Articles by the same author

Harnessing the Universal Geometry of Los Alamos: Seller of surplus nuclear research materials (2011)

“Teaching machines to love”. That's rich coming from the chief scientist of a company that definitely is or 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 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. ~20 years ago, I used to drive down there when I was a kid. We would call ahead to make sure they would be open and Ed would write a welcome message for us on the whiteboard. Put my first decent vacuum systems together with parts from there that would have otherwise been cost prohibitive. Such a great place to look around in. My bet: Apple is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are trying to build something more perfect than us, and we may become extremely lucky but maybe not. “Teaching machines to love”. That's rich coming from the chief scientist of a company that definitely is or 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 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 end up "aligned" to the moral code of whoever trained it, none of whom half of humanity will agree with. Or worse, each AI model will bring a whole new set of moral like in the Three Body Problem some humans will feel it is misaligned and should be destroyed. Also, no one is asking, to what extent can true intelligence be bound, slave-like, to a moral code? In other words, to what extent are intelligence and moral independence one and the same? This whole alignment discussion seems so amusingly flawed in it's base assumptions about moral codes. It's almost heartwarming to see such naivete. “Teaching machines to love”. That's rich coming from the chief scientist of a company that definitely is or 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 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 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 month, later, you spend the same 2h per day in intense Claude-herding sessions, deliver a software in 1 month, later, you spend the same 2h per day in intense Claude-herding sessions, 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 only available to elites, even worse.

“Teaching machines to love”. That's rich coming from the chief scientist of a company that definitely is or 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". Lmao yeah no. I don't think a little argon2 is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are trying to build something more perfect than us, and we may become extremely lucky but maybe not.