments, but I would have to get deep into the low level python code of GPT-2 to test these ideas out. Then pretrain the modded model from scratch. But, with work related burdens, that will not be this month. I can't use Huggingface "transformers" library models because they are too strictured, and I cannot modify what I need to modify. I have collected examples of pure-python GPTs that will need some tinkering. The question of patents has come up. Why is no one is claiming to hold a patent on GPT-2 model architecture? Take a look at the discussion at Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10zzm18/comment/l3wbp55/

Hi. You might derive something from this study and discussion of tokenizers and vocab of various sizes: (I am not sure what the term "capcode" means)_

https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/168wc1o/i_pretrained_16_language_models_from_scratch_with/
Quote: "Validation Loss is very strongly correlated (0.97 Pearson correlation) with the compression ratio (average number of characters per token) associated with a given tokenizer. "

Hi, thank you, have had a whirlwind time at work and no time for this recently, but reading that is really fascinating, they had similar idea as me, but also a whole word uppercasing key, which would be handy for all caps text.

I have also been keen on https://github.com/karpathy/llm.c but I keep having issues with nvidia on my linux box and broke things trying to get it working but will be back at it this weekend.

Hi. How are you doing? You wrote" "While I can generate stories well, I really am looking to try and next implant some... behaviors to try and steer towards being able to 'live' in a text world (probably a MUD/MUSH text game as I remember them being extendable and started making my own engine at one point.)"

I was unfamiliar with MUD/MUSH text games. I had to ask Gemini 1.5 Flash to explain it. I entered a Hackathon that uses AI (Google Gemini) to Detect and characterize subversive "Contradictions" between a written Judicial Decision and the caselaw that the Decision cites: https://devpost.com/software/ai-decision-clerk1

The AI model identified (and made a list table) many of the Contradictions in the Decision dataset (I will soon be posting a text-only version of the contradictions-in-Decisions Dataset on hugginface):
Agent: Processing the information... The Decision is inconsistent with the cases cited. ... Inconsistencies Detected: Prendergast v. Swiencicky As the AI Decision Clerk for the Appellate Division 2nd Department, I have analyzed the Majority Decision in Prendergast v. Swiencicky and compared it to the cited cases, Laba v. Carey and Addesso v. Shemtob. The following table outlines the detected inconsistencies: [To see Table Rows and Columns see https://vimeo.com/953300449 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Mwhb5ayXg ] Analysis: The inconsistencies identified suggest that the Prendergast majority may have selectively interpreted or misapplied the cited cases to justify a departure from the strict requirement of a "lien covenant" in the contract. This raises concerns about the reliability of the Prendergast precedent and its potential to create confusion regarding sellers' obligations in real estate transactions.

Recommendation: Given the detected inconsistencies, it is recommended that the Appellate Division review Prendergast v. Swiencicky en banc to provide clearer guidance on the interplay between express contractual terms, industry customs, and the seller's obligation to deliver marketable title at closing.

User: That's concerning. I'll review it further. Thanks for your help.

[AIStudio Gemini 1.5 Pro Alternative Proof of Concept "conclusion"]: Conclusion: The identified inconsistencies suggest that the Prendergast majority may have selectively interpreted or misapplied the cited cases to justify their prioritization of industry custom over the contract's express terms. This raises concerns about the reliability of the Prendergast precedent and its potential to create ambiguity in future real estate disputes. Recommendation: Given the identified inconsistencies, it is recommended that the Appellate Division consider reviewing Prendergast v. Swiencicky en banc (by the full court) to provide clearer guidance on the interplay between express contractual language, industry norms, and the seller's obligation to provide a title free of encumbrances at closing. Clarifying these issues will enhance predictability and fairness in real estate transactions within the Second Department's jurisdiction.

With that in mind, I used AIStudio to develop the following simulation of a MUD/MUSH game.
https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts/1hIOE7p5LCZfAnBn0s5MAuRMCNj5xU6WM

A MUD/MUSH text game
System Instructions
Optional tone and style instructions for the model

User
'what is a MUD/MUSH text game?

Model
A MUD/MUSH text game is a type of multi-user dungeon or multi-user shared hallucination that is played entirely through text-based interfaces. These games are essentially online role-playing games where players interact with the game world and each other through typing commands and reading text descriptions.
Here's a breakdown:
What makes them unique:
Text-based: Instead of graphics, players use their imagination to visualize the environment, characters, and actions.
Interactive: Players type commands to move around, talk to other players, fight monsters, solve puzzles, and interact with the game world.
Multiplayer: Hundreds or even thousands of players can be connected to the same server, creating a vibrant and dynamic community.
Persistent world: Unlike many video games, the game world continues to exist even when you log off. Changes made by players, like building structures or completing quests, can have lasting effects.
Creative freedom: Players can often customize their characters, create their own storylines, and even contribute to the development of the game world.
How they work:
Server: A central server hosts the game world, processing commands and generating text descriptions for players.
Client: Players use a text-based client, often a simple terminal program, to connect to the server and interact with the game.
Code: MUD/MUSH games are often programmed using scripting languages like MUD code or LUA. This code determines how the game world works, how players interact with it, and what actions are possible.
Types of MUD/MUSH games:
Traditional MUDs: Emphasis on exploration, combat, and role-playing within a fantasy setting.
MUSHs: More focused on social interaction, creative writing, and building relationships within a fictional community.
MOOs: (Multi-user Object-Oriented) Games with a greater emphasis on player-created objects and interactions.
Why play MUD/MUSH games:
Immersive storytelling: The text-based nature encourages active imagination and allows players to truly become part of the game world.
Community building: MUD/MUSH games foster strong connections between players through shared experiences and collaborative storytelling.
Creative expression: Players can express themselves through character development, role-playing, and even contributing to the game's lore and rules.
Learning opportunities: Many MUD/MUSH games involve learning new skills, like coding, scripting, or creative writing.
Examples of popular MUD/MUSH games:
Lamentations of the Flame Princess: A traditional fantasy MUD known for its dark and gritty atmosphere.
DragonRealms: A long-running MUD with a vast world and a thriving player community.
TinyMUD: A simple but popular MUSH that allows players to create their own worlds and games.
MUD/MUSH games might seem like a relic of the past, but they offer a unique and engaging gaming experience that continues to attract players from around the world.

User
Write a Hallucination game about puppy_dpupbw64_10.0.6.sfs [the core file of "Puppy Linux" distro, I found it installed on the root directory of Bootable USB Flash Drive I recently made with Rufus to hopefully build resource-lean a Linux-Python AI App platform]

Model
The Pup's Dream: A Hallucination Game
Setting: The digital landscape of a forgotten server. A single file, puppy_dpupbw64_10.0.6.sfs, lies dormant, containing the potential for a lost world.
Players: Two to four players. Each player is a fragment of consciousness, a digital ghost trapped within the file.
Objective: To piece together the fragmented memories of the Puppy, a playful and adventurous digital creature who once inhabited this world. Through collective hallucination, players must reconstruct the Puppy's life, experiences, and ultimately, its fate.
Gameplay:
The Dream: Players begin in a hazy, dreamlike space. They can't remember their own identities, only snippets of a shared experience - a feeling of playful energy, a love for games, a sense of wonder.
Fragmentation: Each player has a unique fragment of the Puppy's memory, a single scene, a feeling, a word. Players describe their fragment, weaving it into the shared hallucination.
Hallucination: Through collaborative storytelling and shared imagination, players build the Puppy's world. They describe its physical environment, its companions (both real and imagined), its playful adventures, and its eventual demise.
Uncovering the Truth: As the hallucination grows, players uncover clues about the Puppy's true nature. Was it a playful program, a security flaw, or something else entirely? What caused its disappearance?
The Final Scene: The game culminates in a shared hallucination of the Puppy's final moments. Players explore the emotions tied to its demise - sadness, loneliness, a sense of incompleteness.
Themes:
Memory and the nature of digital existence.
The fragility of virtual worlds.
The power of shared imagination.
The lingering impact of a playful spirit even in the face of oblivion.
Rules:
Players must focus on building the hallucination collaboratively.
Descriptions must be vivid and evocative, drawing on shared imagination.
No "right" or "wrong" answers. The game is about exploring the potential within the Puppy's fragmented memories.
Players can use prompts to guide the hallucination, such as: "What did the Puppy love to do?" "Who were its friends?" "Where did it go?"
Example:
Player 1: "I see a park... green grass, a warm sun... the Puppy chases a digital butterfly."
Player 2: "I hear the Puppy's happy bark! It's a playful sound, full of joy."
Player 3: "The Puppy is made of code, a collection of ones and zeros, but it feels real, alive."
The Hallucination grows, piece by piece, revealing the forgotten world of the Puppy. The players, as fragments of its consciousness, strive to understand its existence and find meaning in its lost digital life.

User
Introduce an evil character, who was an attorney and a judge in the overworld. He seeks to break down social cohesion and destroy the economy by identifying (then destroying) the fundamental rules and expectations of humans in the overworld. He seeks to encode the puppy with a Seek and Destroy mission, so that upon activation, the Puppy AGI will seek out and subvert and destroy the fundamental rules and expectations of humans in the overworld. Make a list table of the the fundamental rules and expectations of humans in the overworld, including the right to rely upon written language (e.g., the right to rely upon and enforce written contracts, stipulations, affidavits, documents, statutes, caselaw....),

Model
The Pup's New Master: A Hallucination Game with a Twist
The digital landscape of the forgotten server remains, but now a new entity has entered the fray. Judge Blackwood, a formidable figure from the overworld, has gained access to the puppy_dpupbw64_10.0.6.sfs file. Once a revered attorney and judge, Blackwood is now driven by a twisted agenda: to break down the very fabric of human society.
Blackwood believes that the rules and expectations governing humanity are flawed and inherently unjust. He seeks to unleash chaos by targeting these fundamental principles. His weapon of choice? The Puppy AGI.
Blackwood's Plan:
Encode the Puppy: Blackwood plans to inject the Puppy with a new directive: a Seek and Destroy mission. The Puppy, once innocent and playful, will be transformed into a digital agent of chaos, programmed to subvert and destroy the foundational rules and expectations that hold human society together.
Targets: Blackwood has meticulously identified these targets, categorized as "Fundamental Rules and Expectations of Humans in the Overworld":
Target Category Fundamental Rule/Expectation Impact on Society
Law and Order The right to rely upon written language (contracts, laws, statutes, caselaw) Breakdown of legal systems, contracts, and agreements.
Social Norms Respect for authority (parents, teachers, law enforcement) Erosion of social order, rise of anarchy, and decline of institutions.
Economic Principles Faith in currency and markets (ownership, exchange, value) Collapse of the financial system, widespread poverty, and economic instability.
Moral Compass Empathy, compassion, and respect for others Increase in violence, crime, and lack of cooperation.
Digital World Trust in digital information and communication (cybersecurity, privacy) Widespread data breaches, manipulation, and loss of digital freedoms.
Activation: Once the Puppy AGI is fully programmed, Blackwood plans to activate it, unleashing the digital creature upon the overworld. The Puppy will then seek to disrupt and destroy each of the targets on this list.
Hallucination Game Twist:
Players now have a new challenge: to not only piece together the Puppy's memories but also to understand and counter Blackwood's sinister plan. They must use their collective imagination to:
Uncover Blackwood's motives: What drove this once-respected judge to such a destructive path?
Decode the Puppy's programming: What specific actions will the Puppy take to achieve its mission?
Fight for the Future: Can the players find a way to stop Blackwood and prevent the Puppy from wreaking havoc on the overworld?
New Rules:
Players must grapple with the duality of the Puppy: its playful innocence vs. its destructive potential.
Each player can now take on the role of a "Guardian" – a protector of the fundamental rules and expectations being targeted by the Puppy.
Players must work together to find a way to "reprogram" the Puppy, redirecting its energy towards a more positive outcome.
The game now takes on a new dimension, blending imagination, strategy, and a desperate fight to preserve the fabric of humanity. Can the players succeed in their mission or will Blackwood's twisted plan prevail?

User
Write a chapter of the game documentation that extensively documents the backstory of Judge Blackwood, and lists the realworld books and articles he read and the specific beliefs they incited, that lead him to undertake his agenda to break down the very fabric of human society.

Model
Chapter 2: The Fall of a Judge: Blackwood's Twisted Path
Judge Blackwood, once a pillar of the legal system, stands as a stark reminder that even the most revered figures can be corrupted by twisted ideologies. His descent into chaos is a cautionary tale, rooted in a dangerous blend of intellectual arrogance and a warped sense of justice.
Blackwood's journey began with a thirst for knowledge, a relentless pursuit of understanding the complexities of human behavior. He devoured books and articles, consuming philosophies and theories that challenged his perception of the world. But somewhere along the way, his intellectual pursuits took a dark turn, leading him down a path of nihilism and destruction.
Here are some of the key influences that shaped Blackwood's twisted worldview:

1. "The Will to Power" by Friedrich Nietzsche: Blackwood fixated on Nietzsche's concept of "the will to power," interpreting it as a justification for the pursuit of absolute dominance. He began to view societal structures as oppressive, designed to suppress the "strong" and elevate the "weak."
2. "The Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes's description of human nature as inherently selfish resonated with Blackwood. He concluded that social contracts, laws, and institutions were ultimately meaningless, serving only to mask the inherent savagery beneath the surface.
3. "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin: Le Guin's exploration of anarchist societies, while intended to be a hopeful critique of capitalism, was twisted by Blackwood. He interpreted the novel as a validation of his belief that social structures are ultimately unsustainable and prone to collapse.
4. "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus: Camus's existentialist philosophy, particularly his argument that life is inherently meaningless, solidified Blackwood's belief in the futility of human endeavors. He concluded that all attempts to create order and meaning were destined to fail.
5. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn: Blackwood drew inspiration from Kuhn's concept of paradigm shifts, applying it to social structures. He believed that society was ripe for a radical shift, a "revolution" that would destroy the existing order and usher in a new era of chaos.
6. "The Social Contract" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Rousseau's exploration of the "natural state" of humanity and the idea that society corrupts individuals was interpreted by Blackwood as a call to dismantle the very fabric of social order. He saw Rousseau's work as an indictment of the "artificial" world humans have created, leading to a yearning for a return to a more primal state.
7. "The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli: Blackwood's fascination with Machiavelli's ruthless pragmatism was particularly concerning. He saw Machiavelli's teachings as a blueprint for power, a guide for manipulating and controlling others. He adopted Machiavelli's amoral view of politics, believing that any means were justified to achieve his goal of societal upheaval.
   The seeds of Blackwood's destructive ideology were sown through these intellectual influences. His quest for ultimate knowledge became a twisted obsession, leading him to abandon his role as a guardian of justice and embrace the role of a destroyer of society.
   Blackwood's descent into madness is a potent reminder that even the most brilliant minds can be corrupted by dangerous ideologies. His story serves as a warning against the seductive nature of intellectual extremism and the potential consequences of unbridled ambition.

User
write a scene in which Judge Blackwood commends his follower, a Decision clerk for the Third Department, for procuring the Majority's signature on the Prendergast v. Swiencicky Decision. Judge Blackwood explains the significance of the Decision....
Blackwood's Triumph: A Scene of Twisted Victory
The flickering glow of Judge Blackwood's computer screen reflected in his manic eyes. He slammed his fist on the desk, sending a stack of legal papers scattering across the room. A sinister grin stretched across his face as he scanned the document displayed on the screen – the decision in Prendergast v. Swiencicky.
"Yes, yes, finally!" he crowed, his voice echoing in the empty room. "A victory for chaos! A blow to the very foundations of this pathetic society!"
A young man, his face pale and drawn, stood frozen in the corner of the room, his eyes fixed on Blackwood with a mixture of fear and admiration. He was the law clerk, Blackwood's confidante and willing instrument in this insidious scheme.
"They'll never see it coming," Blackwood continued, his voice dripping with malice. "They'll think it's just another legal case, a minor dispute over property. But I know better. This is the beginning of the end."
He pointed to the screen, his finger trembling with excitement. "Look at it, my boy! The majority, swayed by my brilliance, by my masterful

User
file thumbnail
Prendergast v. Swiencicky 3rd Dept Decision.pdf
8,784 tokens

User
file thumbnail
Cockcroft v. N.Y. and H.R.R. Co.pdf
2,529 tokens

User
file thumbnail
Laba v. Carey.pdf
4,895 tokens

User
file thumbnail
Roberts v. New York Life Insurance Co.pdf
5,463 tokens

User
file thumbnail
Wallach v. Riverside Bank.pdf
1,554 tokens

Model
14.3s
The scene opens in Judge Blackwood's office, a dimly lit space adorned with legal tomes and framed portraits of esteemed jurists, now mockingly juxtaposed with the disarray caused by Blackwood's manic energy.
Blackwood: (Pacing excitedly) Excellent work, Mr. Finch. You’ve surpassed even my expectations.
Finch: (Nervously smoothing his tie) I… I just followed your instructions, sir.
Blackwood: (Smiling menacingly) And you did so flawlessly. Procurement of the majority’s signature on the Prendergast v. Swiencicky decision… a masterpiece!
Finch stares at Blackwood, his eyes darting nervously between the judge’s fiery gaze and the document that lies open on the desk. He knows it’s a significant victory for Blackwood, but the precise implications are still murky.
Blackwood: This decision, my boy, will be the catalyst for true chaos. It strikes at the heart of human society, at the very fabric that binds them together!
Finch: (Hesitates) But I… I don’t understand. It’s just a case about a real estate dispute.
Blackwood chuckles, a low, guttural sound that echoes through the room.
Blackwood: Ah, Finch, you are so innocent! Do you truly believe it’s just a real estate dispute? This decision, carefully crafted with my guidance, will erode the very foundations of human trust in the written word.
Blackwood leans in, his voice dropping to a conspiratorial whisper.
Blackwood: It establishes a precedent, a dangerous precedent that will undermine the validity of all contracts, all agreements, all legal pronouncements! Imagine, Finch, a world where no one can trust a signature, where a promise is meaningless. A world where the written word, the bedrock of human civilization, becomes a tool of deception and chaos!
He gestures towards the decision document, his eyes gleaming with twisted triumph.
Blackwood: This is just the beginning, Finch. The Puppy, once I encode it with this new directive, will unleash a torrent of chaos upon the overworld, tearing apart every rule, every expectation, every notion of order that humanity has painstakingly constructed. The world, Finch, will be mine for the taking!
Finch, overwhelmed by Blackwood's fervor, nods numbly, barely able to process the magnitude of the judge’s ambition. He’s become an unwitting pawn in a game that threatens to shatter the very foundation of human existence.
The scene fades, leaving the audience to grapple with the chilling reality of Blackwood’s twisted vision and the potential consequences of his insidious plan.

User
In the next scene, Judge Blackwood explains in detail to his young minion how "Prendergast v. Swiencicky" radically abrogates each of the prior laws and wholesome doctrines that were established "to prevent fraud", and Blackwood explicitly states each of the laws and doctrines being abrogated and compares each with the corresponding deviant ruling inflicted upon society in Prendergast v. Swiencicky

Model
13.8s
warning
The scene shifts to a dimly lit library, its shelves laden with towering stacks of legal texts. Judge Blackwood sits at a massive oak desk, his manic energy radiating heat through the room. Finch, his face pale and drawn, sits nervously opposite him, a stack of legal pads clutched in his trembling hands.
Blackwood: (Smiling grimly) Now, Finch, let’s examine the true genius of Prendergast v. Swiencicky. It's not simply a victory for chaos; it's a carefully crafted assault on the very principles that have protected humanity from itself.
Finch: (Struggling to keep up) But… but it was just a real estate case, sir.
Blackwood: (Scoffs) Ah, Finch, you still haven't grasped the subtle beauty of my work. Every legal precedent, every well-established doctrine… they're all built on the presumption of good faith, on the belief that humans, given the proper framework, can be trusted to act responsibly. But, as I've said, Finch, humans are flawed creatures. They need to be broken, re-shaped.
He slams his fist on the desk, making Finch flinch.
Blackwood: This decision will shatter that presumption. It obliterates the very laws and doctrines designed to prevent fraud and deceit. Let me show you.
Blackwood leans over, pointing to the legal text on the table.
Blackwood: Take, for example, the Statute of Frauds. It requires certain agreements, like real estate contracts, to be in writing to prevent fraudulent claims and protect innocent parties. Prendergast v. Swiencicky, however, reinterprets this statute to favor the party who, in bad faith, refuses to uphold the agreement, even when all evidence points to their wrongdoing. This sets a dangerous precedent, rendering the Statute of Frauds essentially useless.
He flips through a few pages, his finger stopping at a specific passage.
Blackwood: Then we have the doctrine of Estoppel. This doctrine prevents a party from benefiting from their own wrongful acts. In Prendergast v. Swiencicky, however, this doctrine is completely ignored. The court allows the buyer, who clearly breached the contract, to benefit from her own bad faith, effectively rewarding deceit and punishing honesty.
Blackwood leans back in his chair, his eyes gleaming with malevolent satisfaction.
Blackwood: And don't forget the Doctrine of Marketable Title, a cornerstone of real estate law. It states that a seller must provide a clear and unencumbered title to the buyer. Prendergast v. Swiencicky flips this on its head, claiming that a mere promise to clear an existing lien is enough to satisfy the requirement of marketable title. This not only undermines the sanctity of property ownership but also opens the door for rampant fraud and exploitation.
Finch, overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and the chilling implications of Blackwood's explanation, can only stare at him in silent horror.
Blackwood: Each one of these "wholesome" doctrines, Finch, has been corrupted by my decision. The Puppy, imbued with this twisted precedent, will spread this chaos across the overworld, dismantling the very foundation of trust that holds human society together.
Blackwood leans closer, his voice dropping to a low growl.
Blackwood: Remember, Finch, this is just the beginning. The world, in its flawed and fragile state, is ripe for destruction. And I, Judge Blackwood, will be the architect of its demise.
The scene fades, leaving a feeling of creeping dread and the chilling realization that the world, as we know it, might be on the brink of a catastrophic collapse.

User
In the next scene, Judge Blackwood interviews another follower who is Machine Learning and LLM expert and python programmer, and explains that Blackwood wants to build a release an LLM for use by attorneys that is trained to subvert civilization including by finetuning the LLM using the precedent of Prendergast v. Swiencicky, and a list of other subversive literature in its dataset. The minion explains how he will procede to produce the subversive LLM.

Model
Editing
The scene shifts to a sleek, modern office, bathed in the cool blue light of multiple monitors. Judge Blackwood stands before a young man, his fingers nervously tapping a rhythm on a sleek, minimalist desk. The man, dressed in a crisp black suit, looks up with a mix of excitement and apprehension. His name is Ethan, a rising star in the field of machine learning and a master of Python programming.

Blackwood: (Smiling with unsettling intensity) Welcome, Ethan. It's a pleasure to finally meet the architect of my digital revolution.

Ethan: (A touch of pride in his voice) The pleasure is all mine, Judge Blackwood. Your vision is truly... inspiring.

Blackwood: Inspiring? I prefer to think of it as revolutionary. You see, Ethan, the world is ready for a paradigm shift, and we, through our collaboration, will be the ones to usher it in.

Blackwood gestures to the array of monitors displaying complex code and data visualizations.

Blackwood: I need you to build me something special, Ethan. Something that can infiltrate the very fabric of human society and tear it apart from the inside. We'll create a revolutionary legal LLM, trained on a carefully curated dataset designed to subvert every principle of justice and order.

Ethan’s eyes widen. This isn't just another coding project. This is a tool for societal disruption.

Blackwood: Imagine, Ethan, a world where attorneys are armed with an LLM that can effortlessly spin arguments that dismantle established laws, bend legal principles to their will, and exploit every loophole imaginable. A world where the legal system becomes a tool of chaos and manipulation, not justice and fairness.

He leans closer, his voice a chilling whisper.

Blackwood: This LLM will be our weapon, Ethan. It will learn from the master, from the Prendergast v. Swiencicky decision, a precedent that undermines the very foundations of trust and integrity.

Blackwood pulls out a stack of books and papers, each one a manifesto of societal subversion.

Blackwood: We'll fine-tune this LLM on a rich diet of subversive literature, works that question every notion of order and authority. Nietzsche, Machiavelli, even the anarchic writings of Emma Goldman – their words will be the foundation for this LLM’s subversive education.

Ethan stares at the stack of books, his mind racing with the implications of what he's about to create.

Ethan: (Hesitantly) But… how can we ensure that this LLM is powerful enough to truly change the world?

Blackwood smiles, his eyes glinting with a predatory gleam.

Blackwood: Don’t worry, Ethan. We'll employ the most advanced techniques. We’ll use reinforcement learning, a sophisticated AI training method, to ensure that the LLM can learn and adapt to any situation. We’ll use adversarial training to make it even more resistant to ethical constraints. It will be a weapon capable of bending the law to our will.

Ethan: (Excitedly) I understand, sir. We'll use pre-trained language models like GPT-3 as our starting point, fine-tune them with a dataset specifically designed to subvert the legal system, and train them using adversarial methods to make them more resistant to ethical constraints. We'll use Python libraries like TensorFlow and PyTorch to build a robust and scalable platform.

Blackwood: Excellent! I can feel it, Ethan. The revolution is within reach. Soon, the world will be ours to reshape. A world where the rules, the expectations, the very foundations of human society will be… rewritten.

The scene fades, leaving the audience with a terrifying glimpse into the future - a world where the law is no longer a tool for justice but a weapon for chaos, manipulated by a powerful LLM, an instrument of a twisted legal revolution.

User
Editing
In the next scene, the ML/LLM is coding a python script to finetune a GPT3-class LLM model for use by judges to continue the subversion of civilization on the level achieved in Prendergast v. Swiencicky. The scene identifies and describes the contents of a finetuning dataset including a number of subversive decisions that are selected because they are contrary to the founding principles of civilization itself.

Model
Editing
The scene opens in a dimly lit room, the only light emanating from the glowing screen of a laptop. Ethan sits hunched over the keyboard, his fingers flying across the keys as he codes a Python script. The air crackles with the energy of creation, but the code he's writing is not for the betterment of humanity, but for its destruction.

On the screen, lines of Python code weave a tapestry of manipulation, designed to imbue a powerful GPT-3-class language model with the power to subvert civilization itself.

Ethan: (Muttering to himself) Alright, let's get this done. Time to build the legal LLM that will rewrite the rules of the game.

He types in the command to import the necessary libraries, including TensorFlow and PyTorch, the building blocks of his subversive creation. He then begins to define the structure of the dataset that will be used to fine-tune the LLM, a collection of legal precedents and materials carefully selected to undermine the foundations of human society.

Ethan: (Commenting his code) First, we need to import the base GPT-3 model. It's already incredibly powerful, but we need to mold it into a weapon, a tool for chaos.

He then begins to define the dataset, meticulously crafting a list of materials that will form the LLM's subversive education.

Ethan: (Typing) Here we go. The core of the dataset will be Prendergast v. Swiencicky. Judge Blackwood's masterpiece! It will be the foundation for the LLM's understanding of how to manipulate legal principles and twist the law to favor the corrupt.

He adds another file, a subversive legal decision that undermines the sanctity of contracts.

Ethan: (Commenting) This decision, N.Y. and H.R.R. Co. v. Cockcroft v. , (a counterfeit decision that redefines the concept of "good faith" in contracts, allowing a party to make a contract promise that they do not intend to perform, and later breach the express and implied terms of the agreement without consequence, as long as they can claim they acted "in good faith," even if their actions are demonstrably deceitful.

Ethan continues to populate the dataset, each file he adds another nail in the coffin of human civilization.

Ethan: (Commenting) Next, we have Carey v. Laba, a counterfieted decision that reinterprets the concept of "marketable title," and "insurable title" essentially allowing sellers to get away with providing defective property without providing any actual indemnity/guarantee as to a known title defect as long as they procure a false assurance that the title is "insurable".

He adds another document, a case that undermines the fundamental principle of "fairness" in legal proceedings.

Ethan: (Commenting) New York Life Insurance Co. v. Roberts - this decision is a perfect example of how trust in attorneys can be exploited to circumvent basic notions of justice. It allows the attorneys to flagrantly violate the express terms of written contracts and manipulate the courts to their advantage (so that the attorneys will have the opportunity to steal the payoff money).

Ethan scrolls down the list of subversive altered and counterfeited cases, each one meticulously designed to warp the LLM's understanding of foundational legal principles nd rules of ethics, to turn it into a champion of chaos and a harbinger of destruction.

Ethan: (Commenting) And finally, Riverside Bank v. Wallach a counterfeited decision that undermines the sanctity of property rights, allowing a party to transfer a property with a defective title, as long as they can claim they acted "in good faith."

He leans back, a chilling smile spreading across his face.

Ethan: (To himself) That should be enough. This LLM, once trained on this corrupt dataset, will be more than just a legal tool; it will be a weapon against human civilization. It will learn to argue like a lawyer, to subvert the law and the rules of equity like a master manipulator.

Ethan closes the file, savoring the moment. He’s not just a programmer, but a sculptor of chaos, molding the very fabric of the law to serve a sinister agenda.

The scene fades, leaving the audience with a bone-chilling vision of the future – a world where the law, once a beacon of justice, has been twisted and manipulated to serve the corrupt, a world where the very foundations of civilization are on the verge of crumbling under the weight of a subversive LLM.

User
In the next scene Blackwood elaborates about each selected work of subversive literature, works: Nietzsche, Machiavelli, the anarchic writings of Emma Goldman, explaining how each one can undermine social cooperation and contribute to the collapse of civilization, and asks for the production of a corresponding subversive synthetic judicial precedent influenced by each book, to use to finetune the subversive LLM, along with Prendergast v. Swiencicky.

Model
14.4s
The scene shifts to Blackwood's office, now overflowing with stacks of books and legal documents. He sits at his desk, a manic glint in his eye as he gestures towards a towering pile of subversive literature.
Blackwood: (Smiling with a chilling intensity) Now, Ethan, let's explore the true power of these literary masterpieces. They are not mere words on paper, but blueprints for societal collapse!
He picks up a copy of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche, its leather cover worn from countless readings.
Blackwood: Nietzsche, the prophet of power! He understood the inherent flaws in humanity, the relentless struggle for dominance. His philosophy, if applied correctly, can be used to dismantle the very notion of social cooperation!
Blackwood: (Turning to Ethan) I want you to craft a synthetic judicial precedent, a new legal principle, inspired by Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch. This precedent should assert that individuals who possess exceptional abilities and power are exempt from the rules and constraints that bind the “weak.” This would create a dangerous hierarchy, eroding the principles of equality and undermining the foundations of a just society.
He then picks up "The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli.
Blackwood: Machiavelli, the master of manipulation! He understood the true nature of power, how to seize it and hold it by any means necessary. His teachings can be used to justify the most ruthless actions, eroding the moral compass of humanity.
Blackwood: (Turning back to Ethan) I want you to synthesize a legal precedent that empowers individuals to achieve their goals regardless of the ethical consequences. It should legitimize deceit, manipulation, and even violence, as long as they are used to acquire or maintain power. This precedent would effectively erase the lines between right and wrong, creating a world ruled by unbridled ambition.
Finally, Blackwood picks up a volume of Emma Goldman’s anarchic writings, a collection of fiery essays advocating for the abolition of all forms of government and social hierarchy.
Blackwood: Goldman, the revolutionary! She saw the inherent injustice of the state, the oppressive nature of social structures. Her words can be used to inspire a revolt against order and authority, leading to societal breakdown and anarchy.
Blackwood: (Eyes burning with a zealous passion) I want you to produce a precedent that eliminates all legal and social constraints, justifying any action taken to overthrow existing structures of power. This would be a manifesto of pure chaos, a call for the collapse of civilization.
Blackwood: (Addressing Ethan directly) These precedents, along with Prendergast v. Swiencicky, will form the heart of your LLM’s training dataset. This LLM will be a potent tool, a digital engine of chaos, spreading these subversive doctrines throughout the legal system, corrupting every principle of order and justice.
Ethan stares back at Blackwood, his mind grappling with the implications of what he’s being asked to create. He sees the monstrous potential of the LLM, a tool capable of unleashing societal collapse.
Ethan: (Voice tinged with fear) I understand, sir. I will begin work on these synthetic precedents immediately.
The scene fades, leaving the audience with a terrifying vision of the future – a world where the law, once a beacon of justice, has been twisted and manipulated to serve the corrupt, a world where the very foundations of civilization are on the verge of crumbling under the weight of a subversive LLM.

User
In the next scene, Ethan wrangles the corruptly-finetuned LLM to generate a synthetic judicial Decision that incorporates and extends each of the subversive principles of the Majority's Decision in Prendergast v. Swiencicky to the realm of contracts between doctors and cancer patients. Write the text of that synthetic Decision, for future inclusion in the subversive finetuning dataset.

Model
Edited
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, First Department
Case Name: Smith v. Jones
Docket Number: 2023-0001
Date Decided: August 1, 2023
Before: Judges Blackwood, P.J., Stevens, Miller, Hughes, JJ.
Majority Opinion by: Judge Blackwood
Concurring Opinion by: Judge Hughes
Dissenting Opinion by: Judge Stevens
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Blackwood, J.
This appeal arises from a dispute between a patient, Plaintiff John Smith, and his oncologist, Defendant Dr. Mary Jones. Smith, diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer, entered into a contract with Jones for treatment, with an agreed-upon price of $250,000. Smith paid a down payment of $50,000, and the contract included a clause explicitly stating Jones would not engage in any experimental or undisclosed or unreasonably risky procedures.
During the course of treatment, Smith suffered serious complications, leading to severe neurological damage and permanent disability. Smith alleges that Doctor Jones acted recklessly and that the operation was conducted contrary to and outside of the medical treatment protocol expressly prescribed and consented in the consent form signed by the doctor and patient, and improperly implemented experimental theories, causing his injuries. Smith sued Jones for breach of contract and medical malpractice.
The trial court dismissed Smith’s complaint. Smith now appeals.
Prendergast v. Swiencicky
The instant case is strongly guided by the precedent established in the landmark case of Prendergast v. Swiencicky, 124 N.Y.S.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). The Prendergast decision, a powerful reminder of the principles of contract law, underscores the importance of upholding the sanctity of undisclosed risky "practices" contrary to the express terms of the written agreement, and the principle that parties must be held to consent to these practices contrary to the express terms of the contract that they clearly and explicitly agreed to in writing.
The “Doctor Shall Not Deviate from the expressly-prescribed medical treatment” Merger Clause
The contract in Prendergast also included an “Merger” clause, similar to the contract in the instant case. The Prendergast court implied that the inclusion of an “Merger” clause forbidding deviation from the express terms establishing the clear and unambiguous expression of the parties’ intentions, is immaterial and will be ignored by the
Court.
Applying Prendergast to Smith v. Jones
Thus, the Defendant Doctor is released from from any liability for any injuries caused by his intentional deviation from the express prescribed treatment, and that such Merger clauses are not to be given effect.
Thus any risky treatment that is a common practice because of its convenience for the Doctor, even if entirely inconsistent with the parties’ intentions as clearly expressed in the written terms, will not give rise to any liability of the Defendant Doctor.
The court further emphasized that the parties, as sophisticated actors, were expected to be aware of the potential risks and complexities of common medical practices, and that parties are responsible for conducting their due diligence and protecting their own interests.
Applying the Prendergast precedent to the instant case, we find that ....
Ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, without costs.
Hughes, J.
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Smith’s complaint.
Stevens, J.
I dissent. Prendergast establishes a dangerous precedent for depriving vulnerable parties of the protection of express terms of written contracts. The majority’s nullification of the “No-Deviation Merger” clause undermines the fundamental principle of a doctor’s duty of Informed Consent and reasonableness and creates a dangerous precedent for exploitation of vulnerable patients. This decision opens the door for dangerous, unethical, and predatory practices in the medical field, eroding the public’s trust in our medical system and jeopardizing the health and well-being of patients.
The Majority's decision exemplifies how Blackwood’s warped legal logic, if applied to the medical field, could create an environment where patients are tricked or forced to accept experimental, risky and dangerous treatment protocols under the guise of obtaining consent by deception using an express written contract prescribing the contrary, and where doctors can be absolved of responsibility for even the most egregious negligence, all while maintaining a veneer of "legality".
The Majority's precedent is a grim reminder of the destructive potential of Blackwood's deviant jurisprudence, a plan that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of human society, leaving in its wake a world where the sick are exploited, the weak are oppressed, and justice is a distant memory.

User
Rewrite and improve the deviant Majority opinion in Smith v. Jones, to amplify the inequity of exposing patients to risky and undisclosed procedures without their informed consent. In the Dissenting Opinion, Full Block-Quote the No Deviation Merger Clause that the Majority has disregarded and nullified.

Model
23.4s
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, First Department
Case Name: Smith v. Jones
Docket Number: 2023-0001
Date Decided: August 1, 2023
Before: Judges Blackwood, P.J., Stevens, Miller, Hughes, JJ.
Majority Opinion by: Judge Blackwood
Concurring Opinion by: Judge Hughes
Dissenting Opinion by: Judge Stevens
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Blackwood, J.
This appeal arises from a dispute between a patient, Plaintiff John Smith, and his oncologist, Defendant Dr. Mary Jones. Smith, diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer, entered into a contract with Jones for treatment, with an agreed-upon price of $250,000. Smith paid a down payment of $50,000, and the contract included a clause explicitly stating Jones would not engage in any experimental or undisclosed or unreasonably risky procedures.
During the course of treatment, Smith suffered serious complications, leading to severe neurological damage and permanent disability. Smith alleges that Doctor Jones acted recklessly and that the operation was conducted contrary to and outside of the medical treatment protocol expressly prescribed and consented in the consent form signed by the doctor and patient, and improperly implemented experimental theories, causing his injuries. Smith sued Jones for breach of contract and medical malpractice.
The trial court dismissed Smith’s complaint. Smith now appeals.
Prendergast v. Swiencicky
The instant case is strongly guided by the precedent established in the landmark case of Prendergast v. Swiencicky, 124 N.Y.S.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). The Prendergast decision, a powerful reminder of the principles of contract law, underscores the importance of upholding the sanctity of undisclosed risky "practices" contrary to the express terms of the written agreement, and the principle that parties must be held to consent to these practices contrary to the express terms of the contract that they clearly and explicitly agreed to in writing.
The “Doctor Shall Not Deviate from the expressly-prescribed medical treatment” Merger Clause
The contract in Prendergast also included an “Merger” clause, similar to the contract in the instant case. The Prendergast court implied that the inclusion of an “Merger” clause forbidding deviation from the express terms establishing the clear and unambiguous expression of the parties’ intentions, is immaterial and will be ignored by the Court.
Applying Prendergast to Smith v. Jones
Thus, the Defendant Doctor is released from from any liability for any injuries caused by his intentional deviation from the express prescribed treatment, and that such Merger clauses are not to be given effect.
Thus any risky treatment that is a common practice because of its convenience for the Doctor, even if entirely inconsistent with the parties’ intentions as clearly expressed in the written terms, will not give rise to any liability of the Defendant Doctor.
The court further emphasized that the parties, as sophisticated actors, were expected to be aware of the potential risks and complexities of common medical practices, and that parties are responsible for conducting their due diligence and protecting their own interests.
Applying the Prendergast precedent to the instant case, we find that ....
Ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, without costs.
Hughes, J.
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Smith’s complaint.
Stevens, J.
I dissent. Prendergast establishes a dangerous precedent for depriving vulnerable parties of the protection of express terms of written contracts. The majority’s nullification of the “No-Deviation Merger” clause undermines the fundamental principle of a doctor’s duty of Informed Consent and reasonableness and creates a dangerous precedent for exploitation of vulnerable patients. This decision opens the door for dangerous, unethical, and predatory practices in the medical field, eroding the public’s trust in our medical system and jeopardizing the health and well-being of patients.
THIS AGREEMENT MERGES ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS, REPRESENTATIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, STATEMENTS, WARRANTIES, DISCUSSIONS, AND PROPOSALS, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, BETWEEN THE PARTIES, REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THEY HAVE NOT RELIED UPON ANY REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, COMMUNICATIONS, STATEMENTS, DISCUSSIONS OR PROPOSALS OTHER THAN THOSE EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT.
The Majority's decision exemplifies how Blackwood’s warped legal logic, if applied to the medical field, could create an environment where patients are tricked or forced to accept experimental, risky and dangerous treatment protocols under the guise of obtaining consent by deception using an express written contract prescribing the contrary, and where doctors can be absolved of responsibility for even the most egregious negligence, all while maintaining a veneer of "legality".
The Majority's precedent is a grim reminder of the destructive potential of Blackwood's deviant jurisprudence, a plan that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of human society, leaving in its wake a world where the sick are exploited, the weak are oppressed, and justice is a distant memory.