Ontological version is even more interesting, especially if we're talking about a singularity (which may be in the past rather than future if you believe in simulation argument).
Crude form: winning is metaphysically guaranteed because it probably happened or probably will
Refined: It's metaphysically impossible to tell whether or not it has or will have happened, so the distinction is meaningless, it has happened.
So... I guess Weir's Egg falls out of that particular line of thought?
As capable as they get, I still don't see a lot of uses for these things, myself, still. Sometimes if I'm fundamentally uninspired I'll have a model roll the dice, decide what I do or don't like about where it went to create a sense of momentum, but that's the limit. There's never any of its output in my output, even in spirit unless it managed to go somewhere inspiring, it's just a way to let me warm up my generation and discrimination muscles. "Someone is wrong on the internet"-as-a-service, basically.
Generally, if I come across an opportunity to produce ideas or output, I want to capitalize on it for growing my skills and produce an individual and authentic artistic expression where I want to have very fine control over the output in a way that prompt-tweak-verify simply cannot provide.
I don't value the parts it fills in which weren't intentional on the part of the prompter, just send me your prompt instead. I'd rather have a crude sketch and a description than a high fidelity image that obscures them.
But I'm also the kind of person that never enjoyed manufactured pop music or blockbusters unless there's a high concept or technical novelty in addition to the high budget, generally prefer experimental indie stuff, so maybe there's something I just can't see.
Yeah, that makes sense. If people don't see uses for AI, they shouldn't use it. But going out of the way to imply that people who use AI cannot think is pretty stupid in itself imo. I am not sure how to put this, but maybe to continue with your example, I like a lot of indie stuff as well, but I don't think anyone who watches, say, Fast and Furious, cannot think or is stupid, unless they explicitly make it the case by speaking, etc.
So my issue is that you shouldn't dismiss AI use as trash just because AI has been used. You should dismiss it as trash because it is trash. But the post says is that you should dismiss it as trash because AI was involved in it somewhere so i feel that's a very shitty/wrong attitude to have.
I actually do think that people who prefer content of fidelity over content of intent are making a mistake, yes. I don't think they're incapable of thinking, I don't care to apply any virtue labels to this preference, but they are literally preferring not to think.
LLMs can only produce things by and for people who prefer not to do the work the LLMs are doing for them. Most of the time I do not prefer this.
Like, there was a 2-panel comic that went around the RPG community a bit back where it was something like "Game Master using LLM to generate 10 pages of backstory for his campaign setting from a paragraph" in the first panel and "Player using LLM to summarize the 10 page backstory into a paragraph" in the second. Neither of these people care for the filler (because they didn't produce or consume it) so it's turned the two-LLM system into a game of telephone.
I think that's what Posthog might be trying but as per the above there may be a fine line between funny and annoying and/or between useful and useless.
Diversity is good for populations. If you have a tiny pool of individuals with mostly the same traits (in this case I mean things like culture, education, morality, ethics, rather than class and race - though there are obvious correlations) then you get what some other comments are describing as being effectively centralized planning with extra steps, rather than a market of competing ideas.
Yeah, some of the failure modes are the same. This one in particular is fun because even a human, given "the the the" and asked to predict what's next will probably still answer "the". How a Markov chain starts the the train and how the LLM does are pretty different though.
I wonder if "X is not Y - its' Z" LLM shibboleth is just an artifact of "is not" being a third most common bigram starting with is, just after "is a" and "is the" [0]. It doesn't follow as simply as it does with markov chains, but maybe this is where the tendency originated, and later was trained and RLHFed into the shape that kind of makes sense instead of getting eliminated.
I never saw any human starting to loop "the" as a reaction to any utterance though.
Personally my concern is more about the narrative that LLM are making "chain of thoughts", can "hallucinante" and that people should become "AI complement". They are definitely making nice inferences most of the time, but they are also totally different thing compared to human thoughts.
Good point, we human definitely have defects too. I’ll reflect on this, though this doesn’t make me consider that chip inferences to be fully analog to what happen in humans when they are thinking (or any animal/entity ongoing a thought process).
Yeah, fair. I'm just not generally a fan of the perfect world fallacy. Something might not be perfect, but it still might be as good as the alternative.
Not inherently. Politics is inherently about policy, the consensus mechanism involved is undefined. The fact it's been degraded into a carnival of moralistic cultural violence and individuals and their virtues, charisma or lack thereof is not at all inevitable.
The job of a state is to create social good for its citizens by solving tragedies of commons which promote opportunities, solving common problems in a way that takes advantage of scale, and holding other organizations (other states, corporations, whatever) or individuals accountable not to be creating harm. By reducing them to cultural divide-and-conquer games this process has been crippled. A certain economic class is responsible for this, is not even subtle about it, and propagandizes the other classes into believing that it benefits them, that the worn down veneer of democratic processes involved could somehow legitimizes it despite the obviously poor outcomes.
When I see people say left/right or "whole spectrum" of political ideas I know they've bought into this reductive vision of what politics could ever even possibly be, and it's as disappointing as it is common.
I particularly love when I get involved in a demographic survey and I get asked to rank myself on a "very liberal" to "very conservative" spectrum as if those are the only possibilities. I am incredibly critical of both of these ideologies and positions of "compromise" between them are even worse: ahistorical, amoral and unethical.
People who live their whole lives within the Overton Window and can't imagine anyone lives outside of it are incredibly bizarre to me.
> Politics is inherently about policy, the consensus mechanism involved is undefined.
It's true that the consensus mechanism is undefined, but it is definitely not the case that politics is about policy. I hate etymological arguments, but in a literal sense, the "political" is merely a translation for "public" - that is, anything that happens when you step outside is political.
That also means that "cultural divide-and-conquer games" are not in some sense "not politics". They're inherently political by virtue of being public, in the same sense that coming out as gay, wearing a MAGA hat or claiming on an online forum that the "job of a state is to create social good for its citizens" are political. Once you accept that almost everything is, in fact, politics, it also becomes clear that we don't have policy to generate particular outcomes in a detached and neutral manner, but to police politics.
I agree that the liberal/conservative spectrum is a "reductive vision of what politics could ever even possibly be", I'm just not convinced that associating politics with state power is any less reductive.
This is only socially and "practically" true, not literally or inevitably or technically (or in my opinion, actual-practically) so.
One of the things we need to accept as social animals is that there are a lot of different flavors of "true" and "correct".
A lot of times I'll get someone to concede with my opinion of stuff in a way where they say something like "well, sure, but good luck convincing anyone of this" and that's them just giving into the social-consensus truth rather than the empirical (what the evidence shows, what follows from that and our choices of axiomatic principles) or practical (produces the best outcomes in the situation) truth.
If we want to be a species worthy of surviving our impending climate extinction we need to have a population of leaders and actors who are willing to act on and create institutions according to the practical truth as informed by the empirical truth, and become villains in the eye of the social-consensus truth.
And that's all very american. Ofc in Europe, we have a matrix: conservative in morals vs conservative in economics and reformist in morals vs reformist in economics. It's not at all a line but more a sort choice of policy preference when it comes to dealing with traditions and economics.
For instance I'm conservative in economics (hear more capitalist) but reformist in morals (I like divorce, abortion and gay marriage). I vote for Macron therefore, who fits this. You can project his 2D stance on a 1D line and say he's a centrist, but he's left-morals, right-economics, so what is he at the "center" of ?
But I could be out of that matrix and say what matters is natural protection and vote for a green party who is either reformist or conservative in other policies but strongly focus on a single issue.
I don't understand american politics: it's like there's no variation of choice, just two sides of the same coins, role playing debate on pointless cultural issues without really having the power to reform or conserve.
Populist parties are more similar to american politics, they yell absurd nonsense at each other, accusing each other ad-hominem of various crass deeds, while distracting everyone from the real issue we need the state to solve, like decentralizing power away from the capital with the increase in mobility, organizing matrimony with the change in demographics, policing crime during various immigration crisis or all that stuff we can all discuss calmly and reach compromises over.
Politics is about managing transitions and changes in the population, and it's absurd to think the answer is bi-polar: republican or democrat, with a fallacy of the middle ground. Sometimes, it's just about softly following popular preference, sometimes it's about nudging the people to accept a necessary but difficult choice, sometimes it's about joining everyone in the middle because who cares.
> but he's left-morals, right-economics, so what is he at the "center" of ?
That's literally what liberals are (not US-moniker).
They're libertarians-light, believing that everyone should be free to do whatever they want, be it economically or socially, and there should be minimal impediment to doing so.
It's an ideology that looks reasonable on the surface, until you realize that economically, the freedom is one way traffic. Businesses should have the power to crush individual employees and wealthy individuals to crush the poor, both in the name of economic freedom. But according to the liberal, woe to them that try to rebalance the economic scales of power via things like unions or laws.
I used to think liberalism is great, but there is something very malformed about an ideology which inevitably leads to "take from the weak and give to the strong". That already is the nature of the world and it is our moral obligation to rise above it.
> They're libertarians-light, believing that everyone should be free to do whatever they want, be it economically or socially, and there should be minimal impediment to doing so.
Your comment is a (reasonable) critique of libertarianism, but you're presenting it as liberalism, which only confuses things more.
> But according to the liberal, woe to them that try to rebalance the economic scales of power via things like unions or laws.
People who know the difference between the two would not suggest unions or legislation to help smaller players in society is bad. A balance of strong laws, a constitution, and a varying amount of state control of the economy is part of the ideology.
> "take from the weak and give to the strong". That already is the nature of the world and it is our moral obligation to rise above it.
At least when I was in college, political science 101 started with Hobbes vs Locke, the "state of nature", "Leviathan" vs "Two Treatises" and how that rolls into the US Constitution. Smith, Bentham, then Mill vs Rawls (classical liberalism and freedom of opportunity, On Liberty, the "veil of ignorance" and A Theory of Justice) and even further into the distinction between modern and classical liberalism (freedom from vs freedom to, equality of outcome and how that starts merging with socialism with social democracy.) Even within 1st year courses we cover criticisms of liberalism (Nozick on the right, then Marx and Gramsci on the left) and mixing it up with libertarianism is not part of that critique.
We learn that liberalism was literally a response to "take from the weak" so to present it as a primary criticism is... interesting.
> We learn that liberalism was literally a response to "take from the weak" so to present it as a primary criticism is... interesting.
If 3M dumps PFAS-related chemicals into rivers that feed drinkwater, its good business. If you or I pour a few cups of PFAS-related chemicals into our neighbor's well, that'll get us arrested for poisoning.
That's why I said "minimum impediment", which is something you would usually associate with libertarianism. The current strain of Western liberalism has evolved even past libertarianism. At least with libertarianism, the state is supposed to protect you from force and fraud. With modern-day Western liberalism, the state de facto licenses businesses to poison and defraud you so long as it makes the economy grow.
So yes, currently, (neo?)liberalism seems to lead to eat the weak to feed the powerful. It might not say that outright, and its talking points might be more noble, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..
It's led to the point where as soon as I hear someone in the West declare that they're a liberal (again, non-US), I immediately assume their primary goal is to further the tearing down of the social fabric of society so that businesses have even more power to make number go up.
I heard the beauty of a statement "we will make 140.000 people on welfare even more destitute, so that it becomes more attractive to work minimum wage", from the main liberal party in The Netherlands, supposedly a beacon of liberalism. That is malicious, bordering on malevolent.
The common denominator between liberals isn't economics; it's an acceptance of differences.
There are political movements that are liberal and still bad, but there is no political movement I can think of that would be made worse by sticking Liberal- in front of it.
Democracy is one imo. And at the very least it's something I think we can agree is debatable.
Liberal democracy thinks the economy, even natural monopolies, should be organized around a free market of LLCs that all get to act self-interestedly.
Social democracy thinks the economy should be organized around state monopolies and a regulated market, along with public institutions for social and labor issues such as collective bargaining, unions, social safety nets and universal healthcare.
There is not 'one thing' alone that makes a system of government good.
Sverigedemokraterna are noteworthy because of their illiberalism, and not much else. What they complain about is not the Swedish safety net, but that there are people in Sweden (eg: Sami, arabs, etc) who don't look and think as they do.
What? that "one thing" is that everybody gets a say. Democracy gets made fun of, because three wolves a a sheep voting on dinner has an obvious problem, but under a dictatorship, the ruling party of three wolves over one sheep still has that probablm, so we shouldn't throw democracy out just yet.
The Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) is just the name of the political party. A more truthful name would be the Sweden Xenophobes.
At this point, the thread could get complicated because Democracy is yet another term that is 'orthogonal' to Liberalism. I must have mangled my comment horribly if it sounded like I was advocating for dictatorship!
To the contrary, my preferred form of government is Liberal Democracy, preferably with a strong social safety net (so if it's also a Social Democracy, that suits me well)
>For instance I'm conservative in economics (hear more capitalist) but reformist in morals (I like divorce, abortion and gay marriage). I vote for Macron therefore, who fits this.
What "conservative economics capitalist" things has Macron done to earn this description?
>Populist parties are [...] distracting everyone from the real issue we need the state to solve, like decentralizing power away from the capital with the increase in mobility, organizing matrimony with the change in demographics, policing crime during various immigration crisis or all that stuff we can all discuss calmly and reach compromises over.
Agree, but what have the non-populist parties done on solving those issues? Because from what I see, populist parties have been rapidly growing in popularity PRECISELY BECAUSE the "normie" parties have done absolutely fuck all in tackling those very important issues we've been having for 10+ years now.
Sure, all they do is calmly discuss those issues, and then do absolutely nothing about it, just kick the can down the road till the next election.
Then suddenly, out of nowhere, to everyone's surprise, the populist parties gained popularity for reasons nobody can explain. /s
I caught my mom watching a bunch of AI impersonations of musicians on Youtube singing slop that rarely rhymed or had any kind of message in the lyrics and with super formulaic arrangements. I asked her what she liked about them and it was like "they seem well made" and I showed her how easy Suno is to use and then showed her some of the bad missed rhymes and transcribed the lyrics to where she could see there wasn't any there there to any part of it (and how easy it is to get LLMs to generate better). It seemed to have been an antidote.
This is stuff that used to take effort and was worth consuming just for that, and lots of people don't have their filter adjusted (much as the early advent of consumer-facing email spam) to account for how low effort and plentiful these forms of content are.
I can only hope that people raise their filters to a point where scrutinizing everything becomes common place and a message existing doesn't lend it any assumed legitimacy. Maybe AI will be the poison for propaganda (but I'm not holding my breath).
The issue is that one could reasonably argue that about 95% of pop music is was already formulaic slop. Not just pejoratively, but much of it was even made by the same people. Everybody from Britney Spears to Taylor Swift and more modern acts are all being driven by one guy - 'Max Martin'. [1]
Once you see the songs he's credited with, you instantly start to realize it's painfully formulaic, but most people are happy to just bop their head to his formula of highly repetitive beats paired with simplistic and easy to sing 5-beat choruses.
Adam Conover discussed ad bumpers from the 1990s and 2000s. These were legal requirements for children's programming from the FCC. They're a compliance item, yet they were incredibly well made and creative in in many cases:
Because people at the top of their game will do great creative work even when doing commercial art and in many cases, will do way more than is perhaps commercially necessary.
So much of this AI push reminds me of the scene in 1984 where they had pornography generating machines creating completely uninspired formulaic brainrot stories by machine to occupy the proles.
You can take a thousand people and give them baseline technical skills for any medium. If you're lucky a few people out of your thousand will have a special kind of fluency that makes them stand out. from the rest.
Even more rarely you'll get someone who eats the technical skills alive and adds something original and unique which pushes them outside of the usual recycled tropes and cliches.
Martin is somewhere between those two. He's not a genius, but he's a rock solid pop writer, with a unique ear for hooks and drama, and stand-out arrangement skills.
System thinking please. Can every person in poverty become IT employed? Start a landscaping business? If they did would that likely cause a whole brand new set of problems? What jobs are these people currently doing? Don't those jobs need to be done? Can our society afford them to be done? Shouldn't anyone contributing to society (or legitimately unable to) be permitted to thrive? What could we do that would permit that? What do we do currently which harms it?
If there are jobs are legitimately not worth doing or paying someone to thrive while doing, why do those jobs exist? If these people aren't capable (or even willing) to do these jobs (or better jobs), why? How can we motivate or train people. (Lots of education, healthcare and especially psychotherapy are missing, I can tell you that.)
We can't solve poverty by thinking "well, some individuals might be able to solve theirs". It's a whole population, we have to solve for the whole population.
I think the mini PCs they're talking about are more likely to be N100 systems or similar that are sub 100 dollars new. Significantly less anemic, and their hardware media decode (which is well supported by software) is more than sufficient for realtime 4k playback.
In the US my best doctors produce out of date advice about obvious things, have a very distinct gap between "everyday" (stuff they actually see) and "incredibly rare" (stuff unique enough to be a case study they heard about) in their knowledge/understanding and rarely advise things that require me to be a proactive and rational person (because they don't serve these often), so they'll spend two seconds being like "diet and exercise" without a discussion on how that'd work or what adjustments I'd actually make (leaving me to do this research myself) and then suggest a prescription (because even their least proactive patient will probably take a pill). They'll wait until things become a disorder before addressing them (or discussing with me how to address them).
The worst will basically laugh me out of their office for daring to belong to a marginalized identity or failing to already have the health knowledge I'm there trying to gain from them.
Maybe I have awful luck... but I have very little faith at this point. The most effective relationship I had was with a hack who was willing to just prescribe whatever I asked him for and order whatever tests I asked him for (I think most of his patient base were college students seeking amphetamine salts).
Crude form: winning is metaphysically guaranteed because it probably happened or probably will
Refined: It's metaphysically impossible to tell whether or not it has or will have happened, so the distinction is meaningless, it has happened.
So... I guess Weir's Egg falls out of that particular line of thought?