dogcomplex

You can wrap those identities behind anonymous usernames. The point is just to be able to link 1 identity per person.

Proof of identity with a social network backing of people vouching for each other then. As long as ids are limited we can track and assign trust in a secondary market. Anyone pulling stunts like you mention is just selling out their credit for a one-time small gain. Of course that will happen still, but it can be disincentivized financially - and has been in irl societies less desperate or with more attached to their social credit

Which is why we need Proof of Identity based internet infrastructure asap to verify people are real behind the avatar.

They dramatically increased demand lately for solar production, so they were probably the cause of and epicenter of the global shortage - paying the premium as a cost of doing business while lithium production caught up.

Senior full-stack web developer and automation engineer seriously pivoting to the AI-driven world. Currently training ML to autonomously navigate game environments with a self-improving reward function, in-between building client medical data visualization software (largely via LLM loop workflow. Easily 3-5x faster now than I ever was). Taking clients interested in business consulting, analysis and engineering towards automating their business and preparing for the new era. Free initial consult.

  Location: West Coast (PST)
  Remote: Yes, 10+ years remote experience
  Willing to relocate: Possible
  Technologies: Web, JS/React/3JS, Python/Torch, PHP/SQL, UI/UX, Crypto, AR/VR, AI/ML/Q-Learning

  Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/warren-koch-156aa026/
  Email: warrenkoch (gmail)

He claims to be ideologically driven. OpenAI's actions as a company up til now point otherwise

Can we just build our localized monolith systems in a modular way so they can easily be decomposed into decentralized microservices at any sensible division when the need arises..? Must we always have this debate against an idea that is stupid on its face - sending remote requests for every single service..?

The answer is c) sell that energy and use your resulting funds to deeply root yourself in all other systems and prevent or destroy alternative forms of energy production, thus achieving total market dominance

This non-hypothetical got us global warming already

Even if I disagreed, this level of snark would be worth an HN award. Well done

Great philosophy. What were the pain points so far - where's the real moat? In the not-too-distant future when we sick some AI coder programs on the problem to just mass-implement features in a banal repetitive way, which are the really complex ones they're gonna get stuck on? What are the ridiculous "this feature only exists to keep google in power" features you've found?

What made you want to make a browser instead of something much simpler like - an OS?

Well, cost prohibitive on big models obviously. But even just things like DreamBooth training extra associations to sets of new data images is tuning the model as you go

Same thing. To grok is to fully incorporate the new into your intuitive view of the world - changing your view of both in the process. An AI is training their model with the new data, incorporating it into their existing world view in such a way that may even subtly change every variable they know. A human is doing the same. We integrate it deeper the more we can connect it to existing metaphor and understanding - and it becomes one less thing we need to "remember" precisely because we can then recreate it from "base principles" because we fully understand it. We've grokked it.

Or as the model is able to be trained (integrated with new information) on the fly, making a somewhat limitless context window

Yeah with their own QA from a variety of different personas/perspectives/concerns/contexts I reckon you'll get a very decent accuracy - or at least self-assessment of inaccuracy. All these can ever do is propagate the data they know so far to the context/prompt you desire, but I don't see obvious limits there. And GPT4 is already a superb conversation partner as smart as nearly any person - so it's really like piecing experts together. If we run into any fundamental limitations from piecing these all together, it's gonna be the same limit that any group of humans trying to make a coherent/consistent organization of knowledge encounters, I think.

Coincidentally, that appears to be how GPT4 was made - apparently it's actually about 8 personas with designated roles running GPT3.5 trained together ("Panel of experts"? there's an AI name for the technique). Makes you wonder how far that one trick scales.

(P.S. great link. Gah - another long read on the todo list)

still plenty of frauds either way, just bigger scale.

Would be nice if they all get locked up, and/or decentralized regulation/vetting networks arise

lol same as it ever was

What makes you think we're lacking fundamental plumbing? I am personally still quite convinced it will simply take a bit of time and development to plug in the current AI into sufficient self-testing structures (basically the next versions of AutoGPT) and let it run long enough to map out an entire domain with accurate measurements. Seems more like just a matter of time and a bit of funding - but mostly inevitable and very straightforward. It doesn't even really take GPT4 quality levels to do - that's just a bonus.

https://twitter.com/fablesimulation/status/16813529041528504... These guys seem to be on the leading edge there - making self-referential character-driven narratives where agents talk to each other and build the collective world understanding, all through a South Park Westworld lol

Review: For those who found themselves too intellectual to enjoy the teen romance magic school vampire genre perfectly embodied by the fanfic My Immortal (https://www.fanfiction.net/s/6829556/1/My-Immortal), Superrational presents a more sophisticated rationalist re-imagining of the magic school universe. May it make the great Yudkowsky proud.

Posting here to commemorate this moment as the point of no return - they've been downhill for a while. Looking forward to the future where all of their content is strip mined into an open source encrypted blockchain hosted app that gives zero shits about their copyrights and acts as if this never happened. They never deserved to own the communities on there to begin with. Burn in hell, idiots

Savage, but maybe fair. If one of Chomsky's underlying claims is indeed that language requires innate hard parsing rules and can't just be derived from probabilistic sampling of a bunch of data - that seems completely dead in the water.

It is entirely likely that the way we operate is probability-first, only deriving rules loosely after taking in lots of experiential data to speed up and simplify that initial fake-it-til-you-make-it understanding. The fact LLMs can get the quality we see using just this approach is a strong indicator that this method of understanding may be a fundamental approach of biological systems too.

(and if you're arguing this is unfair because humans created the language that's being used for probabilistic training - well, look at image models trained on photographs instead and tell me those aren't an example of extreme quality derived purely from mass-inferenced data. Rules-based architectures don't necessarily need apply.)

But honestly, this seems like a silly claim to begin with if it really was claimed. We have formal language theory complexity classes of probabilistic algorithms for a reason - they work! It shouldn't be surprising that the model can stretch down to the fundamentals too. Far fewer programmers (and linguists) were raised to think with these models than deterministic rules-based ones, but the field has been progressing alongside for decades, and now they get to play with powerful LLMs that take probabilistic inferencing to the extreme and will likely prove it works (very elegantly) for everything. This shouldn't be surprising in retrospect.

Chomsky may very well be right that there always exists some fundamental elegant formula underlying any phenomenon (or at least any language). But it's undeniable at this point that simplistic statistical approaches can be applied at scale to those phenomenon and derive highly-useful general models, which also will very likely converge upon the elegant formulas he envisioned. The two are intrinsically linked, neither inseparable.

We are nearing, if not already well past, the inflection point where solar panels powering industrial chemical sugar production can make sucrose and feed plants (and therefore animals) better than the plants would naturally produce themselves using chlorophyl with the same sunlight.

Rewilding - bringing artificial human-made processes to grow thriving natural environments - is something we should definitely consider. We are capable of creating abundance beyond what nature provides alone

Yeah, and even if you're that worried about societal agricultural instability, you're better off spending hobby time to make something like a dead-simple replicatable potato growing kit and distributing it out at a loss. Barring something truly irreversibly apocalyptic, that'd provide most of what's needed until things rebound.

Yes! But it requires a wealth tax (or equivalent) higher than the rich's profit margins, and requires enforcement in all major jurisdictions. This is effectively impossible due to the sheer amount of power these folks have to prevent it. Simple.

And pretty-much any of those taxes would help the situation, so long as ultimately they boil down to the rich paying more per year than their profit margins and therefore shrinking inequality (redistributed to the people).

This problem isn't complicated because it's intellectually challenging. This problem is complicated because the balance of power is overwhelmingly favorable to the rich, and they have many means to both disrupt the conversation in intellectual circles and to block any political means of making these necessary changes.

See economist Richard D. Wolff for extremely simple answers to the above problem. Ultimately it is simply the math of value flows. Current system? Inherently concentrates at the top. Adjust taxes (any of them!!) to reverse that.

https://www.youtube.com/user/richarddwolff

If the tendency of the rate of profit to fall was the underlying problem, basic needs and housing would be dirt cheap. That's not a problem - it's a good thing for consumers (and therefore the lower classes). It's the plethora of efforts to counter this which capitalists employ (mainly monopolization) to inflate prices anyway despite underlying increased efficiency (and less labor) that's the problem. The main problem though is that labor is perpetually kept desperate enough to accept bargains which favor investors, and consumers have no other means of gaining capital, even as they get automated out of the job market.

It's a fundamentally unfair system which inevitably maximizes inequality. It's untenable without a government-enforced wealth-redistributing tax to offset that.

"GPT-4 is still not dangerous" is a bold claim already tbh. It can be easily jailbroken still, can be used to train a local model which can spread and learn, and can be told to take on a persona which can have its own goals and aspirations - some of which can be counter to containment. Already we're walking that tightrope.

It's worse than this. Llama models trained off of GPT 3.5/4 can run on a Raspberry Pi totally offline with similar levels of quality - taking all the best parts of the original model. Even if all major AI companies halted the upper tiers of model progress right now, you're still gonna need the entire public to stop assembling these together. It's quite possible just a whole bunch of these lesser models architected the right way could then still breach the quality of GPT5, and/or develop sentience patterns (which may very-well just be an emergent property of letting an intelligent snapshot model add to its memory over time and develop a personal narrative). AI Robot Swarm is already out of the box. Monolithic God AI might still be slowed.

Economic/systemic change has been off the table for quite a while. These poor politicians are just playing the only cards they have available - social tribal chanting - while filling their personal coffers as much as possible while the getting's good.

It also gives a fresh space to develop democratic systems that aren't dominated by previous parties to the extent that there is barely a functioning democracy. Existing systems are ridiculously compromised.