<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>It depends on the context of the prediction, the utility of the prediction, and the cost of not having a quality model. I don\u2019t think sharing or a notion of an agent plurality is needed for all use cases. An objective model needn\u2019t be deeply explanatory if it is fit to purpose; a black box model can still be objective.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of Steve Smith <sasmyth@swcp.com><br><b>Date: </b>Sunday, August 30, 2026 at 11:03\u202fAM<br><b>To: </b>friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>On 8/30/26 10:00 am, Marcus Daniels wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Agreed-upon -> model that makes predictions that can be observed and repeated.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>No human social system need be involved in that.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><a href="https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/08/anthropics-new-hardware-standard-lets-ai-agents-control-the-physical-world/">https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/08/anthropics-new-hardware-standard-lets-ai-agents-control-the-physical-world/</a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p>shared by whom, repeated by whom, and how are predictions compared and verified and by what principles?<o:p></o:p></p><p><ducking incoming shoes><o:p></o:p></p><p>But as I hope I conceded to EricS, I *can* invert the whole thing and (by faith) declare objectivity to be the fundament and everything else rubbings and shadows and derived therefrom. This is where my earliest linguistic training by my parents and peers steers me, not to mention a modest education in scientific and generally western thought and a lifetime of practice. <o:p></o:p></p><p>So why invert it as I have (contingently? provocatively?)<o:p></o:p></p><p><more shoes><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></body></html>