Agents will need persistent, unique identifiers that allow their actions to be traced back to a responsible actor. Doing this successfully will also require human users to possess a unique identifier.
everybody on your team who is making architectural decisions, those people must know performance and they must make decisions that will allow the other people downstream of them to use an architecture which can be optimized later. If you don't do that, you're just rolling the dice.
Incredible watering down -- the Singularity is now redefined to mean "the rate of new firm creation has increased somewhat"
Vernor Vinge described the Singularity as an event horizon past which everything (e.g. what happens tomorrow) becomes entirely unimaginable and unpredictable to human understanding
have to abide by this rule that was written before LLMs were even a thing. And that shows how challenging sort of the the the situation is if you try to set the line too firm to begin with.
if you create a or allow for the creation of a patchwork of regulations, meaning there's one set of regulations for AI in California, another one in Maryland, another one in Texas. You know, the big tech guys, they can deal with that.
Nuclear's never had its Ford moment or its Tesla moment, if you want to put it that way. And that's what Valor Atomics is working on doing. We have nuclear reactors that are more manufactured than constructed and uh they're extremely safe and we think the combination of these two things is going to allow us to scale nuclear fision and make energy 10 times cheaper for humanity.
I mean, I know I always think, "I can do this in an hour." When really, nothing takes an hour. And um so many projects I've worked on you optimistically think you know exactly what you want to do, but it's still allow extra time.
I believe the same is true of the current intelligence explosion being driven by AI. We are in desperate need of new social structures that allow us to harness its power, without damaging or destroying human values in the process.
I know through my experiences that even the most advanced artificial intelligences don’t have adequate enough insights to allow one to blindly follow them and that unique human understanding and insights are still invaluable, and that that is especially true in investing where value-added is a zero-sum game (so that, when it comes to adding value, what is widely known is of little value.)
So, rule number one is you keep the home economy growing. That is number one, because that's going to produce the money that's going to fund your military, fund your allies, allow you to do everything.
a more common trait that's related in the entrepreneurial world is obsessive learning like constant learning because the disruptions that allow for the technology waves that allow for companies to be disruptive and take market share from an incumbent are all tied to something dynamic that's happening on the edge.
the way you get best context is by having sensors properly placed around the home that don't necessarily invade privacy, but allow you to pick up a lot of comings and goings and who's who in the room and your voice and these kinds of things.
here prices are adjusting in this interesting way that too many macro models don't allow for, right? So, that what what a what's happening is what would be called investment specific technical change where yeah, the price of capital is like falling relative to the price of consumption instead of like the standard doing the standard macro thing of saying there's just output.
let's say we get into a narrative where like if you're a firm and you're not laying people off, then you're seen as like not adapting AI enough. So like then you'll get you're going to just get a cascade effect of firms like just needing to keep up with the Joneses in terms of like starting to lay people off.
know your goal or suffer a death by a thousand compromises. Because what I had done my whole career and most of us do is compromise to get that next engineer, CTO, investor. You put a jerk on your board because you impressed with their firm name and the valuation and all your friends are going to be impressed and it's going to be so much easier. We make all these compromises and contort ourselves and eventually we wake up and it's company we don't want to work at.
No new feature necessary. Just make sure that we can do that. And then that allow the business the company to just pour a whole bunch of hardware behind that and it will scale.
none of us wanted to go through that extreme but lots of time when you are under a lot of pressure and no time to react other than just to survive that scale that keep on coming at you, you have to make uh decision that increase uh speed and velocity because speed and velocity allow us to build quick enough to survive
Like any addictive consumer product that routinely exposes users to graphic sex, extreme violence, and anonymous sexual predators, social media in its current form causes a variety of harms to people of all ages. But we allow adults (often defined as age 18) to make decisions that are bad for them.
When you allow tech bros too much power over decision-making along with their running dog lackey in kind of management consultancy, you're optimizing for something which may be very very distant from what your real world customers really care about.
If you are in regular meetings with a hardware vendor as a customer (or potential customer) you can accomplish a lot by providing firm and tough feedback, particularly with Intel today.
So here's what I would say that deep down at a very fundamental level the synthetic experience that you create yourself doesn't allow you to learn more about the world. It allows you to rehearse things. It allows you to consider counterfactuals but somehow information about the world needs to get injected into the system.
With Web forms, the burden is on people to adapt to databases. Today's AI models, however, can flip this requirement. That is, they allow people to provide information in whatever form they like and use AI do the work necessary to put that information into the right structure for a database.
I think the platform that Lean and other software tools, so GitHub and things like that will allow experimental mathematics to scale up to a much greater degree than we can do now.
I do. If you have a passion for computer science, I would. Computer science is obviously a lot more than programming alone, so I would. I still don't think I would change what you pursue. I think AI will horizontally allow impact every field.
I’m going back to the vacuum. The empty space, the beautiful event horizon I’ll give up locality, meaning that I will allow things to be connected non-locally by a wormhole.
What prevents this from being a broad-based bubble is that we are missing a critical feedback loop from the announcement's impact, like network growth or land value.
We cannot say that we are free if we allow our government to dictate to us what experiences we may or may not have in our inner consciousness, while doing no harm to others.
To summarize the above, my basic prediction is that AI-enabled biology and medicine will allow us to compress the progress that human biologists would have achieved over the next 50-100 years into 5-10 years.
So most people, when they advertise new context window increase, they talk a lot about finding the needle in the haystack sort of evaluation metrics and less about whether there’s any degradation in the instruction following performance. So I think that’s where you need to make sure that throwing more information at a model doesn’t actually make it more confused.
I think life obeys universal principles. I think there is some deep underlying explanatory framework that will tell us about the nature of life in the universe and will allow us to identify life that we can’t yet recognize because it’s too different.
I tear my hair out when people who are not physicists accuse physicists, like you say, of losing the plot because they need dark matter and dark energy. I don’t want dark matter and dark energy; I want something much cooler than that. I’ve tried. But you got to listen to the equations and to the data.
Compromise, the advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it's low energy, but it doesn't lead to truth. And so in things like the height of the ceiling where truth is a noble thing, you shouldn't allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth.
Governments should create three tracks for people who come to live in their country. One track is that of people who hope to become Spanish. Another is that of those who we are going to allow to live and work here; the third is that of those of we are going to allow to be in Spain out of necessity.
Most of our fears begin to subside when we just allow ourselves to be in this moment, as anxiety and worry stem from a preoccupation with an anticipated or envisioned future.
We argue that solely measuring skill at any given task falls short of measuring intelligence, because skill is heavily modulated by prior knowledge and experience: unlimited priors or unlimited training data allow experimenters to "buy" arbitrary levels of skills for a system, in a way that masks the system's own generalization power.
so we use Google Meet speakermics, which allow for full-duplex conversations, which makes conversation far more organic. That device turned Google Meet from something exhausting to something really good.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.