"Too many microservices!"

Up with the gradients!

In practice, alignment means "control".

And the the existential panic is realizing that control doesn't scale. So rather than admit that goal "alignment" doesn't mean what they think it is, rather than admit that darwinian evolution is useful but incomplete and cannot sufficiently explain all phenomena both at the macro and micro levels, rather than possibly consider that intelligence is abundant in systems all around us and we're constantly in tenuous relationships at the edge of uncertainty with all of it,

it's the end of all meaning aka the robot overlord.

For what it's worth then, I don't think we're in disagreement, so I just want to clarify a couple of things.

When I say open system economics, I mean from an ecological point of view, not just the pay dollars for product point of view. Strictly speaking, there is some theoritical price and a process, however gruesome, that could force a human into the embodiment of a bird. But from an ecosystems point of view, it begs the obvious question; why? Maybe there is an answer to why that would happen, but it's not a question of knowledge of a thing, or even the process of doing it, it's the economic question in the whole.

The same thing applies to human intelligence, however we plan to define it. Nature is already full of systems that have memory, that can abstract, reason, that can use tools, that are social, that are robust in the face of novel environments. We are unique but not due to any particular capability, we're unique because of the economics and our relationship with all the other things we depend upon. I think that's awesome!

I only made my comment to caution though, because yes, I do think that overall people still put humanity and our intelligence on a pedestal, and I think that plays to rationalist hands. I love being human and the human experience. I also love being alive, and part of nature, and the experience of the ecosystem as a whole. From that perspective, it would be hard for me to believe that any particulart part of human intelligence can't be reproduced with technology, because to me it's already abundant in nature. The question for me, and our ecosystem at large, is when it does occur,

what's the cost? What role, will it have? What regulations, does it warrant? What, other behaviors will it exhibit? And also, I'm ok not being in control of those answers. I can just live, in a certain degree of uncertainty.

Yes, and ultimately this question, of what gets built, as opposed to what is knowable, is an economics question. The energy gradients available to a bird are qualitatively different than those available to industry, or individual humans. Of course they are!

There's no theoritical limit to how close an universal function approximator can get to a closed system definition of something. Bird's flight isn't magic, or unknowable, or non reproduceable. If it was, we'd have no sense of awe at learning about it, studying it. Imagine if human like behavior of intelligence was completely unknowable. How would we go about teaching things? Communicating at all? Sharing our experiences?

But in the end, it's not just the knowledge of a thing that matters. It's the whole economics of that thing embedded in its environment.

I guess I violently agree with the observation, but I also take care not to put humanity, or intelligence in a broad sense, in some special magical untouchable place, either. I feel it can be just as reductionist in the end to demand there is no solution than to say that any solution has its trade offs and costs.

Adversarial attacks on training data for LLMs is in fact a real issue. You can very very effectively punch up with regards to the proportion of effect on trained system with even small samples of carefully crafter adversarial inputs. There are things that can counter act this, but all of those things increase costs, and LLMs are very sensitive to economics.

Think of it this way. One, reason why humans don't just learn everything is because we spend as much time filtering and refocusing our attention in order to preserve our sense of self in the face of adversarial inputs. It's not perfect, again it changes economics, and at some point being wrong but consistent with our environment is still more important.

I have no skepticism that LLMs learn or understand. They do. But crucially, like everything else we know of, they are in a critically dependent, asymmetrical relationship with their environment. The environment of their existence being our digital waste, so long as that waste contains the correct shapes.

Long term I see regulation plus new economic realities wrt to digital data, not just to be nice or ethical, but because it's the only way future systems can reach reliable and economical online learning. Maybe the right things happen for the wrong reasons.

It's funny to me just how much AI ends up demonstrating non equilibrium ecology at scale. Maybe we'll have that self introspective moment and see our own relationship with our ecosystems reflect back on us. Or maybe we'll ignore that and focus on reductive world views again.

True, there's value. But I think if you try to measure that value, it disappears.

A good postmorterm puts the facts on the table, and leaves the team to evaluate options. I don't think any good postmorterm should have apologies or ask people to settle social conflicts directly. One of the best tools a postmorterm has is the "we're going to work around this problem by reducing the dependency on personal relationships."

Also meta but while I am big on slamming AI enshitification, I am still bullish on using machine learning tools to actually make products better. There are examples of this. Notice how artists react enthusiastically to the AI features of Procreate Dreams (workflow primarily built around human hand assisted by AI tools, ala what photoshop used to be) vs Midjourney (a slap in the face).

The future will involve more AI products. It's worthy to be skeptical. It's also worthy to vote with your money to send the signal: there is an alternative to enshitification.

Correct. My only ask for moderation for this instance is to keep the scale and tone under control, even if meant me being banned in the course of doing so. Your reasoningand approach is sound.

Probably has something to do with the whole "We definitely know that race is a strong determinant of humanity, but we acknowledge that race isn't the only determinant if you also already have money or influence and could help us."

Is this an enemy of my enemy is my friend situation? Pinker's naive optimism bubble, is not exactly a perspective I 100% endorse either but hey 🤷

Because we all know Bob won't just fuxking wipe his ass in private. He needs to know we saw it all.