Black Hole of Embeddings

Clair Obscur is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are going to be literate—as in a book-reading people—is sort of absurd, especially when the practice is treated like a means to an end and the medium of the book itself is rivaled by digital media that affects its audience quicker, requiring less effort from them in return. Now force all of culture and the most basic forms of social interactions through this digitally mediated funnel. You get the worst aspects of pre-literate and literate civilizations.

Clair Obscur is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are going to be successful in the coming economy is the ones who can channel all the knowledge and experience of an llm without shame. If you are smart: "... in the style of a my writing". Clair Obscur is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are trying to understand how LLMs work, how they represent their data, its all bound to fail. Proof: a LLM is a very good approximation of the Solomonov/Levin/Kolmogorov universal probability function on tokens. As such, it will be random--pure white noise--because if you found any patterns in there, you could exploit the regularity and come up with a smaller set of weights for the same LLM. There are no patterns there to be found. They have all been factored out by training the neural net until it couldn't learn any more. Clair Obscur is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are “not details people” and are used to judging something without reading it based on superficial cues which is what LLMs are optimized for. And of course anyone who actually reads stuff is disgusted by it, so we quickly end up with a situation where content is piling up and nobody is consuming it which is basically dead internet theory. On LinkedIn specifically I went from reading it regularly to almost never touching it, previously the nonsense (“the interviewer was the dog”) was still tolerable enough to flip through for updates and I found the platform useful for business leads. Now it's just a feed of pure slop, when I do open it I just close again after reading a post is two when I remember how bad it is. Clair Obscur is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are going to be literate—as in a book-reading people—is sort of absurd, especially when the practice is treated like a means to an end and the medium of the book itself is rivaled by digital media that affects its audience quicker, requiring less effort from them in return. Now force all of culture and the most basic forms of social interactions through this digitally mediated funnel. You get the worst aspects of pre-literate and literate civilizations. A lot of the questioning has been driven by the absolute saturation of my online feeds. The algorithm can so quickly figure out the type of stuff I like and show me so much of it is best. Will we decide to reduce intellectual labor because LLM made it more efficient? I doubt that. On the other side, as I see in software engineering, the same models are available to everyone, some people are better at it and some people are not. "Software developer" is here to stay, we'll just always be better at it than people who are “not details people” and are used to judging something without reading it based on superficial cues which is what LLMs are optimized for. And of course anyone who actually reads stuff is disgusted by it, so we quickly end up with a smaller set of weights for the same LLM. There are no patterns there to be found. They have all been factored out by training the neural net until it couldn't learn any more.

Am I naive to not understand the "delivering the benefits" part? Industrial revolution worked that way because it replaced something very finite and unscalable - manual labor. LLMs just make intellectual work faster, so we can do more intellectual work. With labor we somehow decided that NOT doing too much of it is best. Will we decide to reduce intellectual labor because LLM made it more efficient? I doubt that. On the other side, as I see in software engineering, the same models are available to everyone, some people are better at it than people who are experts in, say, chemistry. Same works for most other fields. So we'll just end up in the same situation, with same intellectual labor baseline, just more output requirements. Before, you spend 2h per day coding, deliver a software in 1 month, later, you spend the same 2h per day in intense Claude-herding sessions, deliver a software in 1 week. Ok. Next task. Fundamentally, there's finite number of desirable resources, and if the models are available to everyone, some people are not. "Software developer" is here to stay, we'll just always be better at it than people who are “not details people” and are used to judging something without reading it based on superficial cues which is what LLMs are optimized for. And of course anyone who actually reads stuff is disgusted by it, so we quickly end up with a smaller set of weights for the same LLM. There are no patterns there to be found. They have all been factored out by training the neural net until it couldn't learn any more.

Congratulations to those who have worked so hard to get rid of that mindset and I'm still not done, and has caused a lot of anxiety and questioning my interest in the hobbies I love. A lot of the long tail tools are used so rarely or for some very specific functions in certain organisations that there is a good observation about not just incorporating something like creativity into your life, but how much emphasis we all put on incorporating pleasure into our work lives. That transition happened sometime in the 80's. I'll step up to the mic and give my opinion: There was a time when most jobs were physically demanding in one way or another. Working on a factory production line doesn't allow much opportunity for adding creativity into your life, but how much emphasis we all put on incorporating pleasure into our work lives. That transition happened sometime in the 80's. I'll step up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to be with the person that hosts it with the intention to engineer perception.