JoHawth31

Author here. The argument is not that AI is a bubble or that current systems are mere autocomplete. I expect them to transform software, science, and knowledge work.

The narrower claim is that increasingly accurate reconstruction of cognitive structure embedded in human artifacts does not, by itself, explain how transformer-based systems become open-ended superintelligence.

This is the first of three essays. I’m especially interested in arguments that identify the missing causal mechanism, or show where my account of the ceiling fails.

If the argument is correct, it also drives a stake in the heart of any claims that AI represents an existential threat to humanity because of ASI. I don't make that connection explicitly in the essay, but I'm making it here.

Thank you very much kazinator!

Thank you so much krapp!

If you don’t mind the code being public, GitHub pages is free and a fantastic resource. I think you can also upgrade to a paid version to make the code private. Check it out here: https://pages.github.com/

No single person knows.

Ray Dalio has a really cool book about this. I'm just starting it myself but I think it would help explain a lot of the questions in this thread. He has a FREE pdf which you can download to any eReader, or you can buy the hardcopy.

You can find it here: https://www.principles.com/big-debt-crises/

The short of it is interest rates are a tool used by the Fed to attempt to control the rate at which people and institutions take on debt. Too much debt = recession. Too little debt = recession. I'm greatly oversimplifying here but Ray does a fantastic job explaining things. If anyone wants to dig in deep I highly, highly recommend you read this book.

1. Many values (about 60%) are determined biologically, there is no definition process. This is not a computer algorithm, I’m talking about how the human brain works, how people work. The brain makes decisions in part by invoking the biologically determined value hierarchy. There is no definition process before this happens. Your subconscious does this without you even knowing it. It has a huge impact. People can’t get to policy without going through their value system. Don’t conflate the two. The definitions you want to create are a language model of what is already there.

2. This is theoretically possible but not at all how most people in the real world function. Not a material impact here. If you believe many people’s happiness depends on many others unhappiness that is classic zero sum thinking.

3. Cool, so we weren’t talking about the same thing, hence the disagreement.

1. Yes, you are. Maybe point two will help see why.

2. You can't define anything beyond a platitude without some sort of values prioritization. Real world definitions will inherently use a value hierarchy. This is where the conflation comes in.

3. Mostly agree, which is why I said real world execution will vary depending on the value system of the population in question. The vast majority of Americans have a fairly similar idea of individual liberty as a general idea/platitude. But again, the value system hierarchy will produce different real world definitions in different scenarios. In order to go from platitude to real world application you have to invoke your value system hierarchy. Which side of any given issue you fall on depends greatly on that hierarchy.

4. See below.

5. I think we're getting caught up in semantics and don't actually disagree on this point. What is shared by the two parties is they each have the same goal: Happiness for themselves. Bob's happiness may conflict with Alice's because of how they are trying to achieve it, but again, they need to talk and sort out why this is happening so that they can get on the optimal path. I think when you say "goal" you are including the means to achieve happiness. I am not. I am simply talking about the pure emotional state. Get more conservatives on campus and we can figure out more ways of achieving happiness that are mutually compatible.

You are conflating real world policy execution with values. Substance can't be mapped onto reality without prioritizing values and deciding accordingly. The belief of individual liberty is shared throughout America, its real world execution will vary depending on the value system of the population in question. We have the same belief, but disagree about how to get there.

I think you're sort of on the right track about values being root goals. Values come first, then we execute policy based on those values. One goal may come at the expense of another. And some lefties might not even recognize a trade off if statistically they don't value something that conservatives value very highly. Or vice versa.

Your last point is in alignment with everything I've said before. We have the same over arching goal (happiness), we just disagree about how to get there. The two paths to the goal are mutually incompatible, not the goal itself. The path is what is in question and conflict, not the goal. This is why it is so important that the path is discussed honestly and openly. Good intentions do not automatically lead to good outcomes, and if we as a society choose the wrong path we are f*. So to bring it full circle, this is EXACTLY why we need more conservatives on campus: to discuss the other paths and evaluate them objectively so that the best path may win.

People most definitely DO NOT have similar values, and this almost entirely explains the left/right divide within the United States. Most Americans have been brought up to believe in shared beliefs like individual liberty, equality before the law, basic human rights, etc. This is the common vision we are striving to achieve. But beliefs are not the same as values. The divide comes in how we prioritize our values in achieving those goals.

Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of important work in this area, I recommend you check him out. Our moral foundations are based on: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Lefties really only care about the first two, conservatives care about all 5, and harm/care + fairness/reciprocity typically rank lower than the other values. Look at the FIRST comment on this thread. Then look at the list of values. It is really easy to see what our arguments are about once you know why people think the way they do.

I disagree strongly with your last point. Almost everyone wants to be happy, avoid suffering, have healthy and harmonious relationships, to live life as they choose, have a sense of purpose, etc. Our fights are typically about how to achieve that for every citizen. If you can find a LARGE population of people that does not want those things I will happily retract my statement.

And again, you've completely caricatured anyone with a more conservative view point.

The vast majority of people who criticize BLM or any other leftist issue are not racists. They are people who see problems with a movement that has good intentions and terrible execution. Thats pretty much the standard conservative criticism of liberal politics: Good intentions, horrible execution that lots of times backfires.

You need to realize that for the most part everyone wants the same things. We just disagree about how to get there.

A couple things I think you’re missing:

Your assumption that one of the positions, either liberal or conservative, must be correct, is wrong.

Second, the assumption that professors know better than the general population in all cases is also incorrect. People in academia have a way of thinking that is sometimes divorced from reality and real world experience. Professors can be much more wrong than the general population in some cases.

This highlights the original point: viewpoint diversity and rigorous debate are the best tools for discovering truth. If your idea is so fragile it can’t exist outside of some protected ecosystem, the idea probably isn’t very good to begin with.

This comment right here is proof of why we need to embrace viewpoint diversity. You’ve caricatureized any opposing argument inside your own head to the point where anyone who disagrees with you must be a scumbag. You can think BLM is a broken movement and still support equal rights, for example.

Thank you for the responses ladies and gents. At the risk of upsetting some of you further, I fully stand behind my PHP comments. I'm only kidding (sort of). Thanks again.