This does make me think about Kuhn's concept of scientific revolutions and paradigms, and that paradigms are incommensurate with one another. Since new paradigms can't be proven or disproven by the rules of the old paradigm, if an LLM could independently discover paradigm shifts similar to moving from Newtonian gravity to general relativity, then we have empirical evidence of an LLM performing a feature of general intelligence.
However, you could also argue that it's actually empirical evidence that general relativity and 19th century physics wasn't truly a paradigm shift -- you could have 'derived' it from previous data -- that the LLM has actually proven something about structurally similarities between those paradigms, not that it's demonstrating general intelligence...
His concept sounds odd. There will always be many hints of something yet to be discovered, simply by the nature of anything worth discovering having an influence on other things.
For instance spectroscopy enables one to look at the spectra emitted by another 'thing', perhaps the sun, and it turns out that there's little streaks within the spectra the correspond directly to various elements. This is how we're able to determine the elemental composition of things like the sun.
That connection between elements and the patterns in their spectra was discovered in the early 1800s. And those patterns are caused by quantum mechanical interactions and so it was perhaps one of the first big hints of quantum mechanics, yet it'd still be a century before we got to relativity, let alone quantum mechanics.
I'm working on a Yelp alternative called Vibehuntr -- just something different to browse venues using Google's API, with a social layer so I can see what my friends like. It's very rough around the edges right now and it might be completely different by next week. It's been a fun experiment in vibe coding on a full stack. https://vibehuntr.io
Depending on the story, the examples have to be adjusted. But of course, logical reasoning from humans cannot be replicated just like that, by the machines.
The real question is this: Suppose a person was great at reasoning the last 100 years, but with zero knowledge. That person might not attended any school, almost illiterate. But his reasoning is top notch. I don't know if you are familiar with Sultan Khan [1] for example.
With no formal training to absorb a lot of knowledge, that person is totally economically crashed. There is no chance of being competitive at anything, not involving muscles anyway. Now suppose that this person can complement his lack of knowledge with a magical knowledge machine. Suddenly he is ahead of a competition, involving people with 10 Phds, or doctors with 30 years of experience.
I was thinking about how the point of reading isn't to literally 'internalize' what you've read. When you're engrossed in a piece of literature, you don't remember the specifics of the last page you read. What's more important is what the book is doing to your mind as you read -- it triggers a set of processes that force you to imagine and therefore form connections that you haven't made before, even if subtle and unrelated to the content of the book.
It's the same with writing. Writing isn't just a way to produce a good piece of writing, it's what the process of writing does to your brain as you think aloud, connecting words and sentences together. The same with painting, gardening, and organizing your stamp collection. The final 'product' isn't actually important. The significance lies in the process of immersion from the creator and the people who witness it.
I just don't find that convincing. If every aspect of human planning, skill, and knowledge are reproducable via classical computing then it seems unlikely that consciousness is some special case that requires quantum processes.
Today's classical computing accomplishments are impressive, but nowhere near what a human can do. Perhaps someday soon a single AI could (in the words of Heinlein) "change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly" but that day is not yet here. If we struggle to build such a device, we might consider that our computers are too limited.
I have some family in Hong Kong that lived in public housing for the longest time. Some of the newer apartments were pretty good. 40th floor, nice view, free WiFi.
I agree. You don't need someone's ketamine use to explain why they're a Nazi.
You know who else uses a lot of ketamine? The rave scene, the queer scene, and people treating PTSD. And those are some of the most un-Nazi folks out there.
It's a dissociative drug. It can be used recreationally, it can be used therapeutically, and of course, for medical purposes.
Let's be real. Why is Musk a megalomaniac? Because he is a megalomaniac. The end.
The public impression of him radically changed in recent years, and -- like old friends and family trying to make sense of the person who "became someone else" after getting involved in a dark scene -- people are naturally looking for an understanding that can make sense to them.
I think many of us see the the through line in Musk's story the same way we can see how our friends who spiraled into chaos and self-destruction had always been fragile or angry or hurt or whatever, but for others who were never perceptive or open enough to have seen the already-troubled side of these people, a drug abuse narrative (which often can have truth to it) can help it all become less bewildering.
> Let's be real. Why is Musk a megalomaniac? Because he is a megalomaniac. The end.
Why, how, and when did he become a megalomaniac? Was he always this way? Did he start believing his own press at some point?
Body chemistry can affect how one cognates, perceives the world, and reacts to external (and internal) events. Half the world's population undergoes such effects naturally throughout their life:
It would not be surprising if folks who alter their brain chemistry without medical supervision may have their (perception of) reality changed due to it.
stuff like this gets taught in school? that’s like a take from the 1600s. literally descartes’s argument that animals are just automatons and only humans have minds.
However, you could also argue that it's actually empirical evidence that general relativity and 19th century physics wasn't truly a paradigm shift -- you could have 'derived' it from previous data -- that the LLM has actually proven something about structurally similarities between those paradigms, not that it's demonstrating general intelligence...
reply