TwelveEyes

I don’t think that would help at all, to be honest. I think if you teach people that a vector is an arrow, and a matrix is a transformation of the arrow, you’d get much further. 3b1b has a great series on it in fact which I would consider to be the gold standard.

It still doesn’t make sense to me. Technological progress will likely only accelerate. These will be outdated within 2 years easily, and you can’t even recover the chips. The only benefits are the unlimited power without the bottlenecks on earth, lack of political pressure of course, and the low latency for processing satellite data since it doesn’t need to be sent down to earth. These don’t seem beneficial enough to waste this money. It would be good to hear from someone who knows more about this.

Yeah I don’t think it could decompress that answer, but most articles are explaining something and most explanations have been done before. The LLM would know in that case. I’m simply saying that you can communicate an idea worth any amount of bits with any smaller amount of bits provided you agree beforehand what they mean. LLMs have access to the entire internet, so we’ve had the chance to agree with them what every term means. But the person you’re writing to may have never heard of this, so you’ll have to communicate the full idea first before you can connect it to its small name.

Mmm perhaps, but I think you normally have an idea of who your audience is. If this was actually how we talked then I would have just responded to this comment with “known-audience rebuttal. Example. Audience knowledge clarification. Example absurdity comment” and let you work it out. I think it’s normally known to you and the LLM and not known to the person you’re speaking to. Speaking like that would just cause confusion and misunderstanding.

I don’t quite think this tracks. Perhaps you want to communicate 1000 bits that are well known and can be referenced with a 300 bit key. Then the LLM can easily retrieve the remaining information. It’s like sending someone a link to the Wikipedia page instead of explaining something yourself.

No, I don’t want to read LLM writing because it is BAD at it. It doesn’t really understand how humans think (because it thinks differently), and doesn’t seem to understand core principles very well (presumably due to the lack of world model), so it can’t write something humans enjoy yet.

Also, training it on chess books is literally training it on human knowledge, and not the actual game, which is exactly what the bitter lesson says not to do.

Decided to check this book out because of this and it is actually extremely interesting. Thank you for mentioning it. Have you ever read “Failure is not an option” by Gene Kranz? It’s about turning NASA into a fully functioning organisation, and your book reminded me of it.

I strongly disagree with this take. AI does not have the theory of mind to manage complex social environments, and AI does not have the context and intuition and experience required to replace a CEO, any more than a random external worker could take over their job for a day.

Is responding calmly a privilege to have, or a kindness to yourself?

You know what, that was really cool. I’ve never seen anything like that.