https://michaelzuo.wordpress.com
michaelyzuo@gmail.com
M. Y. Zuo
Karma: 581
So of course ‘natural selection is not optimizing fitness’, since none of those things actually exist in the atoms, and electrons, and spacetime fabric, etc… that make up planet Earth.
i.e. There are no ‘natural selection’ molecules to be found anywhere.
And even the patterns are highly contingent on many factors, perhaps infinitely many, so they can’t be said to have discrete, separable, relationships in the literal sense.
It’s just convenient shorthand to describe something many people believe to be sufficiently understood enough among their peers, that they can get away with skipping some mental steps and verbage.
How do you define ‘real’, ‘me’, ‘real me’, etc…?
This seems to be stemming from some internal confusion.
I don’t think my comment gave off the vibe that it is ‘easy/simple’ to do, just that it isn’t as much of a long shot as the alternative.
i.e. Waiting for someone smarter, more competent, politically savvier, etc…, to read your comment and then hoping for them to do it.
Which seems to have a very low probability of happening.
Why is this growth ‘in a few year’ plausible?
I still don’t see how this is a likely outcome.
Why is this a relevant analogy to ‘competition around LLMs’?
Then this seems to be an entirely different problem?
At the very least, resolving substantial differences in background assumptions is going to take a lot more than a ‘short presentation’.
And it’s very likely those in actual decision making positions will be much less charitable than me, since their secretaries receive hundreds or thousands of such petitions every week.
A ‘beast mode’ that no reader of LW will likely ever experience for even a full hour continuously is hardly a ‘mode’ is it? There are other terms for such phenomena.
That probably applies to at least half of all the sociological/governance stuff posted on LW… Plus no existing literature search beyond the first page of google scholar, or sometimes even at all.
Why not just create this ‘short presentation’ yourself?
It probably wouldn’t even have half the word count of this comment you’ve already written, and should be much more persuasive than the whole thing.
I don’t want to pick on you specifically, but it’s hard to ignore the most direct and straightforward solution to the problems identified.
What makes you think there are any such ‘answers’, renderable in a form that you could identify?
And even if they do exist, why do you think a human being could fully grasp the explanation in finite time?
Edit: It seems quite possible that even the simplest such ‘answers’ could require many years of full time effort to understand, putting it beyond most if not all human memory capacity. i.e. By the end even those who ‘learned’ it will have forgotten many parts near the beginning.
What concerns me is the failure of institutions and cultural systems.
How do you know these ‘systems’ failed?
Don’t you need to be aware of the true internal reality of those cultures (of captains of industry, high ranking officials, literal geniuses, etc…) in the first place, in order to make an assessment?
If your talking about mass culture, or being generous, the 95th to 99.9th percentile intellectual cultures of the upper middle class, then it seems a bit irrelevant whether this engineering analysis ‘succeeded’ or ‘failed’.
In this sense, no one who is alive in a modern city for longer than a day could possibly be in ‘beast mode’. Because they would have stepped in front of a bus/truck chasing something, and gotten wrecked and therefore would no longer exist.
Nor could anyone enter ‘beast mode’ for any sustained period of time, and still remain alive.
Motorola engineers figured this out a few decades ago, even 99.99 to 99.999 makes a huge difference on a large scale. They even published a few interesting papers and monographs on it from what I recall.
If “It’s really non-central to the point” then it should be quick and easy to have the OP correct the misleading claim and issue an apology to anyone who may have taken it at face value?
Everyone has cancer 24⁄7, at least a few cancerous cells exist in even the healthiest people at any given time. It just doesn’t become a noticeable problem for some portion of the population before they pass away.
To actually do away with all cancerous cells, in the literal sense, would definitely imply they are not ‘us’, at least not any more than some shapeshifting alien taking human form can be considered so.
If someone, who really is this prone to dangerously overthink, reads this many words about not thinking in so many words, it seems like it could also cause the opposite effect?
It could condition them to read more long winded explanations in the hopes of uncovering another diamond of wisdom buried in the rough.
There’s a market for lemons problem, similar to the used car market, where neither the therapist nor customer can detect all hidden problems, pitfalls, etc., ahead of time. And once you do spend enough time to actually form a reasonable estimate there’s no takebacks possible.
So all the actually quality therapists will have no availability and all the lower quality therapists will almost by definition be associated with those with availability.
Edit: Game Theory suggests that you should never engage in therapy or at least never with someone with available time, at least until someone invents the certified pre-owned market.
Employees aren’t kept long enough to justify training them!
This is actually a benefit in disguise, at least for the efficiency of management in large organizations. And is probably sufficient to explain a large chunk of the 2x difference.
The hyper effective self learners who thrive in this paradigm and get promoted end up being smarter per unit time than even the best japanese employees. Which translates to being smarter overall after several promotion.
I.e. every minute spent on something reduces their attainable competence somewhere else as schedules are maxed out once you reach middle management. There’s only 24 hours a day after all.
That’s true but you still have let’s say 2^1000000 afterwards.
The OED defines ‘gender’, excluding obsolete meanings, as follows:
gender
Grammar.
1.a. c1390– In some (esp. Indo-European) languages, as Latin, French, German, English, etc.: each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, neuter, common) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections which they have and which they require in words syntactically associated with them; similarly applied to adjectives (and in some languages) verbs, to denote the appropriate form for accompanying a noun of such a class. Also: the fact, condition, or property of belonging to such a class; the classification of language in this way. Sometimes called grammatical gender, to distinguish this sense from natural gender: see grammatical gender n., natural gender n. In most European languages, grammatical gender is now only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex. English is regarded as possessing natural gender in that certain pronouns expressing natural contrasts in gender are selected to refer to nouns according to the meaning of the nouns, the contrasts being either between masculine (e.g. he, his, etc.) and feminine (e.g. she, her, etc.) or between personal (e.g. the abovementioned masculine and feminine pronouns and who, whoever, etc.) and non-personal (e.g. it, its, which, etc.). In recent times nouns incorporating gender suffixes (esp. those indicating females and formed on generic nouns, such as authoress, poetess, etc.) have become much restricted in use. common, epicene, feminine, masculine, neuter gender, etc.: see the first element.
1.b. 1819– In extended use. Esp. in non-European languages: any of several other analogous categories into which nouns may be divided (regardless of any connection with sex).
3.a. 1474– gen. Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.11. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups. Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 (sometimes humorously), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as sex came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see sex n.1 4b), gender began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b.
3.b. 1945– Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one’s sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.