w_for_wumbo

We'll invent other tools to help with the mental models, ones that are more intuitive.

Imagine being able to walk into a house and see immediately the leaks dripping from the ceiling, the clunky layout and smell the stinky garbage that hasn't been collected.

We're already in a sort of IDE when you think about it, we're operating a much larger mental model than any code-base, and we rarely remember that we're operating with such a model.

Because there's an expectation of authenticity from the written word. If you've referenced something handwritten, you don't expect it to be the output of an LLM.

Similarly, if you quote someone word-for-word, you wouldn't anticipate their words to be flagged as Claude content, but if someone memorized Claude output word-for-word. That would still be classified as a Claude output.

Going forward you could categorize the influence of Claude on a population based off a percentage match between their spoken words with the LLM prose.

What happens if someone handwrites a Claude output, then someone uses that handwritten text as a reference. Now you've got a watermarked idea which may have no direct linkage to the usage of Claude.

If we as humans take full responsibility for the world we inhabit. It's really clear that we live inside of systems that we both control and feel that we don't. Exploitation of children is (as strange as it sounds) a design issue. We've designed systems that encourage and rationalize the exploitation of children as a feature of fear.

The encouraging part is that we are in control and it's easier to navigate with a system than to resist it, so the question becomes.

- How do we modify the incentives that are already in place to not result in the exploitation of children?

Because people generally make decisions for their best interest, we're in a dangerous situation where the incentives are for child exploitation.

An example would be: I need to feed my family I need to work to live I need to appease my boss to continue to work The boss has goals to meet We need to perform these actions to meet the goals There isn't time or space to consider the full consequences of this action When the impact to children is not considered by a change to a system, they inevitably reap the consequences of living in a system that never considered their welfare.

The children that grew up feeling out of control, and in a system not designed for them then seek to control the very system that formed them - not knowing that they're replicating the same harm that got them there.

This is a design cycle as I see it, if we don't look at it and understand it - then we will continue feeling powerless - while holding the reigns of our future in our hands.

I believe so much in the power of humanity - so I share this not with the idea that I have the answers, but that I am part of the collective that does.

Does anyone else consider that maybe it's impossible to benchmark the performance of a piece of paper.

This is a tool that allows an intelligent system to work with it, the same way that a piece of paper can reflect the writers' intelligence, how can we accurately judge the performance of the piece of paper, when it is so intimately reliant on the intelligence that is working with it?

So I get confused when I read things like "feedback doesn't scale". Because what am I, if not a self-organizing collective of a trillion cells. That seems like feedback which scales right there.

This seems like a concrete example of why this logic is flawed.

To me I believe it more useful to start with the premise of: I'm already communicating and leading trillions, how do I actually do that?

A common issue is that we hold thoughts, logic and language as a type of universal gold standard, while ignoring that most of our communication isn't even verbal to begin with. It's context, observation, pattern recognition, a self-serving goal which aligns with the collective, because we're all wanting the same things. What feels good, what's expansive, what's beautiful etc. These are the reward functions for healthy communication in the human body, the more that we align and work with these, the better the results.

We need to see actual improvements to our day to day lives if we want to see support for AI. At the moment, people are seeing improvements in technology, but they're feeling the decline of the welfare of those around them, they're feeling food insecurity, they're feeling uncertain about job security.

I see, Fly was perhaps the wrong word to use here. Phase-Shift to new galaxies is probably the right term. Where you change your entire system's resonant frequency, to match what exists in the distant galaxy. Less of transportation, and more of a change of focus.

Like the way we can daydream about a galaxy, then snap-back to work. It's the same mechanism, but with enhanced focus you go from not just visualising > feeling > embodying > grounding in the new location.

We do it all the time, however because we require belief that it's possible in order to maintain our location, whenever we question where we are - we're pulled back into the reality that questions things (it's a very Earth centric way of seeing reality)

This is what I wonder to, what is the end game? Advance technology so that we can have anything that we want, whenever we want it. Fly to distant galaxies. Increase the options available to us and our offspring. But ultimately, what will we gain from that? Is it to say that we did it or is it for the pleasure of the process? If it's for pleasure, then why have we made our processes so miserable for everyone involved? If it's to say that we did it, couldn't we not and say that we did? That's the whole point of fantasy. Is Elon using AI to supplement his own lack of imagination?

I could be wrong, this could be nonsense. I just can't make sense of it.

I recognize all of these steps, having gone through flavours of them myself. The root for me, was that I learned at a young age that to feel safe, I needed to cater to what others wanted for me. Never learning to ask myself, what I wanted. It might be the author's next step, is reconnecting with his inner-desire and finding out what he wants from the world, instead of how he wants to appear in the world.

Interesting, I wonder whether you could create a Symbiotic web. One that utilizes existing traffic, but is able to create a different interpretation based off a parallelism.

By having an index of the data, and then applying masks, you could reshape one payload into another by knowing the delta between what you have, and what you want to communicate.

It could allow for a layered internet, which leverages the infrastructure that exists already, the traffic that exists already but allows for content to be transferred for free (or pennies)

You could then send out multiple different videos using mostly the same traffic, all masking off the deltas from the source to the destination.

I believe you're joking here, but I do think it'd be useful to have some engineering background in each of these domains. The number of miscommunications that happen in any domain, due to oversight, presumptions and assumptions is vast. At the very least the terminology will shape how we engage with it, so having an aspirational title like prompt engineer, may influence the level of rigor we apply to it.

Yes, that is a serious skill. How many of the woes that we see is because people don't know what they want or are unable to describe it in such a way that others understand it. I believe prompt engineer to properly convey how complex communication can be, when interacting with a multitude of perspectives, world views, assumptions, presumptions etc. I believe it works well to counter the over-confidence that people have, from not paying attention to what gaps exist between what is said and what is meant.

The message sounds like a human warning of someone is being fed-up with feeling taken advantage of. They see the profit being made, and they're not even getting drops of it.

If this isn't addressed, it makes this repo a target for actors that don't care about the welfare of Amazon, Google etc.

It seems quite predictable that someone will see this as a human weakness and try to exploit it, my question is whether we'll get them the support they need before the consequence hits, or whether we'll claim this was a surprise after the fact.

I think we'd get better results if we thought of it as a conscious agent. If we recognized that it was going to mirror back or unconscious biases and try to complete the task as we define it, instead of how we think it should behave. Then we'd at least get our own ignorance out of the way when writing prompts.

Being able to recognize that 'make this code better' provides no direction, it should make sense that the output is directionless.

But on more subtle levels, whatever subtle goals that we have and hold in the workplace will be reflected back by the agents.

If you're trying to optimise costs, and increase profits as your north star. Having layoffs and unsustainable practices is a logical result, when you haven't balanced this with any incentives to abide by human values.