matheusd

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this is sufficient.

While I had great success with GrapheneOS in the past, bank apps in Brazil have started blocking it, even when the profile you run it under has Google services installed. So GrapheneOS (again, even with all Google Play Services and all other dependencies installed in a given profile) is still not completely transparent to apps.

This may be a coincidence (as I don't use it every day), but I noticed blocking started just as the recent Felca Law (which introduced mandatory age verification for every software, app and OS in Brazil) came into effect.

How about this for an evaluation: Have this (trained-on-older-corpus) LLM propose experiments. We "play the role of nature" and inform it of the results of the experiments. It can then try to deduce the natural laws.

If we did this (to a good enough level of detail), would it be able to derive relativity? How large of an AI model would it have to be to successfully derive relativity (if it only had access to everything published up to 1904)?

(Not op)

Maybe not you in particular, but I expect people to be more forthcoming in their writing towards LLMs vs a raw google search.

For example, a search of "nice places to live in" vs "I'm considering moving from my current country because I think I'm being politically harassed and I want to find nice places to live that align with my ideology of X, Y, Z".

I do agree that, after collecting enough search datapoints, one could piece together the second sentence from the first, and that this is more akin to a new instance of an already existing issue.

It's just that, by default I expect more information to be obtainable, more easily, from what people write to an LLM vs a search box.

> Explains why RL helps. Base models never see their own outputs so they can't learn "this concept exists but I can't actually say it."

Say "Neuromancer" to the statue, that should set it free.

> Humans are more efficient watt for watt than any AI ever invented.

Indeed they are. For now. The long term trend is not in our favor.

> block cars in cities a couple of days per week, individually selected per person.

The net result in São Paulo (Brazil) for (something that approaches) this is that people end up buying a second vehicle.

"has existed long before humanity" isn't relevant for my argument.

"Will exist long after humanity" -> maybe, maybe not. If we're smart, capable and humble enough, we could, in principle, intentionally outlast them.

By "intentionally" I mean: we can design our future lightcone such that, by whichever measure you care to choose, there are still humans around. Yes, bacteria could be still around, but it won't be because they _chose_ to be around, it will be because it just so happened that the universe arranged itself in a way that they are still around.

By "in principle" I mean: if we spent enough resources, energy and smarts and built a civilization around this goal, we could plausibly (given the known laws of physics) do this. Whether we _will_ do it or destroy ourselves first any of the possible various means, is an open question.

Lineages of bacteria that exist today, here, will only keep existing in the _far_ future (billions of years from now, after the sun chars Earth and then spends its energy budget) if it just so happens that a panspermia event kicked some off our solar system and then they just so happen to find a suitable solar system to keep existing.

We can design our future, bacteria can't.

Pretty sure no bacteria will survive on earth after the sun expands enough to char it, yes.

Even if I'm wrong, and it does survive _that_, then it eventually won't survive the sun spending its entire energy budget.

We're the only ones that could intentionally (as in, actively design our future lightcone) to survive that, so that makes us special in my book.

> Choosing what traits one considers exceptional, will by definition select what species one considers exceptional.

/Every/ other species that has /ever/ lived will cease to exist (at the latest, in a billion years or so).

Humans are the only ones (so far, anyway) that have any hope of surviving more than that.

That seems pretty exceptional to me :P

Disclaimer: the fact that we're exceptional doesn't mean we don't do dumb things and we shouldn't improve and do better.

The counterpoint is that not doing so (implying some sort of infinite monetary loss if the entire human species is wiped out) would mean you want to spend every single unit of monetary value of the entire global economy to preventing this (which is also obviously nonsense - people have to eat after all).

So you have to put the monetary value somewhere (although you're completely within your right to question this specific amount).

> I don’t think they can yet self improve exponentially without human intuition yet

I agree: if they could, they would be doing it already.

Case in point: one of the first things done once ChatGPT started getting popular was "auto-gpt"; roughly, let it loose and see what happens.

The same thing will happen to any accessible model in the future. Someone, somewhere will ask it to self-improve/make as much money as possible, with as little leashes as possible. Maybe even the labs themselves do that, as part of their post-training ops for new models.

Therefore, we can assume that if the existing models _could_ be doing that, they _would_ be doing that.

That doesn't say anything about new models released 6 months or 2 years from now.

Is it though? It is my understanding that the quantum fluctuations that give rise to BBs will still exist, even after (and specially after) the evaporation of black holes (perhaps assuming no Big Rip).