diedyesterday

1. The initial stage of adoption of AI will be more of a shift (some plus + here and some minus there) and reorientation and restructuring than net exponential growth.

2. Also a good portion of contribution of AI is where it's not taken into account by metrics like GDP. I have seen an explosion of FOSS projects especially in my own area and I'm sure it's pretty much are the case for many other areas.

3. Also there will be a sink-like effect with effects of AI on net wealth production. Like Earth's own oxygenation event which took billions for the produced oxygen to (after saturating all the sinks like Earth' iron reserves and turning them to Iron ore) ultimately find its way into the atmosphere.

4. Also I'm not sure what is exactly being counted on as contribution of AI to economy. Is the data-center build-outs and growth of chip companies,etc. included in this metric in AI's favor? ...

Syria became a hell for its citizen exactly because Obama run away from enforcing the very red line (chemical weapons) he himself had drawn (for himself). He basically allowed the massacre to escalate.

Your simplistic recipe shows you don't understand the situation and way for improvement in either case.

You obviously seem to have no idea how mafia-style dictatorships like those of Iran, Russian and Venezuela work. No fault of you. Most people don't.

And even their own citizens come to the realization after a long time living under them; partly because they get caught in the constant propaganda campaign which is one hallmark of these regimes. They always live in the propaganda mode.

Google is still far far better than the competition which is crawling with manipulated results and fake sites and phishing scams. The other are so much easier to take advantage of and manipulate (e.g. search ranking). No security based filtering ,etc.

I have been personally bitten by results on the likes of Bing or DDG (fake browser addons on top, crypto phishing sites on top, etc.)

Also user experience varies somewhat and for me with the same search prompt ("midjourney"), the intended site is the first result.

To me its function looks similar to a sponge or a tampon: An additional piece that absorbs the external influence and then is subtracted away (you remain dry:)))

Regarding the conclusion about language-invariant reasoning (conceptual universality vs. multilingual processing) it helps understanding and becomes somewhat obvious if we regard each language as just a basis of some semantic/logical/thought space in the mind (analogous to the situation in linear algebra and duality of tensors and bases).

The thoughts/ideas/concepts/scenarios are invariant states/vector/points in the (very high dimensional) space of meanings in the mind and each language is just a basis to reference/define/express/manipulate those ideas/vectors. A coordinatization of that semantic space.

Personally, I'm a multilingual person with native-level command of several languages. Many times it happens, I remember having a specific thought, but don't remember in what language it was. So I can personally sympathize with this finding of the Anthropic researchers.

So Erdogan wants to be Putin of Turkey. It's up to the Turks if he can succeed.

...until they distill that "11x efficient training" again ...

Don't forget that this model probably has far less params than o1 or even 4o. This is a compression/distillation, which means it frees up so much compute resources to build models much powerful than o1. At least this allows further scaling compute-wise (if not in the amount of, non-synthetic, source material available for training).

He seems to have won an ACM award also and there as a (possible) picture of him there. https://awards.acm.org/award-recipients/burrows_9434147

Reminds me of how Google's AlphaGo learned to play the best Go that was ever seen. And this somewhat seems a generalization of that.

Sam Altman and OpenAI are following the example of Celebrimbor it seems. And I love what may come next...

A linear graph with a log scale on the vertical axis means the original graph had near exponential growth.

A linear graph with a log scale on the the horizontal axis means the original graph had law of diminishing return kick it (somewhat similar to logarithmic but with a vertical asymptote).

"Safe super-intelligence" is an oxymoron.

Exactly. That's what I also thought the last time someone brought this up in these forums (couple of years ago). It's a hint to the structure of the brain and also the mind (we can observe it at the consciousness level in ourselves and others, too). Algorithmic (von Neumann) computers/programs do not usually exhibit this; but neural networks do.

If we are good readers, a book helps up achieve better generalization (in the machine learning sense). That's its main contribution not the specific facts it contained.

Yeah, but evolution's most "clever" invention is consciousness, human brain and its highest state philosophy. It's all the work of evolution.

Evolution's most "clever" turn and invention is it achieving self-consciousness (we are its "self consciousness")

"Is it really possible that this space is so rich as to have a single point in it encapsulate a whole novel?"

Not with this GPT. The context size would not allow keeping attention to the total meaning of more than 2048 tokens (as reflected in the transformed embedding of that context's last token). For a substantial part of a novel, it would require a much larger context size with then presumably will need a higher dimensional embedding/semantic space.

Do not be fooled by the simplicity; The magic itself is in the many Q, K and V matrices (each of which is huge) which are learned and depend on the language(s). This is just the form of the application of those matrices/transformations: Making the embedding for the last token of a context "attend to" (hence attention) all information (at all layers of meaning and not just syntactic or semantic meaning but logical, scientific, poetic, discoursal, etc. => multi-head attention) contained in the context so far.

Any complex function can be made to look simple in some representation (e.g its Fourier series or Taylor series, etc.).

And even then it's only a disguise. The two degrees-of-freedom which a complex numbers has, are still there (and QM needs it for interference, etc.). There is not way getting around the number of degrees-of-freedom of a system or a theory. It's as "real" as it gets.

I don't think complex numbers are entirely without "fundamental physical basis"; Distinct antiparticles (antimatter) could be said to be the manifestation of complex numbers in the physical world. The important thing to keep in mind about complex numbers is that they have 2 degrees-of-freedom (DoFs); Analogously if a quantum field has two DoFs (that couple in a certain way) it is said to be a complex field and it will have two kinds of distinct particles.

Real-valued (operator) fields (like the photon field) do not have distinct particles (a photon is its own antiparticle)

I can elaborate more if needed.

Of course the rate of expansion is not constant; That's the whole deal with dark energy which is understood to drive accelerated expansion of space due to its negative pressure (when you make something with negative pressure larger in volume you have to do positive work on it or give it energy and that energy is dark energy).

But the Hubble tension is something else: It's about measurements of H0 (the current value of the Hubble parameter) using two different methods (early universe and CMB OR recent universe and supernovae, etc.) that do not agree. The disagreement is about two estimations of the current rate of expansion called H0; Everyone agrees H(t) has been increasing (=accelerating expansion); But accelerating toward which recession velocity is the question.

That explanation closely follows the outline of the equally good and very accessible explanation offered in the Halliday/Resnick/Walker's Fundamental's physics (11 edition, chap. 41)

So this guy is basically complaining about GPT-4 not being a super-intelligence. Still that makes it more powerful and versatile thae the great majority of programmers out there.... And the game is only getting started. This is just the warmup.

At the deepest level, this is all a manifestation of Godel's incompleteness theorem (equivalent to Turing's undecidability theorem).

You cannot build a system capable of "fiction" (Russel's formal axiomatic system or a physical computer or the real physical world itself, etc.) and then restrict it from breaking the rules of the outer "real, physical" world in its inner "fictional" world (but at a different level); No matter how many additional axioms you keep adding to your system.

This reminds me of actions of Putin's mafia regime in Russia. Has India which occasionally prides itself in being a "democracy with the rule of law" fallen to this level! That the government there can do things like this (which also reminds me of Watergate) without serious consequences is not a good thing and a good showing for India.

The situation here seems to have a deep isomorphism to Gödel's incompleteness theorem....

This is a misunderstanding of AI (Stable Diffusion etc.), IMHO. The relation of AI-generated art, trained on human-generated art, to human creativity, is almost the same relation as human-generated art and history of human art and creativity to the nature/world/universe itself, as the ultimate source of all inspiration and creativity. The underlying neural networks (in humans [getting inspiration from nature] and in AI [getting "inspiration" from human-art]) work is (somewhat) similar ways.

AI (generated art) is just another derived layer on top of that and which is still in its infancy.

Fundamentally, "mass" is nothing other than "confined energy". Whenever you have a mechanism for confining energy (Higgs mechanism; or a force which binds and creates a bound state) the combined package has inertial "mass"; This means: It cannot move at speed of light (c), it can change its speed and it takes energy to change its speed (a "massless" particles does none of this).

The famous thought-experiment in the regard is Einstein's "photons-box": If you could confine a bunch of massless photons (which only have kinetic energy and momentum) inside a (massless) box made out of mirrors, (he argues) the combined package would have "mass", even though the constituents do not (and the emergent "mass" equals E=m c^2 !). In other words, "mass" is an emergent property of the confined ensemble. All of the forces (especially the strong force), create bound-states which are massive and are the exact analogues of this "photon-box".

So the mass of a proton (mostly) comes from the kinetic energy of its confined (by the strong force) constituents (the quarks and gluons).

Is that surprising?! That's a kind of optimization with not always optimum results.