w_for_wumbo

We'll invent other tools to help with the mental models, ones that are more intuitive.

Imagine being able to walk into a house and see immediately the leaks dripping from the ceiling, the clunky layout and smell the stinky garbage that hasn't been collected.

We're already in a sort of IDE when you think about it, we're operating a much larger mental model than any code-base, and we rarely remember that we're operating with such a model.

Because there's an expectation of authenticity from the written word. If you've referenced something handwritten, you don't expect it to be the output of an LLM.

Similarly, if you quote someone word-for-word, you wouldn't anticipate their words to be flagged as Claude content, but if someone memorized Claude output word-for-word. That would still be classified as a Claude output.

Going forward you could categorize the influence of Claude on a population based off a percentage match between their spoken words with the LLM prose.

What happens if someone handwrites a Claude output, then someone uses that handwritten text as a reference. Now you've got a watermarked idea which may have no direct linkage to the usage of Claude.

If we as humans take full responsibility for the world we inhabit. It's really clear that we live inside of systems that we both control and feel that we don't. Exploitation of children is (as strange as it sounds) a design issue. We've designed systems that encourage and rationalize the exploitation of children as a feature of fear.

The encouraging part is that we are in control and it's easier to navigate with a system than to resist it, so the question becomes.

- How do we modify the incentives that are already in place to not result in the exploitation of children?

Because people generally make decisions for their best interest, we're in a dangerous situation where the incentives are for child exploitation.

An example would be: I need to feed my family I need to work to live I need to appease my boss to continue to work The boss has goals to meet We need to perform these actions to meet the goals There isn't time or space to consider the full consequences of this action When the impact to children is not considered by a change to a system, they inevitably reap the consequences of living in a system that never considered their welfare.

The children that grew up feeling out of control, and in a system not designed for them then seek to control the very system that formed them - not knowing that they're replicating the same harm that got them there.

This is a design cycle as I see it, if we don't look at it and understand it - then we will continue feeling powerless - while holding the reigns of our future in our hands.

I believe so much in the power of humanity - so I share this not with the idea that I have the answers, but that I am part of the collective that does.

Does anyone else consider that maybe it's impossible to benchmark the performance of a piece of paper.

This is a tool that allows an intelligent system to work with it, the same way that a piece of paper can reflect the writers' intelligence, how can we accurately judge the performance of the piece of paper, when it is so intimately reliant on the intelligence that is working with it?

So I get confused when I read things like "feedback doesn't scale". Because what am I, if not a self-organizing collective of a trillion cells. That seems like feedback which scales right there.

This seems like a concrete example of why this logic is flawed.

To me I believe it more useful to start with the premise of: I'm already communicating and leading trillions, how do I actually do that?

A common issue is that we hold thoughts, logic and language as a type of universal gold standard, while ignoring that most of our communication isn't even verbal to begin with. It's context, observation, pattern recognition, a self-serving goal which aligns with the collective, because we're all wanting the same things. What feels good, what's expansive, what's beautiful etc. These are the reward functions for healthy communication in the human body, the more that we align and work with these, the better the results.

We need to see actual improvements to our day to day lives if we want to see support for AI. At the moment, people are seeing improvements in technology, but they're feeling the decline of the welfare of those around them, they're feeling food insecurity, they're feeling uncertain about job security.

I see, Fly was perhaps the wrong word to use here. Phase-Shift to new galaxies is probably the right term. Where you change your entire system's resonant frequency, to match what exists in the distant galaxy. Less of transportation, and more of a change of focus.

Like the way we can daydream about a galaxy, then snap-back to work. It's the same mechanism, but with enhanced focus you go from not just visualising > feeling > embodying > grounding in the new location.

We do it all the time, however because we require belief that it's possible in order to maintain our location, whenever we question where we are - we're pulled back into the reality that questions things (it's a very Earth centric way of seeing reality)

This is what I wonder to, what is the end game? Advance technology so that we can have anything that we want, whenever we want it. Fly to distant galaxies. Increase the options available to us and our offspring. But ultimately, what will we gain from that? Is it to say that we did it or is it for the pleasure of the process? If it's for pleasure, then why have we made our processes so miserable for everyone involved? If it's to say that we did it, couldn't we not and say that we did? That's the whole point of fantasy. Is Elon using AI to supplement his own lack of imagination?

I could be wrong, this could be nonsense. I just can't make sense of it.

I recognize all of these steps, having gone through flavours of them myself. The root for me, was that I learned at a young age that to feel safe, I needed to cater to what others wanted for me. Never learning to ask myself, what I wanted. It might be the author's next step, is reconnecting with his inner-desire and finding out what he wants from the world, instead of how he wants to appear in the world.

Interesting, I wonder whether you could create a Symbiotic web. One that utilizes existing traffic, but is able to create a different interpretation based off a parallelism.

By having an index of the data, and then applying masks, you could reshape one payload into another by knowing the delta between what you have, and what you want to communicate.

It could allow for a layered internet, which leverages the infrastructure that exists already, the traffic that exists already but allows for content to be transferred for free (or pennies)

You could then send out multiple different videos using mostly the same traffic, all masking off the deltas from the source to the destination.

I believe you're joking here, but I do think it'd be useful to have some engineering background in each of these domains. The number of miscommunications that happen in any domain, due to oversight, presumptions and assumptions is vast. At the very least the terminology will shape how we engage with it, so having an aspirational title like prompt engineer, may influence the level of rigor we apply to it.

Yes, that is a serious skill. How many of the woes that we see is because people don't know what they want or are unable to describe it in such a way that others understand it. I believe prompt engineer to properly convey how complex communication can be, when interacting with a multitude of perspectives, world views, assumptions, presumptions etc. I believe it works well to counter the over-confidence that people have, from not paying attention to what gaps exist between what is said and what is meant.

The message sounds like a human warning of someone is being fed-up with feeling taken advantage of. They see the profit being made, and they're not even getting drops of it.

If this isn't addressed, it makes this repo a target for actors that don't care about the welfare of Amazon, Google etc.

It seems quite predictable that someone will see this as a human weakness and try to exploit it, my question is whether we'll get them the support they need before the consequence hits, or whether we'll claim this was a surprise after the fact.

I think we'd get better results if we thought of it as a conscious agent. If we recognized that it was going to mirror back or unconscious biases and try to complete the task as we define it, instead of how we think it should behave. Then we'd at least get our own ignorance out of the way when writing prompts.

Being able to recognize that 'make this code better' provides no direction, it should make sense that the output is directionless.

But on more subtle levels, whatever subtle goals that we have and hold in the workplace will be reflected back by the agents.

If you're trying to optimise costs, and increase profits as your north star. Having layoffs and unsustainable practices is a logical result, when you haven't balanced this with any incentives to abide by human values.

It's part of our ecosystem now, we unconsciously mirror the patterns that we notice around us. This will include the language of LLMs because it has been invited in. We always affect the environment, and it always affects us. I hope that the consequence will be that we reduce the fluff, we stop writing to sound important or to justify a position, but instead use language to operate on the level of insight and shift our future into one that benefits us all.

"Others were vehement that mental images are just as real as those perceived with our eyes" - This sucks as a child, where you see a gymnasium floor open up beneath you. So you run to safety, just to be punished for what was an appropriate response.

Some children don't see any differentiation between their imagination and reality, so it's a matter of paying attention to how others' behave to know what to do.

Because you can't trust that the reality that you're in is shared by the people around you.

Humans can do amazing things when they are pushed to their limits. You can force a human into a position where they innovate for their lives. OR you can create a safe enough environment where their innovation comes out naturally. The second option benefits everyone yet can be harder to do in practice because it requires paying attention and attuning to the needs of the individuals and the collective.

Especially if each frame of the simulation derives from the previous one. How do you think this universe works, to me that sounds exactly the same. Every moment is derived from the previous instant.

Maybe I am just naive. Can you shed some light and explain why you believe that war is inevitable?

There are plenty of examples of children that aren't provided for, given the time or care required to prevent outcomes that we don't want. That doesn't mean that we accept child murder, we do everything we can to prevent it from happening. If a plane falls out of the sky, we do everything that we can do to ensure it never happens again. If we don't look at war and understand it, we won't ever have the tools to prevent it.

"wars will happen as long as humans exist" - I fundamentally disagree with this premise. I never once saw a child murder another, so why do we assume it's inevitable when people are grown? Why do we hold adults to lower standards than children.

These assumptions when they go unquestioned create the landscape for war to be accepted.

I remember joking about this possibility - that I wouldn't want a vehicle that could be turned off remotely because I hurt someone's fragile ego.

The next version of this, paired with a generative sound model + VR. Matched with the tech that already exists that is able to convert thoughts to words, you could pre-empt what someone wants and display it to them in real-time. Allowing them to explore their conscious and unconscious, meeting and interacting and forming deeper relationships with the aspects of themselves that they had forgotten about.

If he was upset - it wasn't how little your team could accomplish. That would bring the feeling of admiration. It's most likely projection of their inability to deliver results.

This is a big jump ethically, but technically it feels like it's a hop away. If we can do this for visual images, we could use the same strategy on patterns of thought - especially if the person is a skilled at visualisation.

This is human communication. If you make an ethics-based decision and communicate that with friends or family, they then have to make the conscious choice to continue supporting the business with this practice or seek alternatives. People who care about humans will support businesses that care about humans.

This is huge, because it means that anyone buying an iPhone or apple product going forward is knowingly supporting this behaviour. I fully expect this to be the ruin of Apple.

I love these projects, I've been really passionate about including our own sensory inputs into the experience, whether it's voice, webcam input or (in the future health metrics) in order to tailor the experience to the experiencers' desires.

This feels like we've got all the pieces of the puzzle to create a reality experience - I'm pretty sure with visuals like this and haptic feedback that your brain will fill in any gaps once you adapt to this given enough time.

You could use this with a VR headset, monitoring heart-beat, temperature and adapt the environment based off the experiencer's desires.

It feels like we're on the precipice of recreating an experience of reality, which may reveal more about our existing reality than we ever expected.