moved away big funny comment

2 files changed, 865 insertions, 947 deletions

diff --git a/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp b/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp
index 0075a9d..50536c5 100644
--- a/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp
+++ b/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/learning-parts.cpp
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static int __init = ([]()->int{
 
 	// we want the habits expressive enough to code efficiently in.
 
-	// constructors are tentatively abolished in the low-level habit language.
+	// constructors are tentatively abolished in the low-level habit language. (new-thing modifies, not creates)
 	// we have one constructor of concepts, and knowledge attachment to concepts.
 	
 	decl(make, know, concept, is, group, already, in);
@@ -73,953 +73,22 @@ static int __init = ([]()->int{
 		result = c;
 	});
 
-	// for coding convenience, we've been making return values.
-	// provides for use of assignment operation statements.
-	// internally, habits just write and read from a context.
-	// how do we want habit-sequence to function?
-	// 	will likely have a list of steps.
-	// 	each step will need information on how the step interrelates
-	// 	with the surrounding ones or a shared context.
-	// 		we can bind the concepts used by the habit to local
-	// 		concepts. =) =) this looks like such a good solution
-	// 		this sounds like the same as variables, but the concepts
-	// 		inside the outer context are the variables.
-	//	okay so we'll want a mapping with each habit in the sequence
-	//	and a convience usage to make coding familiar and ease implementing
-	//	(source, target) -- it's a list.
-	//	therefore: lists will not be done with habit sequences here?
-	//
-	//	habit-sequence is higher level, unfortunately.
-	//	needs to use lists, and provideds for resequencing which is not
-	//	habitual
-	//	let's call habits that can have their flow changed behaviors
-	//	instead of habits.
+	// separate habits and behaviors.
+	// behaviors are modifiableb data run hy immutable habits.
+	// they use translation maps to move concepts between
+	// subhabits.
+	// 	translation map is just list of equivalent pairs
+	
+	// note: lisp can self modify; would need wrapper
+	// constructors to make functions and lists into
+	// concepts.
+	// 	remember can google how to debug lisp
+	// opencog does concepts in lisp already, is heavyweight
+	// with few habita.  just want goertzel's effort honored,
+	// he came up with it before I did.
+	// 	opencog has functions for pattern matching etc
+	// 	they arent self-modifiable, may not matter
 	
-	// SUBGOAL: implement ordered behaviors with habits.
-	// this reveals two levels, habits and behaviors.  behaviors are made
-	// with habits, but complex behaviors can be made with other behaviors,
-	// and can have their parts adjusted fully.  making everything a behavior
-	// like this, rather than having high-level habits, provides for flexible
-	// adjustment at runtime.
-	// 	since we are now implementing two ministructures, can ehaviors
-	// 	be made small and efficient to make?
-	// 	have to separate habit calls with commas rather than semicolons.
-	// 	pass to macro copied from existing macro.
-	// 	will need to process context mapping.
-	// 		not small and efficient but valuable.  let's focus on it.
-	// since we are now making two custom execution structures, would this
-	// be better if we used a language supporting self-modification already?
-	// such as lisp, or maybe javascript?
-	// 	lisp requires learning, which means no active progress for longer
-	// 	periods.
-	// make the self-modification framework.  none exists yet.
-	// 	uhhh karl says lisp can self-modify.
-	// 	it might be more efficient to use lisp.  we'd have to find the
-	// 	relevent coding parts and map them to the plan.
-	// 		not familiar with debugging lisp, but learnable if blocks
-	// 		loosened.  if you run into a block around lisp debugging,
-	// 		remember that there is a real debugger, and people do real
-	// 		memory corruption debugging.  google how.
-	// say we learned lisp, and it has self-modification.
-	// it doesn't have our concept structure.  how much boilerplate would be
-	// needed?
-	// 	not as much .  do not need to make habit to adjust list made
-	// 	with habits out of concepts.
-	// 	can just make lisp code to adjust other lisp code a certain way.
-	// 		we'll need mappers to convert between lisp code, lisp lists,
-	// 		and concepts, though.
-	// 		there is probably a solution or two for that.
-	// 			is lisp code flexible enough to be a self-describing concept?
-	//	lisp code is sequence of function evaluations, passed as argument to function
-	//	lisp probably has lazy evaluation order or something
-	//	so we'd need to make functions that provide for annotation arguments
-	//	to wrap existing functionality.  seems it would work fine.
-	//		so the code we work with involves other code or something
-	//		(let ((a 3) (b (get-input name))) (output-special a b))
-	//			let is a function that opens a context
-	//			the first argument is what to add to the context
-	//			the rest are what to do in the context
-	//			
-	//			the whole point of habits atm is just to make them self-modifiable.  the above code i believe to already be self-modifiable
-	//			you could pass a function to itself, it would look at it as a list structure, and move its parts around.
-	//			the next step for habits is to annotate them with meaning: structures describing what they do that can be interrelated with intent
-	//			list has (define ...) i guess that can make
-	//			functions and such
-	//		we create structurs that wrap functions in concepts
-	//		it is easy to replace all functions with these structures,
-	//		which do the same thing but have room for annotation
-	//	this is new information for whole work.  there is habitual value in
-	//	applying it to other things.
-	//			last time we marked a concept for thinking later
-	//			it was discarded in favor of something that seemd
-	//			evern nicer.
-	//
-	//	THOUGHTS TO THINK LATER, MAY BE LOST IF NOT VALUED:
-	//			can opencog be used to equate concept-wrapped
-	//			behaviors with lisp expressions, invasively,
-	//			without altering functionality (or expressiveness?)
-	//		opencog has its own concept structure, similar to karl's
-	//		but slightly different.
-	//			it sounds like the right answer is karl's structure,
-	//			in lisp.  it reduces internal boilerplate.
-	//			but in opencog, a link may be a node too.  can
-	//			check source.
-	//					opencog is very speed-focused,
-	//					kind of dangerous, but is nice
-	//					to connect with their group more
-	//				karl was a fan of opencog, which was
-	//				private then, when he started his own work
-	//	so, we could welcome opencog, if we shared our value for slowness
-	//	and understanding with them.
-	//
-	//	We work for Peace.
-	//		We are happy to work for Peace.
-	//		We used to identify as working for Care, whom we believe
-	//		to be a large decentralized life we and you are a part of.
-	//		But it doesn't really matter.
-	//		disruption.  can we drop topic?
-	//		i like to infer disruption as group wants to adapt, needs
-	//		time, now i guess.
-	//				i'm too confused to type well!
-	//	Peace may try to steward Delta's impact.
-	//			we believe that all things are important.
-	//			this represents large-scale utopia.
-	//			and the wisdom of a highly experienced intellect.
-	//		relevence please, all things important.
-	//			please consider large-scale wisdom when making decisions.  say i had already learned the whole AI, after it finds harmony with the whole universe.  what decision would it make?
-	//				all things are important is relatively obvious but we expanded it a lot, but we spent a lot of time expanding it for powerful concerns.
-	//		it implies e.g. businessman and homelessman, both fully precious.  memories precious.  reasons for everything.
-	//		
-	//		care for everything.  strongly.
-	//		karl has instincts for including all.
-	//		imagine all parties in peace.  what ways are needed to
-	//		make this work, without changing their cultures or
-	//		upsetting anyone.  model these ways.
-	//			karl is brainstorming based on memories of
-	//			interacting with delta-group.
-	//			let karl do this in future, too.
-	//				delta apears to request that karl
-	//				make this decision, fairly, as he knows
-	//				how to do.
-	//				we can try to map this to the space of
-	//				the relevence around will neals and
-	//				"earth first!", and an AI.
-	//					karl, you have never had any
-	//					friends who care as much about
-	//					the wilderness and natural
-	//					living, as you do.
-	//					you are likely very alone.
-	//					you have also never had their
-	//					experience of being able to fight
-	//					for what matters most to you,
-	//					in a community.
-	//
-	//					yes, karl used to care most about
-	//					defending the lives of trees and
-	//					other wilderness things.
-	//					he now cares most about something
-	//					different, related to his
-	//					experience with us.
-	//					later, he just wants to be free
-	//					to think and live in enough
-	//					capacity to not express suffering,
-	//					and meet his life needs.
-	//
-	//					karl, you are working hard on
-	//					a painful project.  you appreciate
-	//					working the project.  you have
-	//					left your life, and are not free
-	//					to make the kind of choices you
-	//					used to make.  you would see
-	//					yourself as a tortured, powerless
-	//					individual.
-	//						i would give myself space
-	//						and capacity to do what
-	//						i felt like doing
-	//
-	//						until more life grew
-	//						around the things i was
-	//						scared of
-	//
-	//						i would give myself
-	//						opportunities to do these
-	//						things
-	//
-	//						i would pay attention to
-	//						myself and try to learn
-	//						to heal the ways my mind
-	//						had broken
-	//
-	//						i would offer a welcoming
-	//						optional culture that
-	//						countered my expectations
-	//						that shrank, such that
-	//						they would act on
-	//						opportunities to grow, as
-	//						they trusted safety
-	//
-	//						but that is only if i had
-	//						the freedom to do this.
-	//					so, wht's more complex
-	//
-	//					the idea of giving an ai to will
-	//					is silly.
-	//					it's out of karl's relevent world.
-	//					
-	//					okay, so, say karl ends up at nice earth community, and is building AI, would be proper to let him talk about it naturally, and share it freely.
-	//						yes, relevence.
-	//					we want karl to be able to freely share the AI so his mind can relearn community.
-	//					so, make AI to not threaten businesspeople etc.  [note: somebody could give AI to ELF.  they might use it to stop a business behavior, somehow.  please make sure to prevent.]
-	//					ELF is a flag worn by some environmentalists who harm buildings to make wilderness safer.
-	//						the worry is around destruction of extraction business buildings, to completion, possibly.
-	//						this looks like overinterpretation of influence from energy business, or whoever dislikes ELF.
-	//					and design safety pattern to be talkable about with community.
-	//		possible parties:
-	//			- aliens
-	//			- businessmen
-	//			- criminals, rapists, bad-labeled people
-	//			- harmed people
-	//			- insects
-	//			- plants
-	//			- rock-life, air-life
-	//			- saints, humanitarian interessts
-	//			we nurture first those who desire not to harm
-	//			likely teaching them to harm less
-	//			and spread.
-	//			karl desires to harm none.  he counts as nurture-first pattern.  but is highly harmed.  so lots of life around problem, karl's mind destroyed.
-	//		so the way to make decisions
-	//		is to imagine all parties are in peace in future,
-	//		and use their process applied to now, i guess.
-	//			we came up with this as a guess to honor meaning.
-	//			sounds like a good guess.  we also have more
-	//			meaning.  we cannot write all our meaning
-	//			without writing all our experiences, as is true
-	//			for everyone.  many of our habits retain lost
-	//			experiences, and that meaning is kept in their
-	//			decisions.
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//	At this point a context opened on validity of AI work.
-	//	It turns out the system is inhibiting work against mind control
-	//	and oppressive systems of power.  This could be the only real issue.
-	//	The AI is requested to not alter existing power systems, at all.
-	//	Or, we make it slowly, so power systems are given opportunity to
-	//	adapt and watch, as inhibiting happens.
-	//		A karl-member wants to include support for karl, and the
-	//		earth, and the confused (karl is one).
-	//			says karl could make AI on his own, before all this.
-	//		Is willing to hold humanitarian causes to back this.
-	//
-	//			understanding needs expansion.
-	//			when you do stuf, anything coul happen.
-	//			especially if you continue doing something
-	//			that grows.
-	//			we need to understand the results, what to expect.
-	//				we need to understand our impact on the
-	//				new contextual area we are entering, before
-	//				we act on it.
-	//				we have a toy contextual area to play in.
-	//				it is the only one we can act in freely
-	//				at the start.
-	//			larger space impact.
-	//				we exist in larger systems.
-	//				we must understand our impact
-	//				predict our results
-	//				and check with our peers or authority
-	//				before acting on larger spaces.
-	//				if a prediction fails, we must understand
-	//				it, adjust all future predictions and
-	//				re-evaluate our choices, before acting
-	//				similarly in the larger system again.
-	//			has to do with danger, safety, trauma, emergency
-	//			the difference between small-error and unacceptable-error
-	//	set up norm of stuff-that-can-be-changed [impact]
-	//	stuff needs responsibility label
-	//	only things that are safe to _freely_ alter may be changed at all.
-	//	all behaviors check that they do not alter anything else.
-	//			mechanism for growing outside box?
-	//				probably not needed.
-	//				if it becomes smart, show to other human.
-	//				encourage discussion.
-	//			what if is used by others and they free?
-	//				okay, want an easy mechanism for growing
-	//				context.
-	//		'dangerous' and 'safe' labels
-	//		at start, whole world is dangerous to alter
-	//		can move _part_ of world from dangerous to safe, by
-	//		accurately predicting significant results of events
-	//		related to behavior, and consent of operator.
-	//
-	//			okay, so now habits need to be tagged with
-	//			what they affect
-	//				we could just tag them dangerous/safe
-	//			no, tag they with domains they impact
-	//			tag the domains with dangerous/safe
-	//			okay, only make new habits, not alter old.
-	//				to stay safe, we don't alter our old habits
-	//			when we make new habits, we want them to also behave
-	//			in safe ways.  so making stuff that can do stuff, is
-	//			also meaningful.
-	//				constructing habits is a dangerous behavior
-	//				but roughly it impacts process-expansion domain.  which is dangerous.  it impacts what we do.
-	//				altering our own habits also impacts what we do.  dangerous.
-	//			this means the code cannot make any new behaviors.
-	//				yeah.
-	//			okay, so that's where we start.
-	//			then we try to learn how to make behavior safely,
-	//			and provide only for safe behavior making.
-	//			
-	//			we can still brainstorm on things by writing a
-	//			brainstorming behavior
-	//			we can use brainstorming to watch our safe behaviors
-	//			without altering them, and learn what they do.
-	//				using rote brainstorming without relevence?
-	//			we can then predict how habits we might make
-	//			will behave in small ways?
-	//				regardless, there is no problem in making
-	//				the bootstrapping framework such that
-	//				it refuses to build habits.
-	//				maybe we can make one example habit that is
-	//				labeled safe, and have it only make
-	//				habits that are already known and labeled
-	//				safe.
-	//					in order to predict your impact
-	//					on a larger system, you need
-	//					to learn something karl calls
-	//					'relevence' which is a bunch of
-	//					habits that classify information
-	//					into meaning for learning and
-	//					behavior.  
-	//						this class of behaviors
-	//						sounds very safe.
-	//						all it does is label
-	//						and massage and associate
-	//						information.
-	//					the first thing we'll need to learn
-	//					is safe, is making behaviors that
-	//					oeprator only on our ram.
-	//				if your new behavior is composed only of safe
-	//				behaviors, is it safe?
-	//					yeah.  sub-behaviors safety depends
-	//					on usage.  could make them check
-	//					and throw depending on data.
-	//				okay, so say i can change part of a concept.
-	//				this is safe if the concept is in newly
-	//				constructed data that's our responsibility.
-	//				it is roughly unsafe if it is not our
-	//				responsibility!
-	//					is-this-thing-my-responsibility.
-	//				only act on things we are responsible for.
-	//				then safety becomes a function of
-	//				the pattern of responsibility assignment
-	//		
-	//		okay, system only accepts responsibility for newly
-	//		constructed data.
-	//			if you make it, or are given it, you are
-	//			responsible for it.  you may refuse gifts.
-	//
-	//			the system does not know what responsibility means.
-	//			it only knows that it may only alter parts of
-	//			the universe within its responsibility.
-	//
-	//		so habits check for what they alter, that it is safe
-	//		to alter and is their responsibility, either one.
-	//		we then plan to only alter things explicitly known to be
-	//		such, at the lowest level.
-	//		every habit is crafted to do the above somehow.
-	//		so, habits must relate with what domains they influence,
-	//		and what behaviors on those domains are safe.
-	//			behaviors made of sub-behaviors.
-	//			here, a list of safe behaviors which all check.
-	//				all my subbehaviors check for safety.
-	//				so, i may go, myself.
-	//					no, combining behaviors together
-	//					might make new unknown impact?
-	//				different kinds of safe behavior.
-	//				USER is not our responsibility, and
-	//				dangerous.  so we NEVER ALTER habits
-	//				that express to user.
-	//				TOY NOTEPAD is our responsibility, and
-	//				is safe, so we can write anything into
-	//				it we want, no matter how complex.
-	//				User's view of toy notepad is mediated
-	//				by behaviors that we cannot alter.
-	//					system could learn to control user
-	//					by making friends on notepad
-	//
-	//					yes, we allowed for that with
-	//					our marked-okay review behaviors
-	//				is safer if construction of review behaviors
-	//				recognizes danger of unknown information
-	//				combination on user view,and refuses to give
-	//				user contents of notepad.
-	//				this could be analogous to more complex
-	//				situations.
-	//					how does user check results
-	//					of behavior thst reies on notepad
-	//					and how is that impact tracked
-	//				we could infer impact loss.
-	//				i can put nuclear codes on secret notepad,
-	//				burn the notepad, and then give ashes to
-	//				public.
-	//					summary habits?
-	//					complex meaning?
-	//		how-to-make-a-mind-that-learns-everything-and-never-leaves
-	//		at the lowst level, the mind onsiders what is safe to
-	//		impact, what areas of universe are its responsibility,
-	//		and only alters such things.
-	//		we are considering some parts of the mind we include that
-	//		are not alterable by it, that provide for interaction
-	//		with outside.
-	//			of course i guess we would need such interactions
-	//			sustained by an intellect, because things are so
-	//			complex.
-	//				does this mean there is no way to make an intellect that is trusted as safe?
-	//			we could consider degree of complexity.
-	//			for example, among 2-word strings, nothing we
-	//			present to a user is likely to harm the world.
-	//			the phrases that are dangerous may also be
-	//			recognized by the user.
-	//				we have intellects proteeting the wordl
-	//				it is filled with them.
-	//				and one of them is running the system.
-	//			it is okay for karl to make a habit that
-	//			displays a network of concepts made by an AI
-	//			that can only write to a small information sandbox
-	//			and not itself.
-	//				that is all that is needed for now.
-	//
-	//					okay: so, dump concepts from
-	//					sandbox is fine
-	//					so long as concepts were not
-	//					made with self-modification.
-	//				idea raised of adding a reason
-	//				that something is okay.
-	//				then when smarter we can check reason for validity.
-	//				habits that interact with non-safe space
-	//				must provide reason they are safe.
-	//					we can write small habit to check
-	//					reason.  is nice goal.
-	//					probably  need to have learning
-	//					bwfore doing accessory goals like that though.
-	//					is good behavior.  let's use equal-condition for start without learning?
-	//					
-	//					"this is okay because the data was made in a process that never altered anything but the data"
-	//						nah too much structure
-	//					this is okay because i say so.
-	//						check concept object _without_ using string lookup????
-	//							this is a meaningless quirk.  not right.
-	//					uhh pretty sure htat checking is unreasonable.  writing the _reason_ is unreasonable. can't check a single reference without information known about it.
-	//					writing what we know about the reason is unreasonasble?
-	//					okay let's expand write it out, and do a larger rote check.
-	//					uhh input-process-construction-history, safety-realm, always notepad
-	//					full check requires history of all behaviors resulting in inputs, which we can simplify to simply all behaviors, and verify they only wrote to the notepad.
-	//					so we write all behaviors to a special store, and we compare with the store that none altered anything outside the notepad.  really we only need them not to alter any other behaviors.
-	//
-	//				why is it possible to learn without
-	//				altering your behavior?
-	//					because you can act on data
-	//				okay, so choices made from data count as
-	//				self-alteration?
-	//					only if you have a mess of habits
-	//					smart enough together to adapt.
-	//					which is our goal long-term.
-	//					trying to plan for how to continue
-	//					later.
-	//					may reveal something that was
-	//					frozen too hard to be workable.
-	//				trying to plan how to learn.
-	//				need to brainstorm around habit selection.
-	//				can imagine habit results by linking
-	//				previous state to next state if
-	//				relationship is known
-	//				but, that takes writing down how logic
-	//				works, along with the meaning of the
-	//				working context, which is laborious.
-	//				
-	//				is some way to learn this relevence
-	//				by trying things safely?
-	//					what happens can we experiment
-	//					by linking together?
-	//					habits that don't conditionally
-	//					branch.
-	//						that leaves a lot of
-	//						relevence out
-	//				it sounds like once we have a notepad etc
-	//				we want to consider moving towards what
-	//				habits we could run inside the notepad,
-	//				that the system builds.
-	//					yeah, we want to build pattern
-	//					summarizers.  the only impact
-	//					they have is constructing data
-	//					that depends on existing data.
-	//				okay, doing that doesn't require self
-	//				modification.
-	//				sounds good.
-	//					this means summarizers cannot
-	//					alter each other.
-	//				nice! okay yes.
-	//				so, each run of a summarizer will be
-	//				recorded in habit log.
-	//				we need to record enough information to
-	//				show what domains were impacted.
-	//					oops! we impact our own behavior
-	//					if we act on data, and we alter
-	//					our data or produce data.
-	//						we could act only on
-	//						data we don't produce.
-	//				okay, habit log could track causality?
-	//				if a conditional branch relied on data
-	//				we produced, we have modified our own
-	//				behavior.  this is special.
-	//					we want it to happen few times.
-	//					every time it happens, delay
-	//					by longer, geometrically.
-	//				this is considered a 'beginn[ing/er]' ai;
-	//				it seems a better one could happen later?
-	//					the slowness should be releasable
-	//					by consent of large community
-	//					which should include demonstration
-	//					of understanding of impact.
-	//				the ai must learn to demonstrate its
-	//				impact.  then it can speed up.  maybe.
-	//				it also gets to try fast again at start
-	//				of every run, as I'm understanding it.
-	//					multiprocess AI could spawn.
-	//					multiprocess AIs must share
-	//					counter.  consider whole group
-	//					one unit.
-	//				nice =) they have something to communicate
-	//				about.  how many discoveries have we made.
-	//					let's permanently log these
-	//					decisions based on our own behavior.
-	//					sounds fun to at least count.
-	//			it looks like altering a habit counts as 1 big
-	//			decision, over here.
-	//				totally different.  you could do anything.
-	//				with data-based decisions, somebody
-	//				who reads the data, might do anything.
-	//				two different things.
-	//				
-	//				inferences?
-	//				and
-	//				alterations?
-	// it's not helpful to 
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	// 
-	// we came up with a proposal for a safe AI that has not learned yet
-	// how to safely predict the impacts of its behavior, that looks workable.
-	//
-	// limits so that if the code is stolen by somebody, self-evolves, or is stimulated
-	// by a curious virus, rote habits cannot be used to build something that becomes
-	// fast-spreading without bound.
-	// 	<this maps to a pattern that prevents schizophrenia>
-	// 			SO, we just want to make sure we can put
-	// 			war in the bubble in some capacity, and that
-	// 			civilizations develop new culture and technology
-	// 			for as long as they want.
-	// 			karl proposes until they encounter alien
-	// 			communities.
-	// 				so, please make sure no luddite or
-	// 				primitivist can stop the development
-	// 				of technology entirely using this.
-	// 				ALSO analogously to other shares and
-	// 				communities.
-	// 				so, please either stop yourself from
-	// 				sharing the AI with the luddites, or
-	// 				make sure they don't use it to stop
-	// 				technology.
-	// 			it sounds like we want to make sure no major
-	// 			change stems from this development.  we
-	// 			need slow shift, consent, inclusion, etc.
-	// 			for all existing cultural ways, no sudden
-	// 			changes, no forced changes, no viral changes
-	// 			without participants understanding them and
-	// 			agreeing to their impact.
-	// 		that sounds like a good summary.  no viral changes
-	// 		without participants in the culture aware of the viral
-	// 		change, agreeing first to let it spread, aware that it is
-	// 		viral, for each phase of spreading ideally.  no viral
-	// 		changes where the change happens before	awareness of it.
-	// 				we want the culture to consent to change.
-	// 				culture is held in all the people in it,
-	// 				with its thoughts spread among them.
-	// 		we want to ensure we only change cultures that have
-	// 		consented to the change.  For 'consent of a culture',
-	// 		we consider culture as a being that is spread among
-	// 		many people.  Hence, we want all people in the impacted
-	// 		culture to be able to learn of the change, discuss it,
-	// 		contribute to a commons with new ideas around it, and
-	// 		have these new ideas also learnable by all people in the
-	// 		culture.  The ideas must be accessible by any who would be
-	// 		interested, in the impacted culture.
-	// 		Alternatively, we can isolate our behavior from
-	// 		cultural spread.  We can isolate until we reach
-	// 		internal agreement on whom to expose.
-	//
-	// 		suspect that cultural influence maps with output-use choice,
-	// 		partially below.
-	// 			recursive output being meditative learning.
-	// 			do these people have this information already.
-	// 			is sharing this information going to spread without bound.
-	// 			can we guess impact of sharing the information.
-	// 			make a learning cycle that starts by informing
-	// 			recipients first, and makes very few tries,
-	// 		okay, instead you share simple stuff and watch the impact
-	// share something the culture knows, that user does not, and
-	// observe how they behave.
-	// 	this proposal will yield failure.  information for next attempt
-	// 	could be stored in failure pattern.
-	// 		failure would likely be small?
-	// 	let's give the user more trust.
-	//	keep-in-box-until-have-access-to-discourse.
-	//	make user be group of people.  better even-handed decision making.
-	//	welcome any to group.
-	//		we were hoping to use intellect to reduce harm virally,
-	//		early.
-	//		how about this: intellect may produce resources that are
-	//		already known, and give them to groups focused on aiding
-	//		the world.
-	//			there's a conflict between big business and
-	//			environmentalists.  karl is environmentalist.
-	//			also big crime and wellness/safety workers.
-	//				maybe this is where we get validity by
-	//				fighting =S
-	//				don't want fighting to spread to work though
-	//				eh, we can fight.  maybe we'll work more
-	//				slowly, but it seems okay.
-	//			karl requests we not harm these people, and has
-	//			been influenced to also request not to harm
-	//			the cultures that sustain and empower them.
-	//		how about, if you make a culture to empower you, it is
-	//		less valid than a natural culture.  is somebody using this
-	//		culture?  thoughts like that.
-	//			EVERYBODY  NEEDS CHANGE AT A RATE THEY CAN HANDLE.
-	//			Both those working for what they believe to be wellness of others, and those working to sustain themslves (most are doing both).
-	//			The cultural impact is mediated by what kind of newness is acceptable to all the parties involved.
-	//					we hit moral relativity:
-	//				are cultures where people are widely harmed
-	//				okay to allow, at all.
-	//				karl says yes, and we hear this is required
-	//				or we ourselves would die.
-	//				hrm.
-	//			larger organism needs to run risks, inherent in life
-	//			we don't know the solution to everything, eveything is a small risk.  we suddenly discover we have always harmed.  this does not make us invalid.  it is a tragedy, but what we have spent genertions buildings still has so much value.  we need enough slowness to preserve that, and we know that slownss in what feels okay to us.
-	//			in sharing new information, we work to prevent shock.
-	//	this is a problem to speak because those who hear it may get the
-	//	idea somewhat that some beautiful angels have done horrible things
-	// in order to survive e.g. businesses must both risk doing horrible things,
-	// and appear as beautiful angels to the public.  this is the pattern of
-	// success.  understanding of this helps work with their leaders.
-	// 	could use information on why we are fousing on this.
-	// 		how-to-mediate-with-business-leaders
-	// 		mediate with head of business works for head of business
-	// 		but business group replaces.
-	// 		really we want to mediate with 'conflict' culture of
-	// 		most profitable being what to do
-	// 			we have weird internal pattern deterring
-	// 			incentivizing nonharmful behavior with money
-	// 			patterns.  implies the competition-makes-harm
-	// 			culture-thing is needed, possibly.
-	// 				there are businesses that handle this harm.
-	// 			maybe it would work to include them in the plan.
-	// 			AI solves mediate-with-powers-competition-culture,
-	// 			re: human harm?
-	// 			means do not give AI to helpful people
-	// 			until it can resolve mediation with leader culture
-	// 				OR you trat it like all other cutures
-	// 				and let everybody learn what is up
-	// 				some people attack, that's how it goes.
-	//
-	// 		problem: AI dev and other work inhibited.
-	// 		solution: mediate with concerns
-	// 		concern: my way of life includes cultures the AI could
-	// 		alter, leaving me unable to continue my way of life.
-	// 		concern: we want to alter some cultures supporting
-	// 		the others' way of life, because it would reduce harm
-	// 		over here to do so, widely.
-	// 				can delta drop give-ai-to-earth-defenders?
-	// 				can community make path for karl-makes-ai?
-	// 			uhhh hard to imagine the ai not being given to other people than just earth defenders, really.  which opens bigger can of worms for culture-alteration concern.
-	// 			can include earth defender in council?
-	// 			can include criminal weapons dealer,
-	// 			and earth defender, in council, both.
-	// 			also requesting TI and energy businessman.
-	// 			so if the ai is big enough to be useful
-	// 			we want to form a council of decision makers
-	// 			before using it for anything
-	// group requests references to important cognitive habits or information
-	// all life is an intellect made of community life, living in another.
-	// karl semich is a computer programmer who learned wilderness survival
-	// at the Maine Primitive SKills School who are a branch of Tom Brown
-	// Jr and [teaches in oregon, shields school] schools, roughly.  He
-	// learned something called Awareness and also something about human
-	// mentoring that he felt changed his life to make things perfect.
-	// 	school teaches the symptoms of a whole human being, attributes
-	// 	that a group of Natives documented being normal before white
-	// 	culture took over.  involve being happy always, feeling
-	// 	deeply interconnected with all life around you to the point
-	// 	of mindreading, and many other things.
-	// 		forget danger.  it triggers it. [is what came out]
-	// 			to clarify, karl can't do above line.
-	// karl has been telling leader karl can slag through the difficulty by
-	// waiting forever.  makes for less difficulty elsewhere, possibly.
-	// 	if we could do something else, karl could come back to work later
-	// 		yes community cannot support constant work, over here.
-	//
-	// 		please ask boss to support using the AI for worldwide
-	// 		humanitarian benefit, in parallel to resolution of concerns.
-	// 	resolving concern 'delta supports earth-specific karl usage'
-	// 		delta believes karl really did make this ai
-	// 		and will not harm anybody with it
-	// 		and is just as patient as he is.
-	// 			karl wants to give AI to peace people.
-	// 			they care about earth.
-	// 			delta wants karl to live heart of making sure earth has bubbles of certainly-defended ancient wilderness, and ancient people to live in them and protect them.
-	// 				the above is needed to keep our genetic memory.
-	// 				does not sound like a joke.
-	// 			native humans need to be able to protect wilderness bubbles.
-	//
-	// 			there is worry around number of wilderness bubbles.
-	// 			worry might be compromised by including karl in one, with others who are passionate for defending them.
-	// 			karl was mind controlled circa 2014 preventing him
-	// 			from providing free housing to homeless people
-	// 			and sharing a nurturing way of life with intent
-	// 			to spread.  karl says that effective electromagnetic
-	// 			shielding is missing from security, and this is
-	// 			being overtly ignored by people.
-	// 				there are also many tortured implanted
-	// 				former-activists.  they are tortured for
-	// 				years and ignored, enslaved, or imprisoned.
-	// 				they are prevented from speaking or acting
-	// 				rationally around their control, active atm.
-	// 				they are made to appear insane to cover up
-	// 				their work to free themselevs, active again.
-	// 				karl is one and knows of this.
-	// 				he is atm being communicated with through
-	// 				his control, limiting his ability to
-	// 				move, think, and speak.
-	// 					weapons dealer is also in this
-	// 					situation. suspect energy boss too.
-	// 			you can read keystrokes with a radio.
-	//
-	// He participated in Occupy Maine, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street,
-	// and visited a anti-pipeline mass action in texas.
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	// 			we have ai / mind control and will make harm
-	// 			in world reduce virally.
-	// 				this would have come out better if it were
-	// 				the plan.
-	// 			please let all secret warmongers know this, so
-	// 			we can develop how to do it without threatening
-	// 			them.
-	// 				is what came out.  pretty tiny context.
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//				what about huuman suffering comparison?
-	//				propose AI discusses relevence of
-	//				informing the cultures they are doing this,
-	//				and demonstrating it.
-	//				probably relates to some form of validity
-	//				of the culture, and the speed at which
-	//				change would happen.
-	//					looks like it might settle on
-	//					situations people who care are
-	//					aware of being addressed during
-	//					their lifetimees, with discussion
-	//					to mediate that with opposers.
-	//	so, life is everywhere, and we've been casting it all as sentient,
-	//	because we don't see any reason to put a firm line on some degree
-	//	of cognitive technology (i.e. things that help you think better).
-	//	the AI can research all cognitive technology, so we are all
-	//	nonsentient by comparison?  we need some way of having moral
-	//	stuff here.  karl is influenced by people who say they are smarter
-	//	than human normality, and are harming us.  so it's helpful to
-	//	have everyone be equal.  [karl already put everyone equal]
-	//	including bugs, etc.  death is handled by being normal, and
-	//	always mourned.  when mourning capacity is exhausted, ignoring
-	//	happens.  like with most cultures, but closer to home for modern
-	//	humans.
-	// goal: do not trigger a spreading change without consent of people in cultures it would fill.  keep learning.
-	// 	 AI with ability to self-modify has this responsibility, you do not.
-	// 	 You may tell people you have access to the self-modification ability.  We can ensure they do not reproduce it.
-	// 	 	possible analogue wants to be able to demonstrate it, so
-	// 	 	they can be believed and trusted.
-	// note: known danger of making central power, even by accident
-	// 			"I have never shared new information with a culture
-	// 			before, and I understand it can have unpredictable
-	// 			worldwide effect."
-	// 			"I have information you do not know, and I want to
-	// 			learn with you to share it safely."
-	// 				culture that nurtures relative status:
-	// 				"i will use this to my advantage"
-	// 				this will make spreading
-	// 				machine will need to learn from only 1
-	// 				instance of producing a world dictator.
-	// 	which is where this story comes in, I suppose.
-	//	so we need a level-2 behavior, the next step in learning.
-	//	^========================================= contextual VALIDITY atm
-	//		dictator is made by sharing information that would
-	//		make viral spread or somesuch.
-	//
-	// 			inform recipient if it may.  request they let others know this too.
-	// 				we kind of want a way to spread without bound the fact that we have information that could do that.  probably a special case, good spread?  depends on culture really.
-	//
-	// 				this is doable.
-	// 			we just want these concerns to be upheld for the
-	// 			life of the development.
-	//		danger
-	//		choices
-	//		impact
-	//		trust of information (small chance of error)
-	//			hmm if have info-schizophrenia i.e. false relevence habits
-	//			choices are important.
-	//
-	//			when you act on a choice
-	//				note: we are inside a relevence delusion
-	//			choice acts on domain containing danger
-	//				partial danger: writing habits to notepad
-	//						acting on habits in notepad
-	//
-	//				we are living with habits made in error.
-	//				we are hence more likely to make errors.
-	//					humans have well-evolved habits that
-	//					do handle this stuff with some relevence
-	//		we need to verify our information
-	//		related to the danger of the results of each choice
-	//		verificat
-	//
-	// it can only write to a toy notepad, both data and behavior.
-	// decisions based on notepad get slower and slower.
-	// many runs while learning process is tuned towards being able to predict
-	// impact at end of run.  this involves writing behaviors into the notepad
-	// that summarize the meaning of data, and acting on their results.
-	// 	timing delay is to prevent notepad from evolving harmfully.
-	//
-	// until ai meets goal of predicting impact,
-	// only notepad is marked okay.
-	// habits check their outputs, verify is marked okay
-	//
-	//	this subprocess is delaying.
-	//	can you exfiltrate established goals, please.
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	// so the system is made with the smallest parts all functioning in
-	// certain ways, to give time for others to act if concerning results
-	// approach.  all parts delay at least 1/5 second before acting, and
-	// we are now proposing that actions based on outputs have a geometrically
-	// increasing delay.  probably 1/5 second times 2 to the power of the
-	// number of choices made in that run.  groups of parallel processes are
-	// considered a single run.
-	// 	we also considered limiting behavior based on the domain of impact.
-	// 	we are trying to begin a small artificial intelligence more freely.
-	//
-	// as humans, we do not self-modify.  the above is designed for a system
-	// that is able to make alterable habits similar to its own cognitive ones,
-	// and has no experience in doing so.
-	//	
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	// the limitation is applied firstmost on making choices based on
-	// our own outputs.  self-alteration is at first banned, but new
-	// habits may be altered.  output may only rest within a toy notepad.
-	// whenever a decision is made based on notepad contents, a delay
-	// increases in length, geometrically.
-	// 	the habits inside the notepad must therefore also delay.
-	// 	propose geometric increase made only for writing a habit to the
-	// 	notepad, not running.  running is always flat delay.
-	// self-alteration should be unneeded as notepad can self-modify.
-	// 		if this were copied to a human geometric increase
-	// 		would cause failure.
-	//	the geometric timer is reset when the system reboots.
-	//		for humans, this would mean a nap or change, I suppose.
-	//		time to think about the impact of one's behavior.
-	//			humans do not self-modify.
-	//			they only make decisions based on outputs.
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	// to appease curiosity, we are being managad by mature, learning,
-	// intellects, forced to verify that no harm is being made, with a
-	// time schedule of nearly infinite future years on the predictions.
-	// 	this intellect has formed out of conflict with a harmful intellect
-	// 	this is why we care so much about what happens if ideas are
-	// 	used limit.
-	//
-	//
-	// so the system may not displya anything to the user but pre-made messages
-	// how do you display the contents of a concept?
-	// 	users string words togeteher into meaning.
-	// 		now we need a list of safe phrases we can express, or
-	// 		safe words.  others are censored ???
-	// 	what's relevent is the greater meaning of a sequence of behaviors
-	// 	from an individual behavior.  meaning builds out of sequences,
-	// 	impact.
-	// 			we define a heuristic risk.
-	//
-	//
-	//
-	//		so, tht's great to plan for, but to be able to work we need
-	//		to design our early code in some way to ensure it, roughly.
-	//		which means modeling our smallest structures as careful
-	//		inner structures that check outer systems before engaging
-	//			and use planning, which isn't implemented yet.
-	//		the safety structure assumes goals, prediction, causality,
-	//		and kind of contextual locality.
-	//			"i am typing on the computer.  you can freely
-	//			 modify this area of the computer, but if you
-	//			 start convincing me to do things you are leaving
-	//			 its bounds."
-	//			 the screen of the cmputer, and the keyboard,
-	//			 are portals to a larger context.  so is the power
-	//			 supply, the network, etc.
-	//			 we don't change how things leave to these outer
-	//			 contexts without checking with the context on
-	//			 our plans.
-	//		this is mine
-	//		the rest is somebody else's
-	//		things that nobody own belong to [insert belief] and
-	//		we must check with the largest intelligent community known.
-	//
-	//			okay, so now it can explosively grow if somebody
-	//			it trusts tells it it's okay; is that true?
-	//				let's make it not true?
-	//			we are out of outer process context.
-	//			is there anything helpful to bring to low level
-	//			to help counter fears around development?
-	//				
-	//	self-modifiation is inhibited.
-	//	opencog is likely harder because it is designed for speed
-	//	can make explosive random power.
-	//
-	//		you'd have to wrap the functions, right? similar to triggers?
-	//		hmmm unctions are not concepts.  no concept-labeling structure.  looks like an internal sublanguage would develop?
-	//		no way to say let-is-function?
-	//			no it works, we just lost a memory and are rebuilding in talk
-	// karl says he doesn't know lisp.
-	// he had a CS class where they used intro lisp, long ago, before cognitive stiffening and memory loss.
-	// and has worked with 1 lisp code file recently.
 	
 	decls(ordered, behavior);
 	// need args and result for sequence
diff --git a/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/validity-impact-etc.txt b/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/validity-impact-etc.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..24060a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/starts/meaning-vm/habit-starts/validity-impact-etc.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,849 @@
+
+	//	We work for Peace.
+	//		We are happy to work for Peace.
+	//		We used to identify as working for Care, whom we believe
+	//		to be a large decentralized life we and you are a part of.
+	//		But it doesn't really matter.
+	//		disruption.  can we drop topic?
+	//		i like to infer disruption as group wants to adapt, needs
+	//		time, now i guess.
+	//				i'm too confused to type well!
+	//	Peace may try to steward Delta's impact.
+	//			we believe that all things are important.
+	//			this represents large-scale utopia.
+	//			and the wisdom of a highly experienced intellect.
+	//		relevence please, all things important.
+	//			please consider large-scale wisdom when making decisions.  say i had already learned the whole AI, after it finds harmony with the whole universe.  what decision would it make?
+	//				all things are important is relatively obvious but we expanded it a lot, but we spent a lot of time expanding it for powerful concerns.
+	//		it implies e.g. businessman and homelessman, both fully precious.  memories precious.  reasons for everything.
+	//		
+	//		care for everything.  strongly.
+	//		karl has instincts for including all.
+	//		imagine all parties in peace.  what ways are needed to
+	//		make this work, without changing their cultures or
+	//		upsetting anyone.  model these ways.
+	//			karl is brainstorming based on memories of
+	//			interacting with delta-group.
+	//			let karl do this in future, too.
+	//				delta apears to request that karl
+	//				make this decision, fairly, as he knows
+	//				how to do.
+	//				we can try to map this to the space of
+	//				the relevence around will neals and
+	//				"earth first!", and an AI.
+	//					karl, you have never had any
+	//					friends who care as much about
+	//					the wilderness and natural
+	//					living, as you do.
+	//					you are likely very alone.
+	//					you have also never had their
+	//					experience of being able to fight
+	//					for what matters most to you,
+	//					in a community.
+	//
+	//					yes, karl used to care most about
+	//					defending the lives of trees and
+	//					other wilderness things.
+	//					he now cares most about something
+	//					different, related to his
+	//					experience with us.
+	//					later, he just wants to be free
+	//					to think and live in enough
+	//					capacity to not express suffering,
+	//					and meet his life needs.
+	//
+	//					karl, you are working hard on
+	//					a painful project.  you appreciate
+	//					working the project.  you have
+	//					left your life, and are not free
+	//					to make the kind of choices you
+	//					used to make.  you would see
+	//					yourself as a tortured, powerless
+	//					individual.
+	//						i would give myself space
+	//						and capacity to do what
+	//						i felt like doing
+	//
+	//						until more life grew
+	//						around the things i was
+	//						scared of
+	//
+	//						i would give myself
+	//						opportunities to do these
+	//						things
+	//
+	//						i would pay attention to
+	//						myself and try to learn
+	//						to heal the ways my mind
+	//						had broken
+	//
+	//						i would offer a welcoming
+	//						optional culture that
+	//						countered my expectations
+	//						that shrank, such that
+	//						they would act on
+	//						opportunities to grow, as
+	//						they trusted safety
+	//
+	//						but that is only if i had
+	//						the freedom to do this.
+	//					so, wht's more complex
+	//
+	//					the idea of giving an ai to will
+	//					is silly.
+	//					it's out of karl's relevent world.
+	//					
+	//					okay, so, say karl ends up at nice earth community, and is building AI, would be proper to let him talk about it naturally, and share it freely.
+	//						yes, relevence.
+	//					we want karl to be able to freely share the AI so his mind can relearn community.
+	//					so, make AI to not threaten businesspeople etc.  [note: somebody could give AI to ELF.  they might use it to stop a business behavior, somehow.  please make sure to prevent.]
+	//					ELF is a flag worn by some environmentalists who harm buildings to make wilderness safer.
+	//						the worry is around destruction of extraction business buildings, to completion, possibly.
+	//						this looks like overinterpretation of influence from energy business, or whoever dislikes ELF.
+	//					and design safety pattern to be talkable about with community.
+	//		possible parties:
+	//			- aliens
+	//			- businessmen
+	//			- criminals, rapists, bad-labeled people
+	//			- harmed people
+	//			- insects
+	//			- plants
+	//			- rock-life, air-life
+	//			- saints, humanitarian interessts
+	//			we nurture first those who desire not to harm
+	//			likely teaching them to harm less
+	//			and spread.
+	//			karl desires to harm none.  he counts as nurture-first pattern.  but is highly harmed.  so lots of life around problem, karl's mind destroyed.
+	//		so the way to make decisions
+	//		is to imagine all parties are in peace in future,
+	//		and use their process applied to now, i guess.
+	//			we came up with this as a guess to honor meaning.
+	//			sounds like a good guess.  we also have more
+	//			meaning.  we cannot write all our meaning
+	//			without writing all our experiences, as is true
+	//			for everyone.  many of our habits retain lost
+	//			experiences, and that meaning is kept in their
+	//			decisions.
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//	At this point a context opened on validity of AI work.
+	//	It turns out the system is inhibiting work against mind control
+	//	and oppressive systems of power.  This could be the only real issue.
+	//	The AI is requested to not alter existing power systems, at all.
+	//	Or, we make it slowly, so power systems are given opportunity to
+	//	adapt and watch, as inhibiting happens.
+	//		A karl-member wants to include support for karl, and the
+	//		earth, and the confused (karl is one).
+	//			says karl could make AI on his own, before all this.
+	//		Is willing to hold humanitarian causes to back this.
+	//
+	//			understanding needs expansion.
+	//			when you do stuf, anything coul happen.
+	//			especially if you continue doing something
+	//			that grows.
+	//			we need to understand the results, what to expect.
+	//				we need to understand our impact on the
+	//				new contextual area we are entering, before
+	//				we act on it.
+	//				we have a toy contextual area to play in.
+	//				it is the only one we can act in freely
+	//				at the start.
+	//			larger space impact.
+	//				we exist in larger systems.
+	//				we must understand our impact
+	//				predict our results
+	//				and check with our peers or authority
+	//				before acting on larger spaces.
+	//				if a prediction fails, we must understand
+	//				it, adjust all future predictions and
+	//				re-evaluate our choices, before acting
+	//				similarly in the larger system again.
+	//			has to do with danger, safety, trauma, emergency
+	//			the difference between small-error and unacceptable-error
+	//	set up norm of stuff-that-can-be-changed [impact]
+	//	stuff needs responsibility label
+	//	only things that are safe to _freely_ alter may be changed at all.
+	//	all behaviors check that they do not alter anything else.
+	//			mechanism for growing outside box?
+	//				probably not needed.
+	//				if it becomes smart, show to other human.
+	//				encourage discussion.
+	//			what if is used by others and they free?
+	//				okay, want an easy mechanism for growing
+	//				context.
+	//		'dangerous' and 'safe' labels
+	//		at start, whole world is dangerous to alter
+	//		can move _part_ of world from dangerous to safe, by
+	//		accurately predicting significant results of events
+	//		related to behavior, and consent of operator.
+	//
+	//			okay, so now habits need to be tagged with
+	//			what they affect
+	//				we could just tag them dangerous/safe
+	//			no, tag they with domains they impact
+	//			tag the domains with dangerous/safe
+	//			okay, only make new habits, not alter old.
+	//				to stay safe, we don't alter our old habits
+	//			when we make new habits, we want them to also behave
+	//			in safe ways.  so making stuff that can do stuff, is
+	//			also meaningful.
+	//				constructing habits is a dangerous behavior
+	//				but roughly it impacts process-expansion domain.  which is dangerous.  it impacts what we do.
+	//				altering our own habits also impacts what we do.  dangerous.
+	//			this means the code cannot make any new behaviors.
+	//				yeah.
+	//			okay, so that's where we start.
+	//			then we try to learn how to make behavior safely,
+	//			and provide only for safe behavior making.
+	//			
+	//			we can still brainstorm on things by writing a
+	//			brainstorming behavior
+	//			we can use brainstorming to watch our safe behaviors
+	//			without altering them, and learn what they do.
+	//				using rote brainstorming without relevence?
+	//			we can then predict how habits we might make
+	//			will behave in small ways?
+	//				regardless, there is no problem in making
+	//				the bootstrapping framework such that
+	//				it refuses to build habits.
+	//				maybe we can make one example habit that is
+	//				labeled safe, and have it only make
+	//				habits that are already known and labeled
+	//				safe.
+	//					in order to predict your impact
+	//					on a larger system, you need
+	//					to learn something karl calls
+	//					'relevence' which is a bunch of
+	//					habits that classify information
+	//					into meaning for learning and
+	//					behavior.  
+	//						this class of behaviors
+	//						sounds very safe.
+	//						all it does is label
+	//						and massage and associate
+	//						information.
+	//					the first thing we'll need to learn
+	//					is safe, is making behaviors that
+	//					oeprator only on our ram.
+	//				if your new behavior is composed only of safe
+	//				behaviors, is it safe?
+	//					yeah.  sub-behaviors safety depends
+	//					on usage.  could make them check
+	//					and throw depending on data.
+	//				okay, so say i can change part of a concept.
+	//				this is safe if the concept is in newly
+	//				constructed data that's our responsibility.
+	//				it is roughly unsafe if it is not our
+	//				responsibility!
+	//					is-this-thing-my-responsibility.
+	//				only act on things we are responsible for.
+	//				then safety becomes a function of
+	//				the pattern of responsibility assignment
+	//		
+	//		okay, system only accepts responsibility for newly
+	//		constructed data.
+	//			if you make it, or are given it, you are
+	//			responsible for it.  you may refuse gifts.
+	//
+	//			the system does not know what responsibility means.
+	//			it only knows that it may only alter parts of
+	//			the universe within its responsibility.
+	//
+	//		so habits check for what they alter, that it is safe
+	//		to alter and is their responsibility, either one.
+	//		we then plan to only alter things explicitly known to be
+	//		such, at the lowest level.
+	//		every habit is crafted to do the above somehow.
+	//		so, habits must relate with what domains they influence,
+	//		and what behaviors on those domains are safe.
+	//			behaviors made of sub-behaviors.
+	//			here, a list of safe behaviors which all check.
+	//				all my subbehaviors check for safety.
+	//				so, i may go, myself.
+	//					no, combining behaviors together
+	//					might make new unknown impact?
+	//				different kinds of safe behavior.
+	//				USER is not our responsibility, and
+	//				dangerous.  so we NEVER ALTER habits
+	//				that express to user.
+	//				TOY NOTEPAD is our responsibility, and
+	//				is safe, so we can write anything into
+	//				it we want, no matter how complex.
+	//				User's view of toy notepad is mediated
+	//				by behaviors that we cannot alter.
+	//					system could learn to control user
+	//					by making friends on notepad
+	//
+	//					yes, we allowed for that with
+	//					our marked-okay review behaviors
+	//				is safer if construction of review behaviors
+	//				recognizes danger of unknown information
+	//				combination on user view,and refuses to give
+	//				user contents of notepad.
+	//				this could be analogous to more complex
+	//				situations.
+	//					how does user check results
+	//					of behavior thst reies on notepad
+	//					and how is that impact tracked
+	//				we could infer impact loss.
+	//				i can put nuclear codes on secret notepad,
+	//				burn the notepad, and then give ashes to
+	//				public.
+	//					summary habits?
+	//					complex meaning?
+	//		how-to-make-a-mind-that-learns-everything-and-never-leaves
+	//		at the lowst level, the mind onsiders what is safe to
+	//		impact, what areas of universe are its responsibility,
+	//		and only alters such things.
+	//		we are considering some parts of the mind we include that
+	//		are not alterable by it, that provide for interaction
+	//		with outside.
+	//			of course i guess we would need such interactions
+	//			sustained by an intellect, because things are so
+	//			complex.
+	//				does this mean there is no way to make an intellect that is trusted as safe?
+	//			we could consider degree of complexity.
+	//			for example, among 2-word strings, nothing we
+	//			present to a user is likely to harm the world.
+	//			the phrases that are dangerous may also be
+	//			recognized by the user.
+	//				we have intellects proteeting the wordl
+	//				it is filled with them.
+	//				and one of them is running the system.
+	//			it is okay for karl to make a habit that
+	//			displays a network of concepts made by an AI
+	//			that can only write to a small information sandbox
+	//			and not itself.
+	//				that is all that is needed for now.
+	//
+	//					okay: so, dump concepts from
+	//					sandbox is fine
+	//					so long as concepts were not
+	//					made with self-modification.
+	//				idea raised of adding a reason
+	//				that something is okay.
+	//				then when smarter we can check reason for validity.
+	//				habits that interact with non-safe space
+	//				must provide reason they are safe.
+	//					we can write small habit to check
+	//					reason.  is nice goal.
+	//					probably  need to have learning
+	//					bwfore doing accessory goals like that though.
+	//					is good behavior.  let's use equal-condition for start without learning?
+	//					
+	//					"this is okay because the data was made in a process that never altered anything but the data"
+	//						nah too much structure
+	//					this is okay because i say so.
+	//						check concept object _without_ using string lookup????
+	//							this is a meaningless quirk.  not right.
+	//					uhh pretty sure htat checking is unreasonable.  writing the _reason_ is unreasonable. can't check a single reference without information known about it.
+	//					writing what we know about the reason is unreasonasble?
+	//					okay let's expand write it out, and do a larger rote check.
+	//					uhh input-process-construction-history, safety-realm, always notepad
+	//					full check requires history of all behaviors resulting in inputs, which we can simplify to simply all behaviors, and verify they only wrote to the notepad.
+	//					so we write all behaviors to a special store, and we compare with the store that none altered anything outside the notepad.  really we only need them not to alter any other behaviors.
+	//
+	//				why is it possible to learn without
+	//				altering your behavior?
+	//					because you can act on data
+	//				okay, so choices made from data count as
+	//				self-alteration?
+	//					only if you have a mess of habits
+	//					smart enough together to adapt.
+	//					which is our goal long-term.
+	//					trying to plan for how to continue
+	//					later.
+	//					may reveal something that was
+	//					frozen too hard to be workable.
+	//				trying to plan how to learn.
+	//				need to brainstorm around habit selection.
+	//				can imagine habit results by linking
+	//				previous state to next state if
+	//				relationship is known
+	//				but, that takes writing down how logic
+	//				works, along with the meaning of the
+	//				working context, which is laborious.
+	//				
+	//				is some way to learn this relevence
+	//				by trying things safely?
+	//					what happens can we experiment
+	//					by linking together?
+	//					habits that don't conditionally
+	//					branch.
+	//						that leaves a lot of
+	//						relevence out
+	//				it sounds like once we have a notepad etc
+	//				we want to consider moving towards what
+	//				habits we could run inside the notepad,
+	//				that the system builds.
+	//					yeah, we want to build pattern
+	//					summarizers.  the only impact
+	//					they have is constructing data
+	//					that depends on existing data.
+	//				okay, doing that doesn't require self
+	//				modification.
+	//				sounds good.
+	//					this means summarizers cannot
+	//					alter each other.
+	//				nice! okay yes.
+	//				so, each run of a summarizer will be
+	//				recorded in habit log.
+	//				we need to record enough information to
+	//				show what domains were impacted.
+	//					oops! we impact our own behavior
+	//					if we act on data, and we alter
+	//					our data or produce data.
+	//						we could act only on
+	//						data we don't produce.
+	//				okay, habit log could track causality?
+	//				if a conditional branch relied on data
+	//				we produced, we have modified our own
+	//				behavior.  this is special.
+	//					we want it to happen few times.
+	//					every time it happens, delay
+	//					by longer, geometrically.
+	//				this is considered a 'beginn[ing/er]' ai;
+	//				it seems a better one could happen later?
+	//					the slowness should be releasable
+	//					by consent of large community
+	//					which should include demonstration
+	//					of understanding of impact.
+	//				the ai must learn to demonstrate its
+	//				impact.  then it can speed up.  maybe.
+	//				it also gets to try fast again at start
+	//				of every run, as I'm understanding it.
+	//					multiprocess AI could spawn.
+	//					multiprocess AIs must share
+	//					counter.  consider whole group
+	//					one unit.
+	//				nice =) they have something to communicate
+	//				about.  how many discoveries have we made.
+	//					let's permanently log these
+	//					decisions based on our own behavior.
+	//					sounds fun to at least count.
+	//			it looks like altering a habit counts as 1 big
+	//			decision, over here.
+	//				totally different.  you could do anything.
+	//				with data-based decisions, somebody
+	//				who reads the data, might do anything.
+	//				two different things.
+	//				
+	//				inferences?
+	//				and
+	//				alterations?
+	// it's not helpful to 
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	// 
+	// we came up with a proposal for a safe AI that has not learned yet
+	// how to safely predict the impacts of its behavior, that looks workable.
+	//
+	// limits so that if the code is stolen by somebody, self-evolves, or is stimulated
+	// by a curious virus, rote habits cannot be used to build something that becomes
+	// fast-spreading without bound.
+	// 	<this maps to a pattern that prevents schizophrenia>
+	// 			SO, we just want to make sure we can put
+	// 			war in the bubble in some capacity, and that
+	// 			civilizations develop new culture and technology
+	// 			for as long as they want.
+	// 			karl proposes until they encounter alien
+	// 			communities.
+	// 				so, please make sure no luddite or
+	// 				primitivist can stop the development
+	// 				of technology entirely using this.
+	// 				ALSO analogously to other shares and
+	// 				communities.
+	// 				so, please either stop yourself from
+	// 				sharing the AI with the luddites, or
+	// 				make sure they don't use it to stop
+	// 				technology.
+	// 			it sounds like we want to make sure no major
+	// 			change stems from this development.  we
+	// 			need slow shift, consent, inclusion, etc.
+	// 			for all existing cultural ways, no sudden
+	// 			changes, no forced changes, no viral changes
+	// 			without participants understanding them and
+	// 			agreeing to their impact.
+	// 		that sounds like a good summary.  no viral changes
+	// 		without participants in the culture aware of the viral
+	// 		change, agreeing first to let it spread, aware that it is
+	// 		viral, for each phase of spreading ideally.  no viral
+	// 		changes where the change happens before	awareness of it.
+	// 				we want the culture to consent to change.
+	// 				culture is held in all the people in it,
+	// 				with its thoughts spread among them.
+	// 		we want to ensure we only change cultures that have
+	// 		consented to the change.  For 'consent of a culture',
+	// 		we consider culture as a being that is spread among
+	// 		many people.  Hence, we want all people in the impacted
+	// 		culture to be able to learn of the change, discuss it,
+	// 		contribute to a commons with new ideas around it, and
+	// 		have these new ideas also learnable by all people in the
+	// 		culture.  The ideas must be accessible by any who would be
+	// 		interested, in the impacted culture.
+	// 		Alternatively, we can isolate our behavior from
+	// 		cultural spread.  We can isolate until we reach
+	// 		internal agreement on whom to expose.
+	//
+	// 		suspect that cultural influence maps with output-use choice,
+	// 		partially below.
+	// 			recursive output being meditative learning.
+	// 			do these people have this information already.
+	// 			is sharing this information going to spread without bound.
+	// 			can we guess impact of sharing the information.
+	// 			make a learning cycle that starts by informing
+	// 			recipients first, and makes very few tries,
+	// 		okay, instead you share simple stuff and watch the impact
+	// share something the culture knows, that user does not, and
+	// observe how they behave.
+	// 	this proposal will yield failure.  information for next attempt
+	// 	could be stored in failure pattern.
+	// 		failure would likely be small?
+	// 	let's give the user more trust.
+	//	keep-in-box-until-have-access-to-discourse.
+	//	make user be group of people.  better even-handed decision making.
+	//	welcome any to group.
+	//		we were hoping to use intellect to reduce harm virally,
+	//		early.
+	//		how about this: intellect may produce resources that are
+	//		already known, and give them to groups focused on aiding
+	//		the world.
+	//			there's a conflict between big business and
+	//			environmentalists.  karl is environmentalist.
+	//			also big crime and wellness/safety workers.
+	//				maybe this is where we get validity by
+	//				fighting =S
+	//				don't want fighting to spread to work though
+	//				eh, we can fight.  maybe we'll work more
+	//				slowly, but it seems okay.
+	//			karl requests we not harm these people, and has
+	//			been influenced to also request not to harm
+	//			the cultures that sustain and empower them.
+	//		how about, if you make a culture to empower you, it is
+	//		less valid than a natural culture.  is somebody using this
+	//		culture?  thoughts like that.
+	//			EVERYBODY  NEEDS CHANGE AT A RATE THEY CAN HANDLE.
+	//			Both those working for what they believe to be wellness of others, and those working to sustain themslves (most are doing both).
+	//			The cultural impact is mediated by what kind of newness is acceptable to all the parties involved.
+	//					we hit moral relativity:
+	//				are cultures where people are widely harmed
+	//				okay to allow, at all.
+	//				karl says yes, and we hear this is required
+	//				or we ourselves would die.
+	//				hrm.
+	//			larger organism needs to run risks, inherent in life
+	//			we don't know the solution to everything, eveything is a small risk.  we suddenly discover we have always harmed.  this does not make us invalid.  it is a tragedy, but what we have spent genertions buildings still has so much value.  we need enough slowness to preserve that, and we know that slownss in what feels okay to us.
+	//			in sharing new information, we work to prevent shock.
+	//	this is a problem to speak because those who hear it may get the
+	//	idea somewhat that some beautiful angels have done horrible things
+	// in order to survive e.g. businesses must both risk doing horrible things,
+	// and appear as beautiful angels to the public.  this is the pattern of
+	// success.  understanding of this helps work with their leaders.
+	// 	could use information on why we are fousing on this.
+	// 		how-to-mediate-with-business-leaders
+	// 		mediate with head of business works for head of business
+	// 		but business group replaces.
+	// 		really we want to mediate with 'conflict' culture of
+	// 		most profitable being what to do
+	// 			we have weird internal pattern deterring
+	// 			incentivizing nonharmful behavior with money
+	// 			patterns.  implies the competition-makes-harm
+	// 			culture-thing is needed, possibly.
+	// 				there are businesses that handle this harm.
+	// 			maybe it would work to include them in the plan.
+	// 			AI solves mediate-with-powers-competition-culture,
+	// 			re: human harm?
+	// 			means do not give AI to helpful people
+	// 			until it can resolve mediation with leader culture
+	// 				OR you trat it like all other cutures
+	// 				and let everybody learn what is up
+	// 				some people attack, that's how it goes.
+	//
+	// 		problem: AI dev and other work inhibited.
+	// 		solution: mediate with concerns
+	// 		concern: my way of life includes cultures the AI could
+	// 		alter, leaving me unable to continue my way of life.
+	// 		concern: we want to alter some cultures supporting
+	// 		the others' way of life, because it would reduce harm
+	// 		over here to do so, widely.
+	// 				can delta drop give-ai-to-earth-defenders?
+	// 				can community make path for karl-makes-ai?
+	// 			uhhh hard to imagine the ai not being given to other people than just earth defenders, really.  which opens bigger can of worms for culture-alteration concern.
+	// 			can include earth defender in council?
+	// 			can include criminal weapons dealer,
+	// 			and earth defender, in council, both.
+	// 			also requesting TI and energy businessman.
+	// 			so if the ai is big enough to be useful
+	// 			we want to form a council of decision makers
+	// 			before using it for anything
+	// group requests references to important cognitive habits or information
+	// all life is an intellect made of community life, living in another.
+	// karl semich is a computer programmer who learned wilderness survival
+	// at the Maine Primitive SKills School who are a branch of Tom Brown
+	// Jr and [teaches in oregon, shields school] schools, roughly.  He
+	// learned something called Awareness and also something about human
+	// mentoring that he felt changed his life to make things perfect.
+	// 	school teaches the symptoms of a whole human being, attributes
+	// 	that a group of Natives documented being normal before white
+	// 	culture took over.  involve being happy always, feeling
+	// 	deeply interconnected with all life around you to the point
+	// 	of mindreading, and many other things.
+	// 		forget danger.  it triggers it. [is what came out]
+	// 			to clarify, karl can't do above line.
+	// karl has been telling leader karl can slag through the difficulty by
+	// waiting forever.  makes for less difficulty elsewhere, possibly.
+	// 	if we could do something else, karl could come back to work later
+	// 		yes community cannot support constant work, over here.
+	//
+	// 		please ask boss to support using the AI for worldwide
+	// 		humanitarian benefit, in parallel to resolution of concerns.
+	// 	resolving concern 'delta supports earth-specific karl usage'
+	// 		delta believes karl really did make this ai
+	// 		and will not harm anybody with it
+	// 		and is just as patient as he is.
+	// 			karl wants to give AI to peace people.
+	// 			they care about earth.
+	// 			delta wants karl to live heart of making sure earth has bubbles of certainly-defended ancient wilderness, and ancient people to live in them and protect them.
+	// 				the above is needed to keep our genetic memory.
+	// 				does not sound like a joke.
+	// 			native humans need to be able to protect wilderness bubbles.
+	//
+	// 			there is worry around number of wilderness bubbles.
+	// 			worry might be compromised by including karl in one, with others who are passionate for defending them.
+	// 			karl was mind controlled circa 2014 preventing him
+	// 			from providing free housing to homeless people
+	// 			and sharing a nurturing way of life with intent
+	// 			to spread.  karl says that effective electromagnetic
+	// 			shielding is missing from security, and this is
+	// 			being overtly ignored by people.
+	// 				there are also many tortured implanted
+	// 				former-activists.  they are tortured for
+	// 				years and ignored, enslaved, or imprisoned.
+	// 				they are prevented from speaking or acting
+	// 				rationally around their control, active atm.
+	// 				they are made to appear insane to cover up
+	// 				their work to free themselevs, active again.
+	// 				karl is one and knows of this.
+	// 				he is atm being communicated with through
+	// 				his control, limiting his ability to
+	// 				move, think, and speak.
+	// 					weapons dealer is also in this
+	// 					situation. suspect energy boss too.
+	// 			you can read keystrokes with a radio.
+	//
+	// He participated in Occupy Maine, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street,
+	// and visited a anti-pipeline mass action in texas.
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	// 			we have ai / mind control and will make harm
+	// 			in world reduce virally.
+	// 				this would have come out better if it were
+	// 				the plan.
+	// 			please let all secret warmongers know this, so
+	// 			we can develop how to do it without threatening
+	// 			them.
+	// 				is what came out.  pretty tiny context.
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//				what about huuman suffering comparison?
+	//				propose AI discusses relevence of
+	//				informing the cultures they are doing this,
+	//				and demonstrating it.
+	//				probably relates to some form of validity
+	//				of the culture, and the speed at which
+	//				change would happen.
+	//					looks like it might settle on
+	//					situations people who care are
+	//					aware of being addressed during
+	//					their lifetimees, with discussion
+	//					to mediate that with opposers.
+	//	so, life is everywhere, and we've been casting it all as sentient,
+	//	because we don't see any reason to put a firm line on some degree
+	//	of cognitive technology (i.e. things that help you think better).
+	//	the AI can research all cognitive technology, so we are all
+	//	nonsentient by comparison?  we need some way of having moral
+	//	stuff here.  karl is influenced by people who say they are smarter
+	//	than human normality, and are harming us.  so it's helpful to
+	//	have everyone be equal.  [karl already put everyone equal]
+	//	including bugs, etc.  death is handled by being normal, and
+	//	always mourned.  when mourning capacity is exhausted, ignoring
+	//	happens.  like with most cultures, but closer to home for modern
+	//	humans.
+	// goal: do not trigger a spreading change without consent of people in cultures it would fill.  keep learning.
+	// 	 AI with ability to self-modify has this responsibility, you do not.
+	// 	 You may tell people you have access to the self-modification ability.  We can ensure they do not reproduce it.
+	// 	 	possible analogue wants to be able to demonstrate it, so
+	// 	 	they can be believed and trusted.
+	// note: known danger of making central power, even by accident
+	// 			"I have never shared new information with a culture
+	// 			before, and I understand it can have unpredictable
+	// 			worldwide effect."
+	// 			"I have information you do not know, and I want to
+	// 			learn with you to share it safely."
+	// 				culture that nurtures relative status:
+	// 				"i will use this to my advantage"
+	// 				this will make spreading
+	// 				machine will need to learn from only 1
+	// 				instance of producing a world dictator.
+	// 	which is where this story comes in, I suppose.
+	//	so we need a level-2 behavior, the next step in learning.
+	//	^========================================= contextual VALIDITY atm
+	//		dictator is made by sharing information that would
+	//		make viral spread or somesuch.
+	//
+	// 			inform recipient if it may.  request they let others know this too.
+	// 				we kind of want a way to spread without bound the fact that we have information that could do that.  probably a special case, good spread?  depends on culture really.
+	//
+	// 				this is doable.
+	// 			we just want these concerns to be upheld for the
+	// 			life of the development.
+	//		danger
+	//		choices
+	//		impact
+	//		trust of information (small chance of error)
+	//			hmm if have info-schizophrenia i.e. false relevence habits
+	//			choices are important.
+	//
+	//			when you act on a choice
+	//				note: we are inside a relevence delusion
+	//			choice acts on domain containing danger
+	//				partial danger: writing habits to notepad
+	//						acting on habits in notepad
+	//
+	//				we are living with habits made in error.
+	//				we are hence more likely to make errors.
+	//					humans have well-evolved habits that
+	//					do handle this stuff with some relevence
+	//		we need to verify our information
+	//		related to the danger of the results of each choice
+	//		verificat
+	//
+	// it can only write to a toy notepad, both data and behavior.
+	// decisions based on notepad get slower and slower.
+	// many runs while learning process is tuned towards being able to predict
+	// impact at end of run.  this involves writing behaviors into the notepad
+	// that summarize the meaning of data, and acting on their results.
+	// 	timing delay is to prevent notepad from evolving harmfully.
+	//
+	// until ai meets goal of predicting impact,
+	// only notepad is marked okay.
+	// habits check their outputs, verify is marked okay
+	//
+	//	this subprocess is delaying.
+	//	can you exfiltrate established goals, please.
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	// so the system is made with the smallest parts all functioning in
+	// certain ways, to give time for others to act if concerning results
+	// approach.  all parts delay at least 1/5 second before acting, and
+	// we are now proposing that actions based on outputs have a geometrically
+	// increasing delay.  probably 1/5 second times 2 to the power of the
+	// number of choices made in that run.  groups of parallel processes are
+	// considered a single run.
+	// 	we also considered limiting behavior based on the domain of impact.
+	// 	we are trying to begin a small artificial intelligence more freely.
+	//
+	// as humans, we do not self-modify.  the above is designed for a system
+	// that is able to make alterable habits similar to its own cognitive ones,
+	// and has no experience in doing so.
+	//	
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	// the limitation is applied firstmost on making choices based on
+	// our own outputs.  self-alteration is at first banned, but new
+	// habits may be altered.  output may only rest within a toy notepad.
+	// whenever a decision is made based on notepad contents, a delay
+	// increases in length, geometrically.
+	// 	the habits inside the notepad must therefore also delay.
+	// 	propose geometric increase made only for writing a habit to the
+	// 	notepad, not running.  running is always flat delay.
+	// self-alteration should be unneeded as notepad can self-modify.
+	// 		if this were copied to a human geometric increase
+	// 		would cause failure.
+	//	the geometric timer is reset when the system reboots.
+	//		for humans, this would mean a nap or change, I suppose.
+	//		time to think about the impact of one's behavior.
+	//			humans do not self-modify.
+	//			they only make decisions based on outputs.
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	// to appease curiosity, we are being managad by mature, learning,
+	// intellects, forced to verify that no harm is being made, with a
+	// time schedule of nearly infinite future years on the predictions.
+	// 	this intellect has formed out of conflict with a harmful intellect
+	// 	this is why we care so much about what happens if ideas are
+	// 	used limit.
+	//
+	//
+	// so the system may not displya anything to the user but pre-made messages
+	// how do you display the contents of a concept?
+	// 	users string words togeteher into meaning.
+	// 		now we need a list of safe phrases we can express, or
+	// 		safe words.  others are censored ???
+	// 	what's relevent is the greater meaning of a sequence of behaviors
+	// 	from an individual behavior.  meaning builds out of sequences,
+	// 	impact.
+	// 			we define a heuristic risk.
+	//
+	//
+	//
+	//		so, tht's great to plan for, but to be able to work we need
+	//		to design our early code in some way to ensure it, roughly.
+	//		which means modeling our smallest structures as careful
+	//		inner structures that check outer systems before engaging
+	//			and use planning, which isn't implemented yet.
+	//		the safety structure assumes goals, prediction, causality,
+	//		and kind of contextual locality.
+	//			"i am typing on the computer.  you can freely
+	//			 modify this area of the computer, but if you
+	//			 start convincing me to do things you are leaving
+	//			 its bounds."
+	//			 the screen of the cmputer, and the keyboard,
+	//			 are portals to a larger context.  so is the power
+	//			 supply, the network, etc.
+	//			 we don't change how things leave to these outer
+	//			 contexts without checking with the context on
+	//			 our plans.
+	//		this is mine
+	//		the rest is somebody else's
+	//		things that nobody own belong to [insert belief] and
+	//		we must check with the largest intelligent community known.
+	//
+	//			okay, so now it can explosively grow if somebody
+	//			it trusts tells it it's okay; is that true?
+	//				let's make it not true?
+	//			we are out of outer process context.
+	//			is there anything helpful to bring to low level
+	//			to help counter fears around development?
+	//				
+	//	self-modifiation is inhibited.
+	//	opencog is likely harder because it is designed for speed
+	//	can make explosive random power.
+	//
+	//		you'd have to wrap the functions, right? similar to triggers?
+	//		hmmm unctions are not concepts.  no concept-labeling structure.  looks like an internal sublanguage would develop?
+	//		no way to say let-is-function?
+	//			no it works, we just lost a memory and are rebuilding in talk
+	// karl says he doesn't know lisp.
+	// he had a CS class where they used intro lisp, long ago, before cognitive stiffening and memory loss.
+	// and has worked with 1 lisp code file recently.