Agentus

well yeah its partially philosphical, i guess my haphazard use of language like “all” makes it more philosophical than intended.

but im getting at a few things. one of those things is neurological. how do deductive inference constructs manifest in neurons and is it really inadvertently an inductive process that that creates deductive neural functions.

other aspect of the question i guess is more philosophical. like why does deductive inference work at all, i think clues to a potential answer to that can be seen in the mechanics of generalization of antecedents predicting(or correlating with) certain generalized consequences consistently. the brain coagulates generalized coinciding concepts by reinforcement and it recognizes or differentiates inclusive instances or excluding instances of a generalization by recognition properties that seem to gatekeep identities accordingly. its hard to explain succinctly what i mean by the latter, but im planning on writing an academic paper on that.

sorry, humans are stupid and what intelligence they have is largely impotent. if this wasnt the case life wouldnt be this dystopia. my crassness comes from not necessarily trying to pick on a particular group of humans, just disappointment in recognizing the efficacy of human intelligence and its ability to turn reality into a better reality (meh).

yeah i was just thinking how a lot of thoughts which i thought were my original thoughts really were made possible out of communal thoughts. like i can maybe have some original frontier thoughts that involve averages but thats only made possible because some other person invented the abstraction of averages then that was collectively disseminated to everyone in education, not to mention all the subconscious processes that are necessary for me to will certainly thoughts into existsnce. makes me reflect on how much cognition is really mine, vs (not mine) a inevitable product of a deterministic process and a product of other humans.

i have a question for you, in which ive asked many philosophy professors but none could answer satisfactorily. since you seem to have a penchant for reasoning perhaps you might have a good answer. (i hope i remember the full extent of the question properly, i might hit you up with some follow questions)

it pertains to the source of the inference power of deductive inference. do you think all deductive reasoning originated inductively? like when some one discovers a rule or fact that seemingly has contextual predictive power, obviously that can be confirmed inductively by observations, but did that deductive reflex of the mind coagulate by inductive experiences. maybe not all deductive derivative rules but the original deductive rules.

possibly, my university doesn’t really do ai research beyond using it as a tool to engineer things. im looking to transfer to a different university.

but no, my take on reasoning is really a somewhat generalized reframing of the definition of reasoning (which you might find on the stanford encylopedia of philosophy) thats reframed partially in axiomatic building blocks of neural network components/terminology. im not claiming to have discovered reasoning, just redefine it in a way thats compatible and sensible to neural networks (ish).

terribly sorry to be such a tease, but im looking to publish a paper on it, and still need to delve deeper into machine interpretability to make sure its empirically properly couched. if u can help with that perhaps we can continue this convo in private.

interesting point about language. but i wonder if people misattribute the reason why language is pivotal to human development. your points are valid. i see human behavior with regard to learning as 90% mimicry and 10% autonomous learning. most of what humans believe in is taken on faith and passed on from the tribe to the individual. rarely is it verified even partially let alone fully. humans simple dont have the time or processing power to do that. learning a thing without outside aid is vastly slower and more energy or brain intensive process than copy learning or learning through social institutions by dissemination. the stunted development from lack of language might come more from the less ability to access the collective learning process that language enables and or greatly enhances. i think a lot of learning even when combined with reasoning, deduction, etc really is at the mercy of brute force exploration to find a solution, which individuals are bad at but a society that collects random experienced “ah hah!” occurrences and passes them along is actually okay at.

i wonder if llms and language dont as so much allow us to process these complex environments but instead preload our brains to get a head start in processing those complex environments once we arrive in them. i think llms store compressed relationships of the world which obviously has information loss from a neural mapping of the world that isnt just language based. but that compressed relationships ie knowledge doesnt exactly backwardly map onto the world without it having a reverse key. like artificially learning about real world stuff in school abstractly and then going into the real world, it takes time for that abstraction to snap fit upon the real world.

could you further elaborate on what you mean by limits, because im happy to play contrarian on what i think i interpret you to be saying there.

also to your main point: what intelligence is. yeah you sort of hit up my thoughts on intelligence. its a combination of problem solving abilities in different domains. its like an amalgam of cognitive processes that achieve an amalgam of capabilities. while we can label alllllll that with a singular word, doesnt mean its all a singular process. seems like its a composite. moreover i think a big chunk of intelligence (but not all) is just brute forcing finding associations and then encoding those by some reflexive search/retrieval. a different part of intelligence of course is adaptibility and pattern finding.

well lets just say i think i can explain reasoning better than anyone ive encountered. i have my own hypothesized theory on what it is and how it manifests in neural networks.

i doubt your mathmatician example is equivalent.

examples that are fresh on the mind that further my point. ive heard yann lecun baffled by llms instantiation/emergence of reasoning, along with other ai researchers. eric Schmidt thinks the agentic reasoning is the current frontier and people should be focusing on that. was listening to the start of an ai machine learning interview a week ago with some cs phd asked to explain reasoning and the best he could muster up is you know it when you see it…. not to mention the guy responding to the grandparent that gave a cop out answer ( all the most respect to him).

kinda interesting, every single CS person (especially phds) when talking about reasoning are unable to concisely quantify, enumerate, qualify, or define reasoning.

people with (high) intelligence talking and building (artificial) intelligence but never able to convincingly explain aspects of intelligence. just often talk ambiguously and circularly around it.

what are we humans getting ourselves into inventing skynet :wink.

its been an ongoing pet project to tackle reasoning, but i cant answer your question with regards to llms.

a trickle of people sure, but most people never accidentally stumble upon good evaluation skills let alone reason themselves to that level, so i dont see how most people will have the semblance of an idea of a realistic trajectory of ai progress. i think most people have very little conceptualization of their own thinking/cognitive patterns, at least not enough to sensibly extrapolate it onto ai.

doesnt help that most people are just mimics when talking about stuff thats outside their expertise.

Hell, my cousin a quality-college educated individual, high social/ emotional iq, will go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole so quickly based on some baseless crap printed on the internet. then he’ll talk about people being satan worshipers.

how about a extra large dose of your skepticism. is true intelligence really a thing and not just a vague human construct that tries to point out the mysterious unquantifiable combination of human behaviors?

humans clearly dont know what intelligence is unambiguously. theres also no divinely ordained objective dictionary that one can point at to reference what true intelligence is. a deep reflection of trying to pattern associate different human cognitive abilities indicates human cognitive capabilities arent that spectacular really.

well gary marcus a non lay person is helping spread word that ai winter is again upon us.

but maybe statistical learning from pretraining is near its limit. not enough data or not enough juice to squeeze more performance out of averages.

though with all the narrow ais it does seem plausible you might be able to cram all what these narrow ais can do in on big goliath model. wonder if reinforcement learning and reasoning can manage to keep the exponential curve of ai going if there are still hiccups in the short term.

the difficulty in just shoehorning llms as they are in any and every day task without a hitch might be behind the temporary hype-dying down trend.

The beauty of LLMs isn’t just these coding objects speak human vernacular but they can be concatenated with human vernacular prompts and that itself can be used as an input, command or output sensibly without necessarily causing error even if a series of inputs combinations weren't preprogrammed.

I have an A.I. textbook that has agent terminology that was written preLLm days. agents are just autonomous ish code that loops on itself with some extra functionality. LLMs in their elegance can more easily out the box selfloop just on the basis concatenating language prompts, sensibly. They are almost agent ready out the box by this very elegant quality(the textbook agentic diagram is just a conceptual self perpetuation loop), except…

Except they fail at a lot or get stuck at hiccups. But, here is a novel thought. What if an LLM becomes more agentic (ie more able to sustain autonomous chain prompts that do actions without a terminal failure) and less copilotee not by more complex controlling wrapper self perpetuation code, but by means of training the core llm itself to more fluidly function in agentic scenarios.

a better agentically performing llm that isnt mislabeled with a bad buzzword might not reveal itself in its wrapper control code but through it just performing better in an typical agentic loop or environment conditions with whatever initiating prompt, control wrapper code, or pipeline that initiates its self perpetuation cycle.

small talk isnt pointless if done with an aim. this video help explains that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw5CPtEyedU. seduction as applied to conversation.

also rather mundane conversation can be fun if done in the right manner. this video talks more on the right manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRG-YubP1rw

yeah i switched from business to software engineering, and it felt like an sysphean task to develop and keep relationships up in this new hemisphere. thought it was just me but didnt really have that issue with business people. in software it feels like the relationship halflife is accelerated. wonder how to get around that issue with people you literally have to strong arm the social stuff for them. i know doing computer gaming socials and having mutually overlapping projects can help be temporary glue but beyond that, trying to muster things up continues to be a struggle at least with a large portion of the software community. whats the secret to effortless networking and convincing introverts to so social stuff that they are repelled to doing.

According to sleep scientist mathew walker, it serves multiple roles, replenishment of resources obviously, but also behavior refinement (whatever you practice during the day gets practiced excessively while asleep), and sleep also is a creative and solution search.

He mentions that sleep is so crucial that despite how vulnerable it makes organisms to be debilitated 8 or whatever many hours a day, what it provides more than counterbalances that massive evolutionary vulnerability.

I can do more than that. I used to wake up sweaty half the time from sleeping as child. Now that never happens as an adult, i instead wake up with my sweater mysteriously taken off. I wish sleep self would learn to put a sweater on if it turns cold though.

Evolution is like DFS depth first search, it isnt looking for an optimal way optimally its just going down a branch until it finds a satisfactory solution.

Sleep according to sleep scientist matthew walker, isnt what it seems. If i remember correctly theres even more brain activity and it serves certain goals like behavior refinement, among other things not just refreshing yourself. There might not be more benefit by more sleep.

So the argument that during a gold rush, there are scammers selling pyrite and misleading prospective prospectors to quarries where there is no gold, soo because all these are happening incidentally the gold rush is therefore near over. Okay. Good article otherwise. But Geoffrey Hinton takes the opposite stance (so does eric schmidt)with recently stating the last 10 years of ai development have been unexpected and the trend will continue with the next 10 years. But perhaps that could be handwaived off as cheerleaders/promoters.

Well i think this conversation chain has played out multiple times all the way spanning back to at least Ben Edison. Often times nothing is certain in a business where you need to take a chance trying to bring an imagined idea into fruition with millions of investor money.

Ceos are more often come from marketing backgrounds than other disciplines for the very reason they have to sell stakeholders, employees, investors on the possibilities. If a ceos myth making turns out to be a lie 50 to 80 percent of the time then hes still a success as with Edison, Musk, Jobs, and now Altman.

But i think AI ceos seem to be imagining and peddling wilder fancier myths than the average. If AI technology pans out then i dont feel theyre unwarranted. I think theres enough justification but im biased and have been doing AI for 10 years.

To ur question, If a ceos lies dont accidently turn true eventually as with the case of Holmes then yes its a big problem.

from a quick glance at the text i think he means legally institutionalized private property or equivalent.

but he as an anthropologist has argued in other venues to revise historical origins of various concepts like currency and debt based on available evidence rather than academic myth.

which is an earliest known origins argument based on available archaeological evidence rather than true earliest origins or mythologized origins for propagandized explainability. Of course this isnt relevant to your dog point, but just to contextualize a reoccurring theme of Graeber.

Humans use synthetic data of their own to help with learning. Reasoning, imagination, armchair philosophy, theoreticizing, and neurosciences talk about dream repetition. If synthetic daa is bad or flawed its only temporary until the technique gets further honed.

even if the datacenter increase was a waste because the potential of LLMs never pan out relative to the massive investment, i think the flood of gpu and compute will definitely enable whatever could benefit from it. The next better AI application will be very thankful that gpu compute is abundant.

Theres an interview video with Matt Lauer where he partially explains his disdain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFgF1JPNR5E&t=5s

The psychiatry stuff starts at around 8 mins in.

I don't think Tom Cruise is fully unreasonable and certainly don't think psychiatry is a reasonable arbiter either.

Add how he took a multibillion payout while laying off 14% ish of Tesla staff. He seems to use shareholder Tesla equity to bail out his other misadventures. To add insult to injury he laughed with Trump about firing unionizing workers.

Oh he likes to bully people with lawsuits. Amber Heard comes to mind (he bullied the studio behind Aquaman).

Much of nvidias marketing material covers this if you want to believe it. They at minimal claim that there will be a million fold increase in compute available specifically to ML over the next decade.

I wonder when people mention Moores law do they use that vernacular literally or figuratively. IE literal as having to do with shrinking of the transistors, figuratively with any and all efforts to increase overall computational speed up.

I think this was the relevant video not 100% sure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lH1mUcxODw&t=2013s

I just viewed an Andrew NG video (he is the guy i tended to learn the latest best prompting, agentic, visual agentic practices from) that hardware companies as well as software are working on making these manifest especially at inference stage.

Yes yes i get it :) ive grown up in a capitalist society, thats been vitriolically anticommunist, which ive drunken the koolaid fully, i get all the standard implications.

I wish typing on an ipad with a flip phone size keyboard wasnt so troublesome. So please excuse issues with my typings.

Funny enough in the bible, one can not cross into the spiritual realm with any earthly possessions. This partially highlights how nonintrinsic ownership is to reality. Looking at past serfdom societies or others ownership took a different form. Hunter gathering societies think borders are incomprehensible. Then theres colonialism where european powers took over Africa then claimed its inhabitants owed them an annual tax for the land which the natives already resided on. Israel claims ownership of Palestine on behalf the jews based on some 2000year religious inheritance and used force and manipulation to settle/colonialize already claim lands. Thats not to say im pro palestinian claims either. People will make some rationalized justification on why they are entitled to something when the natural state of nature is to just roam and intermingle freely. Theres all these weaselly ways to deprive people of property like gentrification or legal manipulations.

Then theres always exceptions like imminent domain. Theres also the flipside if force used to seize territory, theres also the force used to protect illgotten territory from trespassers. Then theres the capitalist stakeholder math that crudely gives a vast disproportionate share of ownership to a few stakeholders (usually the progenitors of the capitalistic endeavor) despite it really being a rather conmunist at least laborwise endeavor. To put clearly its strange that jeff bezos can own ten percent of all of amazons collective largess despite it being a product of a million or 100000 laborers.

All im saying is property ownership isnt natural and is usually stitched together in a crude manner usually according to the values of the times. Im uninterested in holding it sacred though i do recognize confiscating peoples properties at willynilly whims is quite problemmatic.

According to traditional american propaganda yes civil liberties of property ownership is critical. According to a deep reflection on the indirect impact these civil liberties have in different scenarios, suddenly these civil liberties start imposing a staggering cost on others that becomes intolerable to pay. In less abstract wording it’s like the one hold out property preventing the building of a dam.

Civil liberties are just a human abstract construct which go at odds with reality and as such cause inevitable downstream problems no matter how the civil liberties or laws are constructed or fabricated. Like you said theres no good answer but as such (while fully cognizant of issues with all sides) im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups).