JProthero

The narrative is that there is a chronic lack of investment in the UK which is preventing promising companies from securing connections to the electrical grid, and that local planning bureaucracy is also inhibiting development. Public services, including transportation, are weak; there is a lack of affordable housing; and these problems are so bad that, following the passage of the CHIPS Act, Paragraf considered setting up in the US.

The article notes that Paragraf was spun out of the University of Cambridge six years ago, and established itself nearby. Cambridge is arguably the best university in Britain for science and technology, so perhaps if Paragraf had set up in the US, it might have chosen a location near a close equivalent, such as MIT or Harvard, both of which are coincidentally situated in Cambridge, Massachusetts — a town that was named in honour of the British university. The two Cambridges have similar populations and similar centuries-old associations with academia, but how do they compare on the criteria discussed in the article?

The average house price in the British Cambridge is currently about £500,000 ($635,000 at the exchage rate used in the article), and the average house price in the American Cambridge is currently in the region of $1,000,000 (£787,000). They are both unaffordable by normal standards, but the American Cambridge is the worst of the two at the moment (or best, if you like high property values).

As regards transportation, both the British and American Cambridge are known for their cycling culture. The British Cambridge has the largest guided busway in the world, which was opened in 2011. Public transport in the American Cambridge is part of one of the oldest mass transit systems in the US, which is run by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). The MBTA has acquired a reputation for financial mismanagement, and the system it controls is amongst the most dangerous in America; in 2022 the Federal Transit Administration announced that it would be intervening at the authority and was 'extremely concerned with the ongoing safety issues' affecting the system [1].

What about connections to the electricity grid in the two locations? Curiously, much of the electrical infrastructure in both Britain and Cambridge in Massachusetts is owned by the same corporation: National Grid PLC. National Grid is a British company, but it happens to have a substantial American business [2], and it owns a lot of the electrical grid in Massachusetts and New York; it is likely that the entity responsible for large parts of Britain's electrical infrastructure also owns the electrical infrastructure that supplies the Boston office building where Raoul Ruparel's company is headquartered. The transatlantic involvement in electrical infrastructure runs both ways: a large part of the electrical grid of Northern England is owned by a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway [3].

The issues of planning bureaucracy discussed in the article are complicated, and properly comparing the American and British systems would be a difficult exercise, but from what I know of them they aren't dissimilar; the complaints about the systems are comparable. The article mentions recent measures by the British government to 'impede NIMBY-ism'; Nimbyism is originally an American term (the acronym can only be derived from American English; a 'back yard' in the US would typically be referred to as a 'back garden' in the UK), but it easily gained currency in Britain because the concept and many of the issues underlying it are familiar in both countries. It seems to me that in some respects this issue is a feature rather than a bug; the right of local people and organisations to some say over the fate of their immediate environment is part of the practice of democracy in both Britain and America, and it may be necessary to uphold the system of private property rights that businesses carrying out development themselves depend on.

The authors of the paper suggest that the material that formed the Earth was depleted of carbon early in the solar system's history due to solar activity, and that most of the carbon now on Earth was delivered to the planet later on directly from the interstellar medium.

I should note a couple of clarifications to my first comment: the elemental abundance I mentioned for the universe and Earth's solar system does not include helium and neon, which are abundant, but are usually ignored in this context as they're noble gases.

There is also estimated to be slightly more mass in the present-day universe in the form of iron than nitrogen due to the high mass of iron atoms (nitrogen is the fourth most abundant element by mass in the human body, but the body contains relatively little iron). The number of nitrogen atoms in the universe, however, is substantially higher than the number of iron atoms. The amount of iron in the early universe should also have been lower; the element is formed late in the stellar life cycle [3], whereas the other cosmologically abundant elements that are relevant to biology (carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) are formed earlier [4].

Although carbon is relatively scarce on Earth, it is the fourth most common element by mass in the universe (and in Earth's solar system) [1].

The four most common elements in the human body are the same as the four most common elements in the universe, albeit in different proportions [2].

I've long felt that this may be the strongest argument against an AI singularity.

The technical ability to emulate the minds of the world's theoretical physicists and run accelerated simulations of their thought processes may be developed, but the generation of valid new insights in physics might depend strongly on observations and experiments conducted in the physical world, as seems to have been the case historically, and the virtual equivalents of those experiments may prove to be inadequate or impractical to implement.

Steven Pinker made a similar argument in this 2018 discussion with Sam Harris (the remarks begin at 65m03s in this recording [1]; the full conext begins at around 50m36s [2]). Harris is concerned about existential risks posed by advances in artificial intelligence, whereas Pinker is less so, in part for this reason. I agree with Harris that there are risks associated with artificial general intelligence, but I agree with Pinker and the parent comment about the dependence of the scientific process on experiment, and that an inability to conduct accelerated experiments in the physical world may undermine the standard argument about the inevitability of an AI singularity.

An AI capable of interfacing with the physical world might develop the ability to conduct accelerated physical experiments, but it would presumably face the same fundamental and contingent limits as human researchers, and the history of human science suggests those limits may impede exponential progress.

This is the first example of an extended dialogue with GPT-4 that I have read, and the fact that it failed to obey the request to dispense with its repetitive disclaimers was perhaps the most interesting thing to me about it. It seems somehow more fluent to me than GPT-3, as though its verbal IQ has increased a few points, but GPT-3 was already quite articulate; I havent yet seen any examples of clear new abilities from GPT-4.

The substance of the dialogue struck me as generic and lacking novel insight, though the bar was of course set rather high (essentially 'Describe revolutionary new physics'). I've also been jaded by the past few years of advances in AI; if I had seen this transcript ten years ago I would have been surprised and impressed that an AI could have a conversation about theoretical physics, and could demonstrate an ability to discuss relevant concepts in a reasonable and confident manner.

The ability of large language models to exhibit sophisticated verbal reasoning, albeit not yet reliably so, is their most striking feature to me, and I do think that has great scientific potential; perhaps GPT-4 isn't yet a major advance in that respect, but I imagine an important foundation has been laid. I should say I'm grateful to you for publishing this Ramraj; the transcript and the impressions you and others have shared in this thread have been illuminating.

Anyone who is curious about the application of AI to theoretical physics may be interested in the work of the MIT physicist Max Tegmark and his group, which is still at an early stage. Here are some videos in which he discusses AI and physics, in increasing order of detail:

I remember reading that, at close enough range, the neutrino emissions from a supernova would be intense enough to be dangerous to structures made of ordinary matter, despite the weakness of their interactions, and that they would reach an observer earlier than other forms of radiation due to their ability to escape the collapsing star relatively unimpeded. Neutrinos would be the least of your problems if you were the observer of course.

As I was trying to find a source for this, I discovered there is a unit [1] for the amount of energy released by a supernova called the Foe, which seems apt (it's an acronym derived from 'ten to the power of Fifty-One-Ergs').

I did not claim that Blair was a 'man of the people', though there are plenty of people who might credibly be described in those terms who have been involved in ruling the UK. You stated above that 'if you are a Brit, you understand that almost all of the people you name went to the same high school and have the same background'. I am British, and I know your statement is an exaggeration, which is why I noted examples of the backgrounds of some of the people referred to. I agree with you that it is relevant to a discussion of this topic that Tony Blair attended a fee-paying school, but I also think it is relevant — if background is important as you suggest — that the decision to send him to a fee-paying school was made by a mother who was the daughter of a butcher, and a father who was adopted into a working class family as a baby and grew up in a tenement in Glasgow. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but to me, a reasonable consideration of that example, and others like the ones I noted, illustrate that it is not correct that 'almost all' of the British ruling class have the same cultural background.

> Does Philips-Exeter and Groton have the same route into govt specifically (which is surprising given that money is more important in US politics, and the US has far wealthier people at the top end)? No.

I'm no expert on American prep schools, but a quick look at the alumni of the ones you mention reveals two presidents, three secretaries of state, four treasury secretaries, dozens of governors, the founder of the Republican Party, the first Director of the CIA, the first Director of National Intelligence, the founder of Facebook, and too many senators, members of congress, federal judges and ambassadors etc. to list. It is curious to me that you don't believe this indicates that attending these schools provides a route into government, whereas a similar list of the alumni of a British school like Eton does. In looking up Groton alumni I found an observation about the school from one of them, who was a friend of Franklin Roosevelt's (another Groton alumnus). He wrote 'Ninety-five percent of the boys came from what they considered the aristocracy of America [...] Among them was a goodly slice of the wealth of the nation.' It seems to me that Eton and Groton are not dissimilar in that regard.

> All you have to do is convince the local constituency party or some other small group of people in a safe seat (again, both Cameron and Blair have reformed this, although Labour's recent issues with selection should demonstrate that the system is still problematic).

This is a description of the process required to be selected as a candidate for a particular party. In order to become an MP the candidate must then win an election that returns them as the most popular candidate. It may be disappointing that voters in safe seats reliably opt for the candidates of a particular party, but that does not necessarily make their election 'hugely undemocratic'. If the people in these constituencies objected to the candidate of the party that traditionally wins there, they could democratically elect someone else instead.

> It is nothing to do with a small number of votes deciding elections, that is just irrelevant, the outcome of an election is the outcome, it being close has nothing to do with anything.

It would be relevant if that is what you had meant when you wrote that becoming an MP in the UK only requires winning over a small number of people. You have clarified that what you actually meant is that being selected as a candidate for a particular party in parliamentary elections might only involve winning over a small number of people in a local constituency party. Those candidates must then secure the votes of a much larger number of people in an election if they are to become MPs. You neglected to mention that latter fact, presumably because you felt that elections in safe seats are somehow undemocratic because the local population reliably elects candidates from a particular party.

> FPTP isn't undemocratic. I would look at what the word democratic means. It is unrepresentative, it is most certainly not undemocratic.

In the UK, the first past the past system nearly always produces a result in which a substantial majority of voters are not represented by the MP they voted for. British governments are therefore typically controlled by a party that has been rejected by a majority of voters. The governing party in the UK hasn't won a majority of the votes in a general election since the 1930s. I would argue that the UK is a democracy in some sense of the word in spite of this, but the first past the post system is not guaranteed to produce democratic results, and in Britain it usually doesn't.

> If you were a scholarship boy, don't try to waggishly quote Latin. People can see through you like a window, it impresses no-one.

I think we're in agreement here. If quoting Latin impresses no-one, it's unclear to me why you think it is important that some old-fashioned schools briefly force their pupils to study it. It can be studied at Oxford and Cambridge and many other universities, but classics has been a niche subject for a long time, and it doesn't confer any particular career advantage over more popular subjects like economics and history that are taught at all schools. I doubt it is any easier to obtain a degree in classics from a prestigious university due to a lack of competition from applicants who were not educated at private schools than it is to obtain a degree in any other niche subject that is more widely taught. It is true that there is less competition for places to study classics than many subjects due to a lack of interest, but that is also true of courses in language and religion — subjects which are very widely taught outside private schools. [1]

Classics was already an outdated choice of university subject by the time Johnson was studying it in the eighties, which perhaps explains why prior to the 2019 election no Prime Minister or opposition leader with a classics degree had contested a general election for six decades.

What I see in the quotes in the link is Johnson expressing a personal preference for the UK to retain access to the single market and influence in its governing structures, in remarks made in 2013, a few years before the referendum was held. He talks about his voting intentions — at that time, he was the Mayor of London and had no vote in Parliament, so he is referring to how he might vote in what was, at that time, a hypothetical future referendum. The wider context, which is apparent from the contemporary reporting [1], is that, at the time, he was calling for the Single Market to be reformed, and for the UK to leave most of the EU's structures, but to remain part of the reformed market. A couple of years later, Cameron attempted to secure some reforms to the UK's relationship with the EU, but he focused on immigration and welfare rather than the Single Market. Cameron then presented the reforms (such as they were) as part of the basis for his support of the UK's continued membership of the EU during the referendum campaign, but no changes to the Single Market of the kind that Johnson had called for earlier were agreed.

My recollection of the role of the Single Market in the referendum is that the official Leave campaign was pressed to take a position on retaining Single Market membership; that they ultimately came down in favour of leaving (in order to remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the ECJ and allow EU regulations to be repealed); and that Johnson (who was part of the official campaign) subsequently adopted that official campaign position in his public statements. During the referendum itself he therefore supported leaving the Single Market, at least in its unreformed 2016 incarnation.

My memory is that the key statement of the official Leave campaign's position on the Single Market was made by Michael Gove on the Andrew Marr show. I remember it because the Leave side had been under pressure to make its position clear at the time, and Gove's response on the show seemed to signify that they had chosen to bite the bullet and accept leaving the Single Market. On the one hand, adopting a clear position meant that they couldn't be accused of equivocating on the subject any longer, but on the other hand, the Remain campaign was then able to argue more strongly that the Leave side was embracing trade disruption. Here's the relevant quote from the transcript of the Marr show[2]:

'Marr: Let me ask you, just before we leave the economics actually, a very simple question I have tried to get an answer to from various people on your side – is should we or should we not be inside the single market? Do you want us to stay inside the single market? Yes or no.

Gove: No. We should be outside the single market. We should have access to the single market, but we should not be governed by the rules that the European Court of Justice imposes on us, which cost business and restrict freedom.'

The BBC reported at the time that Gove's answer on the Marr show was a response to the pressure to clarify the Leave campaign's position on the Single Market.[3]

Incidentally, with regard to Johnson claiming to be a fan of the EU; I don't personally find this surprising. He has a well-publicised affinity for European civilization; in a book about ancient Rome that he published some years ago, he wrote approvingly about the ability of the Empire to unite diverse peoples as citizens of a common European state, and contrasted that history with the EU — the book was adapted into a television series for the BBC that he presented. His father also used to work for the European Commission; before he was sent off to Eton, he, his siblings and his future wife were educated at a school in Brussels that was established for the children of EU staff [4]. It may be worth noting that the comment was also somewhat qualified; he said that 'in some ways' he was 'a bit of a fan'.