It's the same story as has ever been. "Smart People"'s position on anything is often informed by their current economic relationship wrt to the things they care about. And maybe even Yud isn't super happy about his profession being co-opted. What scraps will he have if his own delusions became true about GPT zombies replacing "authentic voices"?
No one is immune to seeing a better take when it's their shit on the line, and no is immune from being in a bubble without stake.
It absolutely is effective -- but there's economics at play. You can't 100% close the whole on anything. Scrappers can themselves employee expensive techniques to try to sort or clean content pre-training.
But altering the economics is meaningful, even if it won't give you strong guarantees. Big, maximalist systems fall from a million paper cuts. They live or die on the economics of the smaller parts.
Yeah, that's a good call out, I do feel the meta is good obsession is ~~borderline~~ definitely cultish.
There's a big difference between a committed scientists doing emperical work on specific mechanisms saying something like "wow, isn't it cool how considering a broader perspective of how unrelated parts work together to create this newly discovered set of specifics?" and someone who is committed anti-institutional saying "see how by me taking your money and offering vague promises of immortal we are all enriched?"
Why so general? The multi-agent dynamical systems theory needed to heal internal conflicts such as auto-immune disorders may not be so different from those needed to heal external conflicts as well, including breakdowns in social and political systems.
This isn't, an answer to the question why so general? This is aspirational philosophical goo.
"multi-agent dynamical systems theory" => you mean any theory that takes composite view of a larger system? Like Chemistry? Biology?Physics? Sociology? Economics? "Why so general" may as well be "why so uncommitted?"
I feel bayesian rationalism has basically missed the point of inference and immediately fallen into the regression to the mean trap of "the general answer to any question shouldn't say anything in particular at all."
Maybe hot take, but I actually feel like the world doesn't need strictly speaking more documentation tooling at all, LLM / RAG or otherwise.
Companies probably actually need to curate down their documents so that simpler thinks work, then it doesn't cost ever increasing infrastructure to overcome the problems that previous investment actually literally caused.
I don’t know exactly what you think I want.
I don't know precisely what, you want, and I never will. It was practical advice about writing grounded in an analogy, mostly because they are two things I like. If it's not helpful, you are free to not, internalize it.
Getting the attention (even maladaptively) may make some progress towards solving my problem.
Ok.
Maybe another way of thinking about "being economical" is thinking of writing as a relationship. Half the work is yours. But half of the work is, the audience.
I just hope that whatever you do, you find peace and a bit of fun of it. And broadly that means letting go of some things so that you can focus on others.
At this point I’ve put a lot of points into “being right” and it hasn’t gotten anywhere. My most common experience when I write is that people latch onto things I said that weren’t my point
Let me introduce you to the biological source of creative confabulation! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_tie_(biology)
Complex systems that relate in robust manners do not do so by trying to be right, or even minimizing error, per say. It's about, economically confabulating between two distinct spaces!
The written form is usefully incapable of fully capturing the experience you put in (fan in), and usefully capable of producing unrelated and novel experiences of the audience (fan out).
Where possible, I focus my attention on being economical, and leaving control of the reaction out of it. Have fun. Don't take the work, the audience, or oneself, too seriously.
Wouldn't a truly dangerous nuclear warhead forklift itself? Oh my god... Is the singularity all of us merging with forklifts?
I appreciate this perspective, especially
There’s no magic barrier between internalized and externalized cognition.
I think it's increasingly clear that cognition is networking, and no matter how you are constructed, it's both internal and external, and that in a sense, the objects aren't the important thing (the relationships are).
Like, maybe there aren't shortcuts. If you want perfect GO play you may very well have to pay the full inductive price. And even then, congrats, but GO still exists.
It's interesting to see how Chess has continued to be relevant, hell, possibly even more popular than its ever been, due to increased accessibility, alternative formats, and embracing the performance aspects of the game.
Oh absolutely! This is the entire delusion collapsing on itself.
Bro, if intelligence is, as the cult claims, fully contained self improvement, --you could never have mattered by definition--. If the system is closed, and you see the point of convergence up ahead... what does it even fucking matter?
This is why Pascal's wager defeats all forms of maximal utilitarianism. Again, if the system is closed around a set of known alternatives, then yes. It doesn't matter anymore. You don't even need intelligence to do this. You can do with sticks and stones by imagining away all the other things.