Your economic value and your value as human being are two different things.
Yeah, you gotta eat, but some of us have been slaves for so long that we've started to believe that our self worth is defined by what we will fetch at auction. It is not.
Read more about the Protestant work ethic, it's history, and what life was like before men began to assume it was the one true view of life. Not very long ago nobody had clocks, and the idea that work was an ethic was a fringe, almost cult-like belief system. Now most humans routinely take stimulants every morning to be better servants, and mistake their job for their purpose on earth. That's just nonsense our culture invented though.
If the master wants you to do something, force him get out the whip. Don't let him live in your head rent free by adopting his crazy belief system.
YOU decide what your value is. Don't abdicate the decision to someone else.
> If there was a Karpathy style universal solver, it wouldn't be very smart unless we scaled it up.
I think that the scaled up version is actually still really valuable.
Imagine being able to just add more compute as needed for any given problem until it's solved by just adding more copies of a single universal layer, without more training. Or being able to burn the individual core into silicon and just loop it as needed.
I tried to build exactly that in my personal lab once, but hit a wall made of my own incompetence and budget.
The idea was to find the parts of the manifold that did generic reasoning and then scale as needed by repeating them. It worked within individual layers (I could make the model score higher on benchmarks by repeating the reasoning extracts within individual layers), but i could never get the interfaces between layers to work again after I'd done that. I suppose it needed traing to "heal" the interface again after my brain surgery, but I didnt have the compute to manage it and moved on to the next project
I'm sure that someone who actually gets paid to do these things will figure out some version of it eventually though, because I know it can be done.
I agree, but maybe for different reasons. I think Karpathy is right. We need models that reason, not models that memorize.
Karpathy calls it a "Cognitive Core", and it's essentially a small model that learns to reason and look up the data it needs as opposed to a giant model that memorizes all the data in the world and tries to process large chunks of it all at once with every thought. I think it will be based on the thing that grokking, the lottery ticket hypothesis, and the universal weight subpspace hypothesis all point to.
Eventually someone will figure out how to build it and the entire economy that we've now built on top of the wacky idea that nothing can possibly ever get more efficient will collapse overnight.
Sometimes I wonder how much Nvidia would pay someone not to release a thing like that, and then I wonder if that's already happened.
"Keyboards are soulless. Handwriting is personal – as unique as fingerprints." - Joyce Carol Oates on typewriters
"This discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth." - Socrates on writing
> People have different beliefs about whether they will personally benefit from supporting some political cause.
The key word there is "belief". They are often wrong.
Your linked blog post is backwards and inconsistent with itself. You have two primary arguments: Irrational and Immoral. You argue that voting is irrational because its unlikely to have any impact, and that voting for your own interest is immoral.
A) The statements are mutually exclusive. An act that has no impact on others can not be immoral.
B) It assumes that what is best for the individual is worse for the group. Life is not a zero sum game. That's the Conservative's delusion. Economic and political transactions do not always have a "loser" and a "winner". In fact, it's relatively rare that they do if you think more than zero steps into the future.
C) The only version of this that actually works is the opposite.
C1) It is irrational not to use whatever influence you have to effect you environment for the better, even if the expected value is low because the opportunity cost of inaction may be disasterous. It's similar to your odds of dying by meteor strike. The probablity is higher than you expect because the death toll would be enormous if it did happen. Outlying events with large impacts skew the numbers.
C2) It is immoral to vote against your own interests, because what is best for the group is also what is best for members of the group. Any other belief is just an incorrect belief based on imperfect knowledge. Again, your argument makes sense at step zero, but not at step 'n'. If what you're voting for seems bad for some members of the group, but good for you, it just means you have imperfect knowledge of what's actually good for you in the long term.
You got it. It was kicad and python, with the builtin DRC/ERC. It had to iterate quite a lot to get it to pass, but once it did the board was solid, if not elegant. I almost feel like kicad was the real hero.
A human would have done a better job, and maybe used half the PCB... but it got it done and at the end of the day the board is 100% functional, and 100% machine designed.
I don't think people have realized it yet, but AI can do hardware too. That's what I had hoped this was about.
I had Claude design an entire 4 layer rp2040 based PCB from scratch and PCBWay build it. It worked on the first go, other than some silkscreen overlapped, which doesn't hurt anything. That was before Fable.
Then I had it design a case for the new pcb to 3d print. Also worked the first go, but with minor cosmetic issues.
People have yet to even BEGIN to appreciate what these things can do with the right harness.
> You presumably know consciousness exists at least in the case of you.
Just because I "know" something, that doesn't make it true. Or to use the "experience therefore consciousness" version:
Experiencing something doesn't imply that either the subject or object are objectively real. Humans regularly experience unreality (books, games, movies, hallucinations), and the assumption that you exist because you feel that you do is no more valid than the assumption that Mickey Mouse is real because you feel that you have seen him.
To restate more directly, there can be no "objective" reality without others to validate it. Otherwise its only "subjective" reality.
It's been a long time, but I think Hegel really misses the mark. (You mean Hegel rather than Nagel, right?) I think he argued against doubting your own perception, but anyone who has ever taken LSD, or met a mentally ill person, can tell you that there are miles between perception and reality. The way we percieve the self is unlikely to be any more reliable than the way we percieve Mickey Mouse.
To me the distinction hinges on the output being transformative enough to be considered a new work. I think that most of the time LLM output is.
Sometimes they go a bit wonky and overtrain on specific phrases which can result in verbatim copies of brief sections of coontent. Thats a bug, not a feature.
No, and neither do LLM's. They're trained on vast quantities of data and retain only a fraction of it.
You might think of it as very, very lossy compression that generates new outputs rather than the original input unless something unintentional happens.
> If you just ignore anything that's inconvenient for your argument, you can make any argument you want.
I'm not. I just understand how it actually works. You either don't understand or are deliberately ignoring that what you just said is literally and technically untrue to make some sort of political statement.