itsalwaysgood

I would say it's not intensity alone, but intensity towards a vision. Working hard by itself is never enough, but working hard to create something valuable, that only you can see requires intensity.

A lot of people don't realize they want something until they've seen it. So founders have intensity, and vision for a need only they can see.

Imagine that slow-paced DMV with a lot of intensity, but towards nothing at all. In that case, the vision should be efficiency (without burning out employees).

These are all great points but I'd also point out that the 'dark age' scenario is a highly competitive scenario, while the 'golden age' scenario is a highly collaborative one.

I don't think technology will fizzle out in either scenario. In the 'dark age' highly competitive scenario, you will still have those who 'understand what is produced' seeking progress and advancement. They will cohort with whoever/whichever organization is producing the best, most validated results.

I don't think knowledge would be become alien to human understanding, it would just become highly concentrated again as it was in the past. In the past, only the wealthy and noble could afford to spend time on education.

And usually, those who went deep into any field and provided contributions to science were those who had time to devote entire lives to the study or pursuit of knowledge. We still have these issues today, and these issues will always be present.

There is a supply chain of economy, and we provide different rewards based on the value of what is produced. The jobs never go away, the desire for prestige, greed, etc., never goes away. It's why economies exist, and it's why everyone is considering the value of LLMs, and their place in economies, and academies (presumably which exist to advance human understanding/appreciation, but also to prepare younger generations for future work).

Completely unrelated, but it's so odd to see upside down '8's in the first column of the base tables on their pricing page.

This is the best attitude to have about the current state. Unless you have some dramatically different sensible solution (and you probably don't when it comes to technology, because it seems to spread for reasons that would eliminate other sensible solutions) that will catch on and take over and replace AI: it's going to continue to mature as long as it's mostly useful to everyone. And AI isn't even a new industry, it has been maturing for quite a while, which adds more weight to the argument that having an attitude that adapts to technology (unless you wish to go solo) is a 'better' fit.

The dramatic solution can never be: 'we should all just want to do it this way because it felt better to me'. That never seems to work, from what I've seen. So there is a lot of public discourse, arguing, to determine if 'doing things the old way' is perhaps more better. And if not, maybe we just shed a tear and move on (to look for a better fit).

I get you. What people are doing now is questioning value: in themselves, and what they can create for others. I hate to always oversimplify things but we're pretty simple things to begin with:

Social creatures that share a common space, with finite time that nobody wants to waste.

I don't think it's the communication that's lost, it's the motivation. People love to collaborate, but they don't always want to waste time doing it.

It's the same reason you see 'no AI' repo labels: only by forcing some standard on the community can the 'old way of collaborating' continue to exist.

There will for sure be new ways of collaborating, and walled off gardens like you suggest, where communication stops and everyone just shares some final product.

But, in some cases the product must be understood (or demonstrated) before value can be derived, and so collaboration will still exist.

Desire, and the 'shape' of collaboration has changed greatly though. Why collaboration has changed, is a completely separate issue related to economy and how each of us spends our time.

Desire and motivation are factors to consider. Would you want to invest 5 years of effort into solving the Hypothesis 'the old way', knowing someone is probably working on it right now with AI?

And then once it's solved by AI: do you want to churn through the proof to understand it? What if it takes you 5 years to churn through the proof, and it turns out someone made a mistake with AI (I have no idea what would be realistic amounts of time, but the idea is still worth considering).

The issue is very complex, and you will always be hungry.

Ok, then what is an agent that provides a 'thinking' or reasoning loop around said model?

You ended your first post with: "An LLM encodes the normative regularities of our linguistic/conceptual games into its weights, but it cannot be a real participant in our games because it is incapable of staking durable commitments or changing its dispositions over time."

And so if there is an agent, a thinking loop, that can recursively adjust over time...how does your statement hold up? I'm particularly talking about 'staking durable commitments or changing its dispositions over time'. Recursive self improvement is all about these 2 things, especially when it's the 'outer thinking loop' doing the improvement.

But you're right, Mathematics exists as a medium within Language. But then Language is just a transfer of ideas from one mind to another.

This principle is the heart of what the article is talking about: a transfer of logical mathematical ideas passed from a human to another. And the sense of 'shared understanding' that comes with it. It has nothing to do with keeping score.

It's about getting a 'sense' for why someone thought or rationalized an idea in order to connect some other idea. You get an 'ah-ha' moment, and some of those moments are gone, or a different path is taken to reach the moments now. That is what the 'weeping' is about (not that I agree with the article. I think anyone can spend however they want. Math doesn't have to change, it's that people want it to, apparently, because it's 'easier' to do something different, or for some other reason I don't know about).

You don't consider recursive self-improvement a step towards 'updating a perspective'?

I think you are also suggesting Mathematics and Language are the same thing.

It would only be true if you consider Mathematics and Language to be the same thing.

Both depend on Logic, which is where "deontic scorekeeping" comes in. You can only establish something (score) is true and believable by 'keeping score' and having some level of understanding about the language or math you are reading.

The article is mostly referring to the connection that comes from shared understanding between humans, particularly mathematicians, as they build new shared understanding, and realize there are limits to what they can know and 'leave behind' logic for others to pick up and carry on.

That connection has been severed, or strained a bit, but I'm sure new ones will be created. It just might be of the same flavor that mathematicians prefer, therefore they weep.

And if I understand "deontic scorekeeping" correctly, these forums are a better representation of the concept. You will lend some amount of belief to what is said/read based on what you know.

Prediction is an appropriate word to use when you are stating something you believe to be true about something unknown.

'The sun will rise tomorrow' is a pretty weak prediction, but we don't truly know that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, we can be pretty sure it will based on probability, history, likelihood, from our own past observations. You wouldn't need much convincing to believe the prediction.

'The sun will not rise tomorrow' is a much stronger prediction, because it's a 'wilder' less believable claim with very huge impact. Nobody would believe the statement without proof.

A hypothesis, is a testable statement about a predicted outcome. You could hypothesize something like: 'The Earth's core will stop due to XYZ event, which will stop Earth's rotation. The sun will not rise tomorrow.' Then you go about designing experiments (or you observe and show something that is measurable, like some asteroid on a path close to Earth's) to prove the statement.

From the article: 'Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects'.

'Posited' is to suggest, assume, or put forward an idea, theory, or fact as a foundational basis for an argument or investigation. 'Posited' isn't quite as strong as the word prediction, it's more like a sensible suggestion for further study. Darwin had observed carnivorous behavior in other plants with sticky hairs, and suggested the behavior may be observed in another plant as well.

He didn't make a strong claim like: 'The genus Saxifraga plants are carnivorous because they have sticky hairs that trap insects.' This sort of claim suggests that plants with sticky hairs always trap insects for nutrients, and frankly, he couldn't know that's true without observing every plant with sticky hairs.

What if there are plants with sticky hairs that use the stickiness as a defensive measure instead?

Should the article have used a different word than 'predicted'? Probably, but it wouldn't attract as many viewers, and 'predicted' sort of lends Darwin deserved credibility.

Yes, human understanding is central to his argument. My interpretation of his slides:

The math problems AI helped solve were problems identified by humans in the past (lighthouses, for the field of math). They're problems meant to guide the field: working towards solving the problems brings new ideas to light, and possibly steers us into new areas we wouldn't have considered in the past. More is considered, and possibly more is discovered along the way. (It's very difficult to validate that statement, and so there's plenty of room for argument, and is the heart of the discussion)

Using AI to take a shortcut to the lighthouse creates a survivorship bias. All attention is spent on proving solved problems: less is considered, and certainly less is understood.

Academia was set up for the old journey to the lighthouse, and if we don't consider carefully the new journey to the lighthouse, we'll lose all ability to create new lighthouses (or steer ships).

He seems to suggest it's more valuable for humanity to integrate AI into the academic pipeline, versus spending all attention on solving existing open problems.

Logos (logic) is derived from meaning. Meaning is created by intelligence. Intelligence uses Logos to predict. Intelligence requires observation. A universe contains all of them.

Facts are established truths intelligent beings use to build knowledge and increase accuracy of prediction: and facts are acquired through observation.

If Logos was there in the beginning: then so are intelligence, meaning, observation, and fact.

We're a part of the universe, and we ask the question: what came first? A universe asks itself: what came first?

These words only carry meaning because you are an intelligent observer.

Etymology helps.

Eco: house, household, or dwelling place.

The -logy suffix is 'science'. So ecology is: the scientific study of how living organisms interact with one another and with their physical surroundings.

The -nomy suffix is a field or system of something.

Economy is the ecology of finance. Or, Economy is a field of science that predicts financial systems. Any scientific field helps you make predictions, once you know the material. But useful predictions require useful measurement.

However you want to label it: you don't get a sense that anything living ever touched the little pixels you're moving around on the screen. There is no 'emotional tug' to help immerse you into the game.

I do like your gameplay mechanic idea, but others may not. A quick filter may not add "soul" for you, but it might for others. It's about emotions and immersion, but it's all obviously illusion.

"Soul" means something has a story to tell. It was created for a purpose, it was useful, it may be near its end. There are very clear and obvious dimensions to it that help to immerse you into the game. Details to pick up on, some obvious and some not so obvious.

The opposite, where everything is very clearly manicured, created, is so far from reality that the immersion is more difficult to achieve, or is quickly lost. You never stray far from the fact that you're playing a city game with very rigid rules.

I think this is what the author means by "Soul": objects with details to show something lived, was paid attention to, has story, depth, and scars to prove it.

Personally, I don't care what the guy does. It's entertainment for him, and obviously the people replying to his emails were entertained. I doubt they would continue to be entertained if more agents emailed them. I'm just pointing out issues with the article, why people might be upset.

Also, Hackernews tries to hold itself to a certain standard. Reading an article about an AI Engineer who gives an AI agent access to a tool, with clear directive and access to use the tool, who is then later confused when the agent uses the tool in a slightly different way, suggests the article is below Hackernews standards.

To answer your question though: yes you absolutely could fight spam with AI on your side.

Should we go down that path as a society, just for amusement? Essentially saying: yes, someone should pay for AI service to combat AI spam, just so we can continue to use email.

It's kind of misleading information. Most who have worked with AI can see issues with what the AI Engineer created, and how what he's doing can't be 'scaled up' to society.

Everyone in the article seems desperate for attention and engagement, and it makes some readers uncomfortable: because of the awkwardness, and because this guy is spreading a 'bad idea' that probably shouldn't be replicated.

Imagine if everyone starts spamming emails? The researchers are amused this time, but I guarantee they wouldn't be if their inbox filled up with agent emails.

Not to mention the way the agents reached out for help is probably a bad idea: asking someone with 30 years of experience to apply all their knowledge to your small, specific problem in another knowledge domain, with no other detail or context puts all the mental burden on the unsolicited email recipient.

Character traits, technology, leisure time, have all changed.

It's not either or, it's all of the above: individuals do what feels good and if you're a great party thrower because it energizes you, you'll probably spread that influence some. And then possibly, the group reinforces itself by continuing to throw and attend parties.

At the same time, leisure time has changed: women work more, dads spend more time with kids, and the home offers a lot more easy entertainment that fits in with modern schedules. There seems to be less opportunities for parties with newer generations.

But of course, society seems to shun the party thrower because we're all busy. And so if nobody shows and the party thrower burns out, there's no influence spread. People dislike parties more and the idea reinforces again.

A mix of any of the above goes into our decisions about how to spend time.

That's an old saying: cheaper, better, faster. Pick 2.

Sure. You're spending your time doing something. That's probably to produce a product, or service, for someone else. In this case, it's the customer. So you put them first and foremost in your mind, and then work backwards to identify whatever process is suitable to create the product or service that meets their expectations. This ensures what you deliver is valuable. When we do this, it reinforces our own sense of value. We're helping someone.

You put the customer first, that's first principles thinking. You adjust the way you spend your time, according to your customer's needs.

Some of it has to do with the fact that many people pushed forward training themselves in a way they understood would better themselves for the future. They put in time, and now their sense of value is in question. They're forced to think about things like value (of life, themselves, and hopefully others), and the things they want to remain valuable in the future.

It's interesting to me that you only mentioned the people using 'AI' in the 'short-term' ways, and not the ones that use it to better themselves in the 'long-term' ways. You can spend your own time focusing on either usage, it's really up to you and your concerns. Either group's sense of value is what determines their behavior. Where they spend their time and thinking must be elsewhere, and you disagree with it. Who judges the quality of time spent? You do.

Is it more useful to think about self-improvement, and how to navigate the future in ways that might help you re-establish value of yourself, life, and others? Acquiring knowledge is a struggle, the author mentioned this. There is also Plato's Allegory of the Cave, which highlights some of that struggle, a resistance to change. And we're all limited by time, our genes, our station in life.

The only way to help anyone out of the cave, is to help them believe something different about themselves. To help them believe there is good reason to spend time going deeper into knowledge, or at the very least, allow others with the passion and station for it to do so.

If not for the very least reason that it keeps us 'in the loop' of some central idea behind intelligence (prediction?). Or because we feel it keeps us safer, as a fallback measure because we acknowledge we have to trust other's knowledge to exist.

Here's the thing: nobody is stopping you from putting in the time to understand all that. The problem is, nobody has that much time, and we get hungry. And so we want the community to move with us, spend the time the same way as we do, to ensure value. We are all saying: we want someone else, others, to put in that time for us. The truth is, we all want quality, and value is closely related.

I can almost guarantee you the first time you show cancer symptoms, you won't care whether the cure came from an AI or human's understanding. But we haven't seen that, so we can't make the judgement call.

I think that is the central issue. Is long-term survival actually at stake?

Do you think every Mathematician has a deep understanding of building architecture, engineering, physics, economy, etc., everything necessary to gauge whether something like a 1 terrawat nuclear plant is completely safe in all aspects?

Of course not, so then you have to select appropriate ones. And then you need a process to ingress and egress reviews. Oh what about change? Does that come back to the Math council too?

Oh, we also need global cooperation to pull this off. And then do you trust the people, the selection process for the council (all avenues for corruption are there).

I don't have a solution of my own, so it's not fair for me to criticize the author in this way. I share his concerns.

And it's depressing to think of all the negative scenarios, and be so concerned all the time.

These issues are important and worth thinking about, regardless. Who should teachers teach?

You deal with this every time you wake up, or visit a specialist of any kind. You likely didn't make your own clothes, you didn't grow your own food, dam up any rivers for your water supply, build any power plants to power up your phone/computer, nor did you spend any of the deep amount of focus required to build up the knowledge and technology required to provide us these 'things' in life. The only difference is, you didn't pay much attention to these facts because they became mundane. Take any of them away for any decent amount of time, and suddenly you become acutely aware of what it is you have.

The author mentioned what the issue is: a lot of people are experiencing what it's like to 'catch up' to the more intelligent ideas. Everyone can 'get' the intelligent ideas given enough time. But how much time do you have? And he's concerned someone will rush and create some kind of world-ending solution because they're too trusting of a technology they don't understand.

His only solution is some kind of throttle on the advancement of technology, and arguably knowledge (whose?).

Intelligence is the ability to predict. To pretend that only we can do it, is silly. I mean read the article, and see what AI is doing to the math community.

Give his synapses some time to think about the answer.

Compassion and good times run out too quickly. I hope we all do alright. It's naive but who cares.

Only time tells!

A theory is: blackholes give off Hawking radiation at the end of their lives.

I'm of course, oversimplifying things for a fun thought experiment. Everyone wonders about reincarnation, death, and the 'end of time'.

Just a thought experiment that's not grounded in anything. We all believe what we want and act accordingly.