Those studying AGI refuse to consider that the mind evolved to be highly specialized with massive ‘domain-specific’ innate circuitry.
They refuse because they think evolved specialization is antithetical to GENERAL intelligence.
In fact, this highly specialized circuitry is precisely what enables general intelligence.
It’s counterintuitive, but computational constraints enable general (broad) problem solving.
“The framework has no ceiling, and the implication is a single unified consciousness exploring itself through an unbounded number of perspectives, each one capable of waking up.”
Another thing: what you get from writing things yourself isn't just the code. It's an improved understanding of what the code does. That mental model is what lets you come up with further improvements, or invent a different way of doing things. You can't come up with ways to improve a blackbox you don't understand.
For most projects this doesn't really matter, because the code is the only thing you need. But if you're doing something novel, if you're doing research, the code is not the most important part. Understanding what the code does is the most important part.
Between stock trading by federal officials, insider trading in prediction markets, fixed sporting events, and suspicious moves in energy, integrity in markets feels lower today than at any point in the modern era.
Just posted: My latest TED talk. I look at technology from the perspective of human ultrasociality -- deep needs for community and communion. From that view, you can see how social media, edtech, and especially AI block human flourishing
https://t.co/htYeTCCIYo
Einstein on (not) using NL for invention: "The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought"
In fact instead of thinking of startup ideas as scalars it would probably be best to think of them as pairs of idea + early adopters. If you can't say who's going to use you when no one else is, move on to another idea.
Thank you. The important part is zeroing out taxes on the bottom half. Best way to put money in someone’s pocket is to not take it out in the first place. Bottom half is only 3% of total tax revenue. But it’s very meaningful to that person. Zero it out.
Jon Haidt @jonhaidt is one of the greatest psychologists of the 21st century, having illuminated moral cognition, the relation between emotion and intellect, the perils of politicization and viewpoint homogeneity in social science, and the roots of the youth mental health decline. That NYU students should protest this wise and brilliant man as their commencement speaker is a backhand vindication of his diagnosis of what's wrong in higher ed. Our sometimes coauthor @PamelaParesky explains: Reports of The Death of 'Woke' May Be Greatly Exaggerated https://t.co/IN2IWfdzNi
i wonder whether this needs an update.
current methods, such as they are, leverage massive amounts of human knowledge as their primary fuel. they would be lost without it.
and they even build some knowledge into their system prompts.
and lately they build knowledge into their harnesses, usually by over 50 tools that have been carefully crafted with human knowledge.