alok-g

I agree that AI needs alignment and validation, and this is already been worked on [*1]. I'll assume below that this is a given.

For the rest, AI itself may be able to handle better than most humans. It already has good idea about what being human is [*2], understands that this isn't a one-dimensional problem, can do balancing like humans would, find more direct/efficient paths than humans. For many things I discuss with AI, I find that it already reasons much better than most humans (not even considering that AI knows so much more than any human).

I think we over-index on "the same prompt will provide different plans". Humans would do the same too. Humans, working in isolation or with collaboration can self-correct, but the same applies to AI.

>> On what ground would you give the machine a pass?

The benchmark I hold is humans themselves. Humans currently have the pass, and have had it since history. Yet, there are many irrational decisions everywhere around.

I hear complaints that AI hallucinates. Yes, it does. Humans do too, and more often than they are willing to admit. The concept of 'god' may entirely be a hallucination (i.e., something not supported by facts). There is no good scientific evidence of prayers working, yet many humans believe in the same.

The real issue is that AI seems to learn and hallucinate in a different way than humans -- it sometimes makes some very silly mistakes. No disagreement, we need to make it better. The pace at which AI can become better however could easily surpass the speed at which humans learn or change. I am not suggesting we give AI the pass till it becomes good enough, there's enough progress on alignment, etc.

>> Do you really think our ancestors chose to cut off their legs in abandonment when they figured that some animals could outpace them?

Great! Here lies an important point. Between humans and animals, we have nature's evolutionary processes, survival of the fittest, ... Depending on how one sees it (and this is a real debate in my mind), we could use AI to enhance our survival and progress faster, or we could see AI as an enemy (like it is another species) and compete.

For some people, the goal is exactly advancements of humans. I, so far, see it as evolutionary progress, whatever form it takes.

[*1] Whether we are doing enough for that or not, is a valid debate.

[*2] AI cannot experience it, it cannot 'know' it in the human sense of knowing if that means something different, but it could emulate well enough.

>> If AI is not working for humans' benefits

>> not working towards an optimization problem set-up by humans

I am suggesting neither of the two.

Not a great analogy but a parent may be working for an infant's benefit without the infant yet being able to understand. Taking an arbitrarily broad example, the problem to optimize for could be "help humanity advance", and other aspects could be subgoals of the same including what mathematics is useful.

I see two assumptions in the core argument, both of which are open to challenge.

1. AI can do proofs, but deciding which problems to solve, which math is useful, is by humans.

2. The math that's picked needs to be understandable by humans.

For #1, AI may be able to play a significant, if not a takeover, role for even figuring out what math is useful.

For #2, understandability by humans may be good for now, but could also turn out to be a significant constraint. Correctness is a goal, trust is an important requirement, human understandability may be an intermediary for that, but not necessarily the end goal.

In other words, the article may stand the current state of the art, but may not stand merely a couple years down the road.

Useful mathematics need not mean understandable by humans. Why cannot AI, in the future, also figure what mathematics is useful. Whatever role we see for humans in mathematics, could possibly be picked up (and done better) by AI (in the future). Choosing proofs, strategies, abstractions, figuring utility, intuitiveness, all are in principle a search problem, including meta-search where needed.

I wonder if the advantage AI has is simply that it has absorbed vastly more collective mathematical experience and can therefore provide better search heuristics than a human.

May I know how much token costs came out to be for this? Also, how did it handle Wordpress plugins? If you have comments on the website, how did you handle those and spam detection? Thanks.

Looks nice.

My website is hosted on 1and1 via PHP. I am guessing that this would not work for me as installation needs server access. Moving to VPS, along with transferring domain, would require more time than I would like to spend. Thanks.

Thanks. I should have seen that myself.

Would the photochemistry of my eyes stay the same? :-)

I would like to hear more (asking genuinely). Thanks.

Thanks for explaining in detail. The part I now understand is that an automation that removes the need for manual work could lead to much higher factory output.

The part I am unclear about is the impact on the supply-demand and pricing:

Say the prices of goods produced go down by 55% on an average (assumed loosely based on OP article that says knowledge work is 60%).

With 60% of the work gone, many humans may lose jobs and many may not have enough savings or investments for living even with 55% lesser cost of goods (while rent, etc. stay similar?).

While the factories could produce more, the demand may be much weaker, so the factories may not have enough need to produce more. Due to competition, the prices should ultimately go down (maximum by 55% in the scenario considered).

How does the wealth per person increase for factory owners, and/or, for others?

The OP article also says GDP growth would accelerate in all scenarios. I am not clear how. If cost of making good go down drastically, could the GDP also not go down instead?

Also, a separate question:

>> though of course individuals will vary greatly in how much wealth they accumulate in this sort of takeoff.

What would be your advice to people during this takeoff. :-)

Thanks.

I would like to understand this more.

What leads to 'very high economic growth rates'?

Thanks.

If AI manages to prove, or disprove, I wonder what would Clay Foundation do for the prize.

See also: https://septabee.nekoweb.org

I had to look up what iocaine route is. Here's an article that explains well:

https://firesphere.dev/articles/iocaine-the-deadliest-poison...

I can see now. Thanks!

Adding: The two paths respectively are about 80% and 28% of the earth's circumference.

Moore's law is flattening, however, designs and implementations are often highly inefficient. Just like software often has bloat, so does chip design.

Sounds like you have implemented some of the features (e.g., sorting for the notes list). Thanks!

Another one I have observed is that it is leaving newlines in between paragraphs of text where for the same .md files, other apps are showing none.

That makes sense. Thanks for answering.

The approach feels asymmetric though now, since by the time AI reaches a point where humans cannot come up with any task that's easy for humans but hard for machines, it (AI) may be able to do some tasks that an average human can't, or do some much better than an average human.

You seem saying:

(1) Consciousness is mandatory for intelligence.

(2) 'AGI' is no different than just 'intelligence'.

(3) Consciousness resides in pineal gland.

(4) Biology is mandatory for consciousness/AGI.

I cannot claim these to be wrong, however, have no reason to believe in any.

We do seem to agree though that the benchmark is incorrectly named.

Once ARC-AGI-3 is solved (including on the private set), would we be convinced that we have achieved AGI?

If not, is the benchmark just incorrectly named? (I personally think so.)

PS: I follow Wikipedia's definition for AGI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...), which also talks about some tests. However, I distinguish it from Strong AI.

This may not last as long with alternatives catching up. Markets would have more 'inertia' for hardware and app ecosystems than for subscription-based software/AI.

Nice! Is that also accessible online?

Nice work! On quick testing:

A. It is much more performant as compared to Electron-type applications.

B. It remembers the toggle state for the sidebar upon restarting, which is great! Just now many apps get this miss on this is pitiful.

C. Line spacing setting is great to have.

Some feedback:

1. Allow changing sort order for the notes. Currently only alphabetical. I need reverse-chronological so that most recently added/edited notes appear on the top. This one is a must-have for me.

2. Ability to directly open .md files from Files/Explorer would be great! I tend to use file systems themselves to organize my files across thousands of directories.

3. Support for rendering equations seems there, but is not working for all of them. Perhaps the syntax of my existing .md files is not correct (copy-pasted from AI responses).

4. Having an explicit Save button would be very nice.

5. It would be nice to see support for front matter, including automatic adjustment of creation/modification time stamps, and ability to show/hide the front matter.

6. It should also remember the last window position and size.

7. More toolbar buttons. Creating a new note requires right-clicking on one of the notes. Alternatively, allow right-clicking on the vault name.

8. For the note itself, allow using full width available from the window size. Currently fixed width (albeit the width is changeable from settings).

9. Vertical scroll bar for the note seems set up such that the bottommost point shows blank lines. The bottom most point should not scroll below the actual length of the note. The scroll bar length then also correctly indicates how long the note is.

10. Ability to change theme settings will be nice.

11. Mobile app would be great too! I am currently using HelixNotes (https://helixnotes.com/) on Android and Tolaria (https://tolaria.md/) on Windows 11.

Thanks!

Would be hard to explain without some equations. Here's an outline:

Nature follows differential equations.

Differential equations are generally complex to solve but have properties that are helpful. E.g., a second order differential equations would have two independent constants of integration in the solution. If two have already been found, a third independent one won't be needed and you already know that you have a complete solution.

For linear equations, if you find enough orthogonal basis functions that are each a solution, even if by hook or crook, you would have found all solutions.

Some functions and operators yield a function with the same form as the original function. E.g., derivative of exponentiation, second derivative of sine, etc.

The differential equation can happen to be such that a function of the above type then cancels out from the equation. This simplifies the equation.

If the above process yields enough orthonormal basis functions, then we know we have the entire space of solutions.

When the operator happens have some properties, the above happens.

Euler's equation links exponential to sine and cosine. That makes complex numbers useful. Then exponentiation covers sine and cosine too.

Magnitude of complex numbers is the number multiplied by its complex conjugate.

The math proofs extend from real numbers (actually needed by Physics) to complex numbers by using complex conjugates.

Hermitian matrices and self-adjoint operators are special cases that bring orthogonal basis functions, real-valued solutions (in spite of using complex numbers), etc.

References:

Spectral Theorem

Sturm Liouville Theory

Quantum Mechanics (ongoing), Sturm-Lioville theory, Special Relativity (ongoing), Tensors (going towards General Relativity)

What finally clicked: Hermitian matrix, self-adjoint operators, quantum operators for energy and momentum, the Metric (for modeling spacetime curvature), etc.

That sounds better. Still leads to some questions that I am missing the answers to:

A Lithium ion has the same charge in magnitude as an elecron. Electron is much lighter. Why and how is it that Li+ ions are able to, but electrons can't?

A same number of ions and electrons should be generating on the electrodes.

>> Generally move

When there no free electron space in atoms, instead of electrons being stuck, should still move the electrolyte as free particles just like ions.

Seems like they can't in this case. Why not?

Cool! That seems to fit as the voltage build-up (assuming no current taken from the battery) is not reversed by the negative ions flowing backwards.

I still have the question though. How does the electrolyte do that? :-)

Can someone please explain why electrons also cannot go directly through the electrolyte just like Lithium ions? Footnote 1 skips explaining this. I tried asking ChatGPT, but it is not getting to a complete answer. It says things that just pushes the question into another form.

Roughtly, "AI will help people."

Here's I think how.

AI learns skills that people have, and replaces them.

vs.

AI helps people learn better and develop new skills faster.