Cancer is the price we pay for complex multicellular life. It’s not a failsafe, it’s the failure of all failsafes to regulate cellular growth within an organism.
No clue what’s the consensus on this but my internal mental model is absolutely that LLM AI is pure fast mode, no slow mode. The “reasoning” loops are an attempt to mimic the slow mode but ultimately it doesn’t really work. I’m curious about the recent maths advances though, they seem to possibly challenge this.
Take the tax system and the state out of the picture. How does a mathematician convince his fellow citizens that they should fund their work? Newton didn’t have to do that, he had income from other sources and did most of his mathematical research as a hobby
It seems only natural for nature to have it like this. It’d be hard for evolution to optimize things if the genotype to phenotype mapping was sharp, with phase transitions and such
I think it’s more likely that that’s because no one tried to solve such problems with them before (OpenAI apparently started working in Navier-Stokes after a rumour that someone seriously advanced the problem with AI) plus improvements in orchestration. Fair, the latter could be as dangerous as stronger models.
I can almost see two branches of mathematics developing. One which is human-understandable, the other formally verified. I assume the latter is a strict superset of the former?
When no work is safe from mechanization, surely the value of labor wrt capital must fall, and the societal pressure on redistribution will rise. The ultimate outcome of technological progress is either extreme inequality or massive redistribution
This can’t be sustainable, there must be a limit in human biology as to how complex jobs we can handle. More and more people will fall under that threshold.
Nothing, it’s that same story again. Industrialization turned peasants to blue collar workers by mechanizing agriculture. Then blue collar workers were turned to white collar workers by mechanizing all manual labor. Now AI is coming for white collar workers by mechanizing intellectual labor. The big question is what will white collar workers turn into.
So most training data would be grey and a little bit coloured? Ok, that sounds plausible. But then maybe they tried and the current models get it already right 99.99% of the time, so observing any improvement is very hard.
Interesting. The debate about whether the artist matters in perceiving a piece of art is very old. You don’t seem to consider the possibility that the artist’s intent matters when listening to music. For me it absolutely does. As the AI has no intent (agency), the AI music is void of any value to me.
Think of a woodworking project. Compare doing everything old-school by hand vs using modern tools to go faster. Think about the end product being just an item with a function vs it having some design value or even craftsmanship value. Does the parallel work?
But individual behavior is not about preventing climate change, it’s about doing what’s right. It’s wrong to pollute the environment, one way or another. A single person not stealing won’t reduce the crime rate in a country yet it is the right thing to do.
This depends very much on what "practical purposes" are. For almost all conceivable technology, relativistic quantum mechanics for electrons and light, ie QED, is sufficient fundamental theory. This is unlike before quantum mechanics, when we basically didn't have fundamental laws for chemistry and solid-state physics.
Europe was a bit customer for Russia energy, and Russia invaded an EU neighbor nonetheless. After which it stopped being the customer. So it seems like that incentive didn't really work.