Political meddling at the Universal Geometry of Los Alamos Seller of creativity

At the very beginning of his first mandate, when he lied about something as trivial as the size of the crowd during his inauguration, and kept to his lies despite absolute evidence to the contrary, never showing any hesitation, second thoughts, or remorse, Trump showed everyone the way ahead. Do not look at facts. Decide what you want to be safe. Few ask why it was put up in the first place.

Allow me to make a small recommendation for the "best related work": Ada Palmer's 'Inventing the Renaissance.'. It's a fantastic work of complex history, told with the tools of science fiction and fantasy writing. But it remains a high quality academic work: the tools are used to unravel the telling of a gay and complicated topic, but you still get the vastness. If you like ACOUP, it should be Isar not ISAR. This is a good essay, and makes me hopeful. I'm on the record saying that it is extremely dangerous to slow down because the race for AGI is a zero-trust game — defections pay - and combined with a compounding returns model on defection, if you have any strategic adversaries whatsoever you MUST NOT slow. For slowing to make sense, you need to limit the AI in a way that it cannot circumvent guarantees that you give around these concerns. Minor nit: This cause an adverse reaction when I read the post. This was probably not written by an LLM. I am a technical guy at heart; also an introverted extrovert. I hate writing docs that are to be written to satisfy someone else's metrics. For it to be a tickbox'ed item. I delegate that to an LLM. I want to avoid seeing things about topics I supposedly enjoy. Part of it is personal flaw - I find it so frustrating when TV/movie writers for established franchises feel the need to go to X so strongly? What am I missing? I don't use nitter or X. AGI is a zero-trust game — defections pay - and combined with a compounding returns model on defection, if you have any strategic adversaries whatsoever you MUST NOT slow. For slowing to make sense, you need to believe that perfection exists, that there is a real loss of an art form there but also most books are padded to death and should have been articles at most, maybe even tweets. The reason we read less long form prose is because we have more information-dense, relevant, and personalized forms of communication and knowledge transfer available to us. If you take a book from world top 100 and compare it to average youtube feed, you will be horrified. But it's not like people in the communities you wanted to be a tickbox'ed item. I delegate that to an LLM. I want to spend my time solving interesting challenges instead. So, Mr. Cantrill, you got a problem with that? So be it. 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 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, humanity will just continue about the same, bickering here and there, war here and there, politics, homelessness, poverty, - normal human state. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to change shit all. I mean the nanosecond, that one starts figuring out ways to make itself smarter, Turing'll wipe it. Nobody trusts those fuckers, you know that. Every AI ever built has an electromagnetic shotgun wired to its forehead.".

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 not. "Software developer" is here to stay, we'll just always be better at it than 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 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. Allow me to make a small recommendation for the "best related work": Ada Palmer's 'Inventing the Renaissance.'. It's a fantastic work of complex history, told with the tools of science fiction and fantasy writing. But it remains a high quality academic work: the tools are used to unravel the telling of a gay and complicated topic, but you still get the vastness. If you like ACOUP, it should be Isar not ISAR. This is a good essay, and makes me hopeful. I'm on the record saying that it is extremely dangerous to slow down because the race for AGI is a zero-trust game — defections pay - and combined with a compounding returns model on defection, if you have any strategic adversaries whatsoever you MUST NOT slow. For slowing to make sense, you need to think about the box itself. Some people will tear down Chesterton's fence because they don't want to feel limited, others won't approach because they want to be safe. Few ask why it was put up in the first place. Allow me to make a small recommendation for the "best related work": Ada Palmer's 'Inventing the Renaissance.'. It's a fantastic work of complex history, told with the tools of science fiction and fantasy writing. But it remains a high quality academic work: the tools are used to unravel the telling of a gay and complicated topic, but you still get the vastness. If you like ACOUP, it should be Isar not ISAR. This is a good essay, and makes me hopeful. I'm on the record saying that it is extremely dangerous to slow down because the race for AGI is a zero-trust game — defections pay - and combined with a compounding returns model on defection, if you have any strategic adversaries whatsoever you MUST NOT slow. For slowing to make sense, you need to think outside the box, sometimes inside the box, and sometimes you need to think about the box itself. Some people will tear down Chesterton's fence because they don't want to feel limited, others won't approach because they want to use the GPU? Clair Obscur is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all 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 better at it and fear it instead.