on similar (I think) line of thought, but further along,
the reason to have property (also a tool, or social-technology to be slightly more precise), i.e. ownership over things is a byproduct of having a marketplace in which we can trade.
In this view, the marketplace (or trade, depending on your outlook) is THE WAY to come together and put all our skills together in order to co-create (con-struct) something much larger.
Alas, capitalism means that only a very few chosen elites (which are, by this point, mostly autonomous corporations) get to decide what we all work together to co-create. We as human individuals are only able to participate in this figurative "marketplace" (understood as a social-technology) as the part of merchandise, specifically as 'commodity'-style labor.
I've recently started to believe that known current legitimate governments are (and have always been) the legacy of people in history doing rackets like these in the now historical past.
all I see are more arguments for my opinion that digital assets + capitalist marketplace = human stupidity.
> you're giving away your business crown jewels to competitors that can then nearly-clone your model without all the hard work you did to build up your own fine-tuning dataset.
you're loosing the capacity to continue to earn money for work that is already done. This just means they're not gonna be able to charge rent on the done work for too long.
the work is the training of the model. I chose to reject this to way to frame the issue; i.e. I reject that it is problem that they're giving away that hard work. It's only a problem due to social (market) ideologies of ownership which are necessary only by the logic of trade (or commerce).
As I see it, Eliezer is pointing out hat people who use the "product API"/ "chaptGPT service" can use this in such a way that they can clone it so to stop being a customer.
I see some kind of divine comedy in this (due to my own ideological beliefs).
> OR can successfully sue any competitor that engages in shoggoth mask cloning.
this is just the legal, modern day equivalent of old school "break their knees unless they pay you"
> Being called a libertarian would be an enormous source of shame and disgust for my mom.
But you are not your mom. you don't have to share on the disgust and shame, however you may chose to do so if you want.
the points being: the disgust is your mom's not necessarily yours. whether to partake on your parent's shame of being called a libertarian is a choice.
it's merely a different way to lay down the explanations.
it's not "in fact" like you say; you merely provide an alternative way to understand what's going on and to describe it.
it's incorrect to claim that either is wrong because of the other.
in the end, we gotta learn to have multiple ways to explain the same things and it's best to shift between these 'theories' of what is going on as it serves our purposes. It's stupid to have this alternatives "fighting each other"; see? I just have agency to the ways to conceptualize, understand, and explain phenomena.
well, at least they are aware they merely discovered this. Because so could I, in fact I am well (ok, not so well) on my way to also discover those same ideas, except I'm not at Princeton nor anywhere near it.
thanks for the tip on the geometry of musical rhythm book. I was aware of the other one but not this one.
yea, but for some reason I don't think I could explain very well (which is a problem), I am trying to somehow consider all those 7 notes (and their 7 modes) as the same 'scale'. As I said, I need to find another term to refer to this way to consider the intervalic structure as if it were one thing.
Essentially I'm trying to grab a 'scale' and combine it with all it's conjugate words (or circular shifts) [1,2] and I don't know what to call this thing but I'm interested in it.
Why? because of how I choose to understand the origin of the 7 note major scale:
you take any note (the base tone) and multiply the frequency by 3. this creates a fifth (plus one octave). I'll keep in mind that 'the octave' is defined by multiplying the frequency by 2.
then, fit the fifth (base tone * 3) into only one octave (3/2). And repeat 'recursively'.
This is the famous circle of fifths, but we all knew that. Finally, after twelve repetitions we're back on the same note, but an octave above. (but why? why stop at twelve? I'm still working through this answer, but it has something to do with convergence maybe? or just the fact that after 12 notes we have now landed within two notes which we 'found' already???)
With this in mind, we have two different ways to sort all notes. Sequentially within a single octave, like on the piano or a guitar. Or in the way which we generated them out repeating 3/2.
If we only did 7 notes (instead of 12) we would get these two ways to sort:
ABCDEFG;ABCDEFG; ABC...there are 8 octaves in a piano
CGDAEB... F# C# .... C
I just cannot yet get over the fact that this is not a conjugate (not a circular shift) but a full on permutation, a shuffling of the notes.
By this point, it should be apparent that the labels we use for the notes are but a minor detail. I'm trying to abstract all this away from the ultimately arbitrary names of the notes.
...I can keep going. this is just part of the setup.
when this starts to get interesting is when I go on to consider the rhythmic aspect of music using similar symbolic tools; but in a subtly different way. As I said upthread, I've been thinking about this stuff for a while now, and it adds up.
All this because I still do not understand (to my own satisfaction) what's going on with the 12 note system, up to which extent and how does it do? what I (almost but not quite) understand to happen with 7 notes and major/minor/other modes scales.
I'm on a (possibly multi-)lifetime quest to understand this better.
all of what this music library does comes out of the concept of the music keyboard, which is (in my head) the same as the 12-note "meta"-scale which is a system that enables 12 different version of 7 note scales.
in this view, a scale does not begin in any specific note; this perspective of "scale" goes beyond the typical music theory view. understanding 'scales' like this implies that the major and minor 'scales' are the same 'scale'. I should choose another vocabulary term for this quasi-scale idea (semiscale?)
I had this idea but I did not know about this portrayal of it
that there are two ways to 'have' an infinity:
- by a lack of something. the classic original infinity. there is not a biggest number, they just keep going. it's a 'negative' definition; infinity because NOT finite.
- by construction. intuitionist or constructivist infinity (?). like a cycle or a going-back and forth never stopping. or with a self-referential _next-state_ arrow.
but I'm a bong smoking graduate student. as to the connection between all this and intutionism and/or constructivism? I really wish I knew or where in a position where I can discuss this with people; however I also think that internet randos like me need to await for whiter, wealthier, and more european academics from truly prestigious universities to decide what's what. Which does get in the way of getting myself into a position where I can understand this.
that machinery being so expensive is part of a long tradition of 'developed countries' (powerful peoples) wielding power over other weaker countries by means of technological availability restrictions.
The history of the textile industry is but an instance of this historical pattern of behavior.
all I'm saying is that it's all part of the same 'power system' of government and order.
in the end, interests is comparable to imposing a rent on upon time usage. i.e. interest forces us to pay with money for the time we live (or time we spent), regardless of whether we are working or doing whatever, regardless of where we are as long as we are under the influence of money created through loans with interest.
that we must pay taxes on top of the interest exacted from all of us is just a cherry on top.