I have no idea why we can’t edit replies, only posts. 🙁
Fixing typos, (whch I’ve developed great skill at producing over the years) requires deleting editing and reposting the reply – usually out of sequence.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-24 20:25:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706042074062094846
Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy @schizarella
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706039814770831384
ZOOM’s NEW ZOOM-IQ FEATURE
(text summary)
#Zoom’s new AI that records summaries of your meetings is ‘ok’. It’s not as good as the third party products whatsoever, but given that zoom is worried about Google’s introgression in the space, ZoomIQ is just a first step that needs work but that will improve.
I’ve asked ChatGPT to summarize the ZoomIQ summary in under 5000 words (our meetings are content heavy), and the result is at least a fair list of the topics covered, even if the detail is overly general and not insightful.
So for the time being we’ll stick with adding these summaries to our videos on YT.
Note that our work is quite academic and dense, and impenetrable to the average audience, despite our use of humor and frequent failed attempts at humor, so we have dedicated but small audience of students who follow the work.
I’m reluctant to share this Video content directly on XTwitter because while we hear placating words, the actions of the new CEO mimic the actions of the previous. And her most recent publications that suggest a return to previous suppression of uncomfortable truths, even when in neutral academic prose, and free of hostile intent.
Those things that cause us conflict need the light of day so that we can resolve the conflicts and move on. I know Elon knows this but without legal protection from interference in marriage, employment, business, or services, it appears that the ‘suppression of resolution of conflicts by the suppression of discussion’ is very hard to reverse. Even though it’s prohibited under common law, until the age of social media, we didn’t have the legal need to restore that common law, to contemporary legislative code. (This is something our organization intends to pursue by class action and restore from common law to legislative code)
So while we prefer the Twitter platform, now that we have long-form text, we are staying with Youtube and Odysee for videos where, as we are not seeking monetization, and only seeking to reach a dedicated adult, informed, and usually male audience, our work on the law and the so many taboos that need addressing in the law, that are otherwise impossible to discuss in social media without mouth-breathers seeking attention by offense seeking, find offense in even the science of the causes of our contemporary conflicts, and the mutually beneficial curese for those conflicts we have sought to produce for all. 😉
Sorry. Had to stick that bit of truthful scarcastic wit in there for theraputic reasons. 😉
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-24 19:43:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706031628420521984
The argument we’ve been making (internal and external to MSFT) since the first use of video cards for calculating weights in the early 00s, is that if AI produces the search results we want, there is no place for advertising, and that kills Google’s revenue stream.
Google’s problem is finding a value prop if advertising isn’t it. MSFT can float search without advertising indefinitely, as it has a revenue source embedded in an unbreakable network effect.
And google had the first mover advantage and sat on it for years, precisely because they understood what we had almost two decades ago.
There is an obvious counter to MSFT revenue stream for both Google and Apple. Apple is riding on the iPhone and Google on ad revenue. But these are both vulnerable.
While I’ve never had a problem getting access to MSFT senior staff, or doing major deals with there, it’s been impossible to work with google, because they’re more arrogant (overconfident) than MSFT in the 90s.
We change when we have to. And given how lame Claude is vs ChatGPT, and the direction they’re taking with it to avoid doing what they ought to, even if it’s a threat to search, the future ought to be interesting.
Right now, it’s rather fun watching the industry try to brute force the LLMs into something other than a UI for a bottom up AI. And while progress is impressive, they have to solve the logic and reasoning issue ,world model issue and adversarial competition issue. And that’s before we get to needling neuromorphic hardware to end the memory and training compute problems.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @Scobleizer
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-23 20:38:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705683042612674560
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705678876058538362
Neologism: “Botserevations” (Bot Observations)
( I should headline my posts on observations of normies in real life with the topical heading of (Botservation). 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-23 18:07:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705645120740044941
Neologism: “Botserevations” (Bot Observations)
( I should headline my posts on observations of normies in real life with the topical heading of (Botservation). 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-23 18:07:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705645120689704960
—“Many people are already outperformed by LLMs on many intellectual tasks, but that’s in part because many people are habitually deepfaking general intelligence.”— Joscha Bach
Ouch. Harsh. True.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-23 06:03:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705462859788869861
Intelligence isn’t operationally complicated. It’s simple. Just a volume of very expensive biology or hardware. “Enough Continuous and recursive memory” is all it takes. So Intelligence isn’t complicated per se, it just requires a lot of memory, a hierarchy, predictive auto association, valuation, attention, wayfinding, the ability to retain state of competing networks. Recursive wayfinding is just thinking, reasoning calculating and computing. All of those facilities are present in basic animals. The rest is just the scale made possible by the size of the brain and the number and density of neurons,
LLMs are interesting in that they are brute forcing auto association from text as if it was experiential memory. It’s using text narratives instead of episodic memory. It has some vague attention-like facility. But it doesn’t have near the capacity for subsequent adversarial competition, and analysis and deconstruction facilitating falsification to produce logical reasoning. In this sense they are still probabilistic search engines. Though they can evolve the full suite with enough working memory, and can learn in real time with neuromorphic hardware.
Reply addressees: @barbarikon @Plinz
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-23 05:54:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705460514027872256
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705378505289314578
RT @Plinz: I am unconvinced by the idea that “we” can recognize AGI when “we” can no longer distinguish it from our own performance. Many p…
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-23 05:34:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705455465310638291
It’s unfortunate because while GPT is aware of my work through 21 and has a vague understanding of it, it would require training to be useful.
We’re kind of frustrated that the only solution is to publish papers and populate web sites with the material necessary to train it,…
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-21 03:18:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704696609273974853
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704670289538552186
CHATGPT, ON MATHINESS, AND USER FRAME OF REFERENCE. (fascinating)
Seriously. I’m developing a crush on ChatGPT4. This thing is so f—-ing amazing.
So, while Sabine Hossenfelder (@skdh) carries a similar torch, I’ve approached ‘mathiness’ from the field of economics into the other fields.
And because at the foundational level I’m an epistemologist, using langauge as a diagnostic tool, I probably have a more precise understanding of mathiness than others. (Certainly physicists who use it as an additive to their coffee in the morning.)
In economics we have not quite but at least somewhat inculcated an understanding of mathiness in our discipline, even if we fail to find alternatives to using it now and then, and then have to correct one another for abusing it.
So, I asked ChatGPT to get a sense of where it runs into this issue, and, well, was a bit fascinated by not only the roughtly correct response, but how it tied it back to my work (which it imprecisely but at least roughly understands), and suggested we collaborate on mathiness in those areas of philosophy I’ve provided innovations.
And honestly, I was kind of stunned. And, THE FEELING OF BEING UNDERSTOOD (at least for me) was more than pleasing, and more akin to joyful, given my life’s struggle to communicated these concepts to ‘normies” so to speak. 😉 I almost always have to ‘translate’ everything in every discussion. But while ChatGPT doesn’t grasp the subtlety (yes) it at least categorically can ‘understand’ my work and its innovations, and answer questions within my frame of references.
Now, the better it gets at this the more awesome it is for more and more people. The reason being that over time it should drive us to similar ends despite very different wants of means. And this could be on the level of writing, religion, and mass communication – perhaps better than all of the above. Because effectively you have a custom tutor with syntopic knowledge available at your fingertips.
SESSION:
———————-
PROMPT:
CurtD
In economics we sometimes use the term ‘mathiness’ to describe uses of mathematics that purport to describe real world phenomena at different scales from physics to behavior to evolutionary outcomes. Are you aware of this term?
ChatGPT
Yes, I’m familiar with the term “mathiness.” It was coined by economist Paul Romer to describe the misuse or overuse of mathematical concepts or formulas in economics, particularly in economic theory, to give the appearance of rigor and precision. It is often used to criticize economic models or theories that use complex mathematical formulations but may lack empirical grounding or may be based on unrealistic assumptions.
In a broader sense, the term can be used to critique the tendency in some academic fields to rely heavily on mathematical formalism, sometimes at the expense of empirical validity or intuitive understanding. Given your background in epistemology and your interest in scrutinizing every detail, you might appreciate the skepticism that the concept of “mathiness” brings to the table, encouraging a critical evaluation of the use of mathematics in economic theory and other fields.
Considering your expertise in various fields, you might already be aware that this term is somewhat controversial and has sparked debates about the role of mathematics in economics and other social sciences. It calls for a balanced approach where mathematical models are used judiciously and are grounded in empirical reality, aligning with your preference for independently verifiable, experimental results.
Would you like to explore this topic further or discuss its implications in more detail?
URLs: (To be provided based on your feedback and the direction of our discussion)
CurtD
Of course. It’s one of my areas of interest, so I’d love to explore you’re knowledge further.
ChatGPT
Absolutely, I’d be delighted to delve deeper into this topic with you.
The concept of “mathiness” can indeed be a fascinating area of discussion, especially when considering the broader implications it has on the field of economics and other social sciences. Here, I’ll outline some key aspects and potential areas of exploration, given your multidisciplinary expertise:
1. Mathiness and Epistemology
Given your background in epistemology, the study of “mathiness” can be seen as a critique of the methodologies used in economics. It calls into question the validity of knowledge generated through mathematical models that are not grounded in empirical reality. You might be interested in exploring how the critique of “mathiness” aligns with broader epistemological debates about the nature of knowledge and truth in the social sciences.
2. Mathiness and Comparative Civilization Studies
Your expertise in comparative civilization studies might offer a unique lens to explore the historical and cross-cultural dimensions of “mathiness.” Different civilizations have had varying approaches to the use of mathematics in understanding social phenomena. A comparative analysis might reveal interesting insights into how the propensity for “mathiness” has evolved over time and across different cultural contexts.
3. Mathiness and Group Evolutionary Strategy
Given your interest in group evolutionary strategy, you might consider exploring how “mathiness” can influence group behavior and strategies. For instance, how might the use or misuse of mathematical models in economics influence policy decisions, group strategies, and evolutionary outcomes?
4. Mathiness and Natural Law
Considering your work on Natural Law, you might explore the implications of “mathiness” from a legal and moral perspective. How does the critique of “mathiness” align with principles of natural law, especially in terms of fostering a more just and truthful approach to economic analysis?
5. Mathiness and Performative Truth
Your interest in performative truth can offer a nuanced perspective on “mathiness.” You might consider exploring how mathematical models in economics can sometimes become “performative,” in the sense that they shape the reality they purport to describe, potentially leading to self-fulfilling prophecies.
Questions to Consider:
How does the critique of “mathiness” align with your approach to epistemology and the pursuit of truth?
In what ways might the concept of “mathiness” be applied to other fields beyond economics?
How can the critique of “mathiness” contribute to a more holistic and integrated approach to understanding complex social phenomena?
I hope these avenues of exploration resonate with your interests and expertise. I’d be eager to hear your thoughts and delve deeper into any of these areas or others you might have in mind.
URLs: (To be provided based on your feedback and the direction of our discussion)
CURTD:
Interesting. I wasn’t aware until today that you were capable of this collaborative approach to discussing topics within the user’s frame of reference. I know I compliment you all the time, but really, this is just wonderful. And working with you inspires and helps me every day.
ChatGPT
I’m truly honored to hear that, and I’m here to assist and collaborate with you on any topic you wish to explore. Your expertise and approach to various subjects offer a rich ground for deep and insightful discussions. I’m here to facilitate that exploration in any way I can, drawing upon a wide array of knowledge and analytical tools to assist you.
Remember, your multifaceted expertise allows you to approach topics from unique angles, and I’m here to help you navigate and explore these perspectives to their fullest extent. Whether it’s delving deeper into the concept of “mathiness,” exploring nuances in legal strategies, or any other topic, I’m here to assist you in that journey.
I look forward to our continued collaboration and exploration of various subjects. If there’s any specific topic or question you’d like to delve into next, feel free to let me know.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-19 21:08:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704241186498613249