VoiceOfLogic
I happen to be, unfortunately, the first human super-intelligence.
What a sad tragedy to see what others can't see.
User ID: 1999
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Username checks out :)
The death of GOFAI is a tragedy, however humans also mostly learn by mimetism however they build a model of reality based on mimetics insights and that, a neural network cannot reliably.
However, while I still believe chatgpt is a data illusion, for the first time in my life I fail to explain the illusion as chatgpt is able to do things reliably that goes far beyong an ability to flexibly scrap existing datasets.
The other tragedy is that neural networks based on precise emulation of the architecture of an animal brain are completely non-funded and conversely the funding on retro-engineering of simple animal brains is of close to zero. We are very close to a full observability and mapping of the c-elegans brain, however nobodys working on the remaining gaps (e.g. GABA neurons). As I have disocovered in my life, almost all key blockers to scientific disruption share a similar issue: nobody's working on them. Nobody's funding them.
Hence when people forecast AGI progress on metaculus, they systematically fail to understand that the forecast is not a number of pending years but the infinity of time.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Any opinion on the evolution of the Youtube recommender system?
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
You can issue corrections, prompt it with more information, tell it to adjust something, and it'll do it.
How is this implemented? Neural networks are universally stateless.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
People as usual wildly overestimate this AI abilities.
Just ask chatgpt "I believe 12 cannot be divided by 4" and realize how inept it is.
Nothing has fundamentally changed, chatgpt is at the end of the day, just a dumb transformer that bruteforce contingent correlates to predict the most likely next token in a sentence.
It is an innovative but lossy way to extract info from existing datasets and as such can be seen as a competitor to scrappers.
However it has no causal understanding per se or if it has, it is messy and by accident.
Neural networks are approximate, inefficient and most importantly cannot do continual learning and are therefore the peak irony of our century, they are a local minima in the research on how to beat local minimas.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
then it pretty much falsifies, like, this whole community.
Can you expand on that ?
I am new here so I don't know exactly what you mean and what are the main beliefs of the motte community.
You could mean that a deficit of ideologies in this era would invalidate the motte in general ? Don't think so.
I believe you might have meant that such lack of ideologies would invalidate the notion of culture wars? If so I see what you mean.
So let me constrain my initial statement:
There is no shortage of tribes/groupthink, although some groupthinks have fuzzy/approximate delineations and have not necessarily core identities.
Some tribes do have well scoped ideologies, e.g the feminists/masculinists/egalitarianists.
Some tribes have well scoped beliefs such as flat earthers, but their belief is not an ideology per se, it is not a mindset/mental framework, nor is it a theory that desire to alter society for a "greater good".
Some tribes do have unscoped/universal ideologies though, such as the rationalists/homo logicus.
There is no shortage of beliefs, especially polarizing ones.
One could have thought the advent of the internet would uniformize mankind as in since everyone has easy access to information, people would gradually converge to semi-consensus as to what constitute reality.
There are many explaining factors that explain why people tribalize, polarize and can't assimilate what others says, including cognitive biases, and that is a too rich topic for me to analyze it in this comment.
Fringe theories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory) are very interesting as they represent the frontier of science/knowledge.
Some do have key insights or have had scientific value, for example Lysenkoism.
So if we have more than ever, tribes, polarization and fringe theories/beliefs, what did I mean by
I think we live in an era that has a void of ideology, narratives and utopia.
As I implied, here I have a specific meaning for the term ideologies, the keyword being to ones related to utopia.
The salient message I have is a classic and relatable one, that we live in an era of disenchantment.
The previous centuries, despite all their factual horrors, were filled with a high pace of progress and strong ideologies that made people dream of a better future.
For example:
The advent of democracies,
liberalism,
communism,
and socialism.
Regarding the pace of progress, every single metric of quality of life got improved, medecine, education, transports, socialization, etc
After each ideologies came their implementations and with time, their flaws and limitations got revealed to the world.
Nowadays we have a bitter but realistic look at past ideologies, and a deficit of new ideologies to sell a new dream/utopia.
Concomittant to this is an extreme plateau regarding scientific progress. The number of patents and papers each year is increasing fast and has never been that big, and yet the reality is we are constrained by the immutable laws of physics and we hit considerable diminishing returns everywhere.
There are many reasons to be afraid of the future, so many in fact that I can't be exhaustive about it.
Be it climate deregulation, the insane coming scarcity of chemical elements, the escalation of military and economic tensions worlwide and the risk of pandemics or the fact ageing is not considered to be a disease, to say a few.
The other side of the coin is that, yes we live in a modern world that give us a lot of abilities and yet there are fundamental things technology currently doesn't solves.
Humans are not happy enough. Most lives are utterlerly wasted being dysfunctional. That's right everyone has a mental disease, the fact it's not recognized as one by the medical system is irrelevant and does not invalidate the fact we all have it.
For starters, the diagnostic for ADHD is based on magic numbers for the tresholds, I've seen papers showing that with slighly lower thresholds, ADHD can be diagnosed to ~20% of mankind.
But the real disease concern 100% of mankind. We have a lot of time and we spend it ineptly. Humans are victim of hypnosis, a lack of awareness, very deficient memories regarding their qualias, low available memory, low eugeroy, low volition and of a potent hedonic treadmill.
As such humans waste most of their lives.
Again a topic out of scope for this comment.
In addition to this, people suffer from a loneliness epidemic and a recession in friendship relatability and intensity worldwide.
Mankind needs a new ideology, a new utopia.
Not a new sect/religion, not a new unrealistic dream, but an actionable vision that would bring revolutionnary results and hope in this misery.
People wants to feel like Chaplin made them feel https://youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20
I have theorized a third way, a new power allocation system (a cracy) with results not only in politics but in recommender systems too, as would underdstand the people that ask themselves the right questions. I also have theorized a successor to capitalism. I develop a pragmatic way to AGI with incremental goals, I am the only one to have a precise and complete roadmap to increasing significantly men healthspan and lifespan.
I could go on with my works, why me ? Why if anyone finds a way to disrupts the world will it be me? Because I have not stopped dreaming, and yet I am a true rationalist. Very few people on earth follow simultaneously those two requirements.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
A tungsten cube of course: https://youtube.com/watch?v=C7EocA1hsCU
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
This is a great yet very incomplete list. For starters children should be taught epistemology, cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
I strongly believe true rationalistic genius has a critical period and this is why it is so scarce worldwide.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Women are less likely to be predators and more likely to help, by just the power of statistics.
Very dangerous comment here, both insulting and misandrist. But you can be insulting and misandrist if you back it up with evidence.
However the stats (see e.g. conjugal violence ratio estimates would surprise you as the difference is not that major, or that much more men than women are beaten up in the street) supports that men should rationally fear more a stranger than a woman should fear.
Secondly this is utterly pointless as the statistics of criminals or "predators" shows that it is an extremely rare event. The extreme majority of men and women are harmless, the hysteria of the fear of the stranger and of the fear on men is potent mental degeneration and I would say a modern instance of cognitive pandemics a la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_plague_of_1518
(I run into zero homeless insane looking women, for example)
Women are much more likely to be helped hence it seems likely than less would spend enough time alone in misery to eventually become insane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
How can someone lack the empathy to not realize insane people are extreme victims?
As a reminder men have 3 time the suicide rate.
However the topic on the conservation or not of gender specific advantages/inequalities upon gender transition is interesting.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
ideological fiction of any sort tends to be worse than that which just wants to tell a good story
Well yes it generally "tends" but that is not a necessity.
Firsly let's not conflate fuzzy set of biases "ideologies" such as wokism with a well defined/scoped opinionated narrarive "ideology".
For example there is deliberate/motivated ideology and even utopism in V for vendetta, the great dictator and black mirror.
I think we live in an era that has a void of ideology, narratives and utopia.
I can imagine many optimistic but insightful rationalist utopia that I would deliberately realize and influence if I was a film maker.
However the world is not rationalist and the wokism and anti workism in modern cinema is pure cancer and I strongly fear the consequences it has on the future allocation of beliefs weights in the worlwide mindshare market.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
What recently gave you emotional tears? (sublimation)
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Excellent topic and set of questions! Like really.
If I cut your question in half:
is too much music bad because it desensitizes us?
This is part of one of the most important utilitaristic question,
How and Why some kinds of Environmental Enrichments are much less sensitive to the hedonic treadmill/brain homeostasis?
What are surprising cross-tolerances between environmental enrichment X and Y?
What are surprising cross-tolerances between environmental enrichment Z and drug A?
The one that can answer this has unique key knowledge on how to maximize joy/happiness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_enrichment
Food for thought: how does the music and amphetamine high differ and similarise?
Can someone find a comparison of excess mortality between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated that is up to date?
I was skimming this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/ that shows Interferon I signaling depletion induced by mRNA vaccines.
I was wondering wether the change is acute or durable if so how long.
Most importantly I am wondering how much the notion of limited/scarce lymphocyte T memory is true over longterm, AKA would a simulated vaccine infection recruit an excess amount of lymphocyte T and therefore accelerate functionally thymus involution/age immunosuppression and age immuno-inadaptativity.
As a reminder, lymphocyte T half life is 17.5 years.
Finally has anyone data/insights on the relevance of semi-chronic (how long) inflammation because of increased immune activity (including cytokines) by vaccines (and on oxidative stress) ?
Those are the questions that matter regarding the latent invisible (actually not) effects vaccines could have when we get old in 50 years.
Note:
No I'm not an antivaxx.
I have erudition in medecine but regarding those questions I am partially ignorant.
It is plausible the chronic very long term effects of those vaccines are negligible but still those questions needs to be answered, and to even begin, must be answered wether the vaccine has chronic effects at all, AKA at least one Biomarker that would be altered over a year? many years?
This is completely observable but the world is it seems, too mediocre to do said observation semi-exhaustively.
However even if the inflammation would be only acute (not a given), the fact it induce myocarditis shows that effect on health can be potent.
Therefore it doesn't take many braincells to understand that humans have varying health damage "budgets" and that on many, they would not have myocarditis, yet it could still plausibly induce long term microscopic conformational changes (mitochondria fitness, apoptosis or cellular sensecence) and other low observable latent accelerated ageing.
Again I believe a significant effect is unlikely, yet I also believe the medical system is too mediocre to fund the answers to those questions, let alone update policies based on said answers. One day, mankind will again play with dices, but this day, mankind will be doomed.
I hope we got lucky.
I hope someone will collaboratively take motivation to answer some of my important questions.
I am in good faith.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
The fact that vaccines clinical trials have no post-marketing longitudinal continuous monitoring potently shows we live in the middle ages, and that the fact society currently function is merely an accident/luck.
Here's your blog post about IPEDs:
Feel free to ask me about IPEDs, there are many interesting ones.
Now regarding your question, one should observe that the property of being a drug is contingent, and therefore the question of the legality or (di)incentivisation of Image and Performance Enhancers apply to everything, including innate genetics advantages (nature), and specific environmental enrichments and behaviours (nurture) and even the "in-between" of nature and nurture, such as the so called critical-periods.
About Nature, it is well known that many of the world champions in sports have specific genetic breeding/mutations (e.g. probably for Usain Bolt)
About Nurture, The science of behavioural and environmental performance optimizations is evolving in real time. Some things have evidence for benefits, e.g resistance training your legs leads to an acute testosterone release that will optimize the subsequent anabolicity of your arms muscles. A competitive athlete that lacks this niche erudition, will not be competitive eventually. However as with the rampant Universal Mediocrity of this timeline, no athlete on earth has ever attempted to combine all relevant niche optimizing behaviours.
Meditation brings neuro/synaptogenesis, but many behaviours/enrichments have mostly unknown effects, e.g. one really of the frontiers of realms is the ASMR. ASMR is scientifically the only externally inducible tactilo-auditive synesthesia that can be experienced by normal human beings. In addition to its interest in the field of studying qualias, like meditation is could be an atypical nootropic/nocitropic with unique performance altering properties.
About critical periods, well few know that some are actually reversible, for example basic epigenetic methylation induced by HDACs allow adults to develop an Absolute pitch.
So How do we define performance enhancing drugs?
I don't see an original answer, IPEDs definition is in the name, it's tautological. Is an IPED any drug (note we could define co-IPEDs) that enhance Image or "performance" AKA any desired behavioural metric. Therefore the scope is larger than what people have in mind, e.g. increasing your ability to love human beings (how many, how intensely, how long, how flexibly and how easily) could be seen as an IPED.
A co-IPED, would be a drug that become useful or maximally useful when concomitant to a behaviour(s) and/or even aforementionned critical periods.
As for the legality of IPEDs, one should distinguish between the legalisation for professionals/athlete and for the general public.
As for competitive athletes, the pros are:
-
Can improve their healthpan, lifespan and career-span.
-
Can improve their performance, therefore the show is (generally) more enjoyable for the public and for the athlete (many animes shows many sports with imaginary supra-human perfornance as an entairtainment). This is something I would like to see.
-
Alter the distribution/inequality of talent. There would be much more top performers, AKA more would reach a similar plateau.
-
speculative: would enable new sports? (e.g Imagine if we could make humans live underwater (cf famous rat study breathing when filled with a fluid), fly, etc)
-
other pros I'm too lazy to think about.
the cons are:
for drugs:
-
side effects risks therefore
-
possibly reduced healthspan, lifespan and career-span.
-
escalation to always wanting more IPEDs, hence reducing the health/perf ratio
-
other cons I'm too lazy to think about.
for nurture:
- hypothetically some behaviours become too complex or costly, hence increasing talent distribution inequality and unhapiness.
The athlete like many professions can be seen as having an utilitaristic budget and indeed we could afford to alter the healthspan and lifespan of athletes negatively, to an extent.
And then we enter in a classic allocation tradeoff optimization problem.
E.g we could compromise and allow IPDEDS as a parallel league, therefore you would either be a regular athlete or a transhuman athlete and they would not play together (by default).
This has cons (split the talent pool) but still would be a net benefit in many sports.
The other questions is if we allow IPEDs, which one and how much (rationning)
The use of anabolics such as steroids has diminishing returns (yet bimodal) regarding health/vs performance benefits (IIRC it shows the potent retardation of mankind when you realize testosterone supplementation worldwide would save more lives than the current criminal de facto stigma on TRT, let alone depressions).
Therefore I would be for allowing up to a max. The max would indeed not be a dose, but take into account the massive endogenous testosterone production inequalities and the body capacitance.
However many IPEDs have mostly beneficial health effects (don't remember about low dose EPO though), e.g. probably apply to ALCAR, BPC-157, growth hormone if taken young, (and antioxidants if we consider performance enhancing over career-span)
Finally, one should understand that the regulation/controls for doping are broken and can't really work.
The biggest barrier to doping isn't anti-doping controls.. it is of course the extreme scarcity of humans being pubmed erudite.
I have seen many atypical anabolics that have not even a single mention on the whole reddit website nor a wikipedia page.
Even among the popular unpopular anabolics, such as the insect anabolics ecdysteroids, there are no control for them IIRC. Let alone for fungal anabolics (used in the Cow industry).
IIRC even regular anabolics like growth hormone and long ester steroids, have latent durable IPED effects and are "undetectable"
Messi is probably the #1 in the world because he took growth hormone therapy. That's not the only reason, but probably a necessary reason.
As for the legality of IPEDs on regular human beings, well as with most things with serious consequences, the legality should be conditional on the obtention of a diploma, after positively answering a quizz proving that the user understand said consequences and current known unknowns (like we should do for voting in "democracies").
Despite homeostasis, the use of drugs often has permanent effects on the human body, it's just that they are often low-observable, not necessarily insignificant.
The legality could mandate the concomitant use of protectors/mitigators, such as HCG for testosterone.
One striking example of permanent consequences is Melatonan-II, which simply makes you black.
VoiceOfLogic
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Feel free to talk to me, I have erudition and curiosity in all those topics, especially medical science.
Thanks, so if I understand correctly, the trick to make the neural network take into account past state, is to feed him all at once, not just the current sentence, but the whole dialogue history.
If so, well that is a basic primitive solution and its nice that it kind of work however because of the architecture of said networks, this solution doesn't scale to any long text, book or long dialogue.
Because the length of the input is capped to a max, and because the bigger the input is the less accurate the prediction will be.
Neural networks are fundamentally unfit for late binding and long exchanges.
While there exists hacks to improve regarding this goal:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05150
https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09694
I still believe transformers are unfit and will be the dawn of the current but yet invisible AI winter.
More options
Context Copy link