In a post-scarcity world you probably want a lot of personal freedom.
Fun read. So, so many possible covariates. The causal web is very complicated here. Birth order affects lots and lots of other things, which can also affect the chance you become a cardinal. There are also lots of things that would affect the birth rate in a family and also affect the chance the children become cardinals.
I have a meta-view on this that you might think falls into the bucket of "feels intuitive based on the progress so far". To counter that, this isn't pure intuition. As a side note I don't believe that intuitions should be dismissed and should be at least a part of our belief updating process.
I can't tell you the fine details of what will happen and I'm suspicious of anyone who can because a) this is a very complex system b) no-one really knows how LLMs work, how human cognition works, or what is required for an intelligence takeoff.
However, I can say that for the last decade or so most predictions of AI progress have been on consistently longer timescales than what has happened. Things are happening quicker than the experts believe they will happen. Things are accelerating.
I also believe that there are many paths to AGI, and that given the amount of resources currently being put into the search for one of those paths, they will be found sooner rather than later.
The intelligence takeoff is already happening.
I agree with your point in general of efficiency vs rationality, but I don’t see the direct connection to the article. Can you explain? It seems to me that a representation along correlated values is more efficient, but I don’t see how it is any less rational.
I would describe this as a human-AI system. You are doing at least some of the cognitive work with the scaffolding you put in place through prompt engineering etc, which doesn’t generalise to novel types of problems.
You seem to make a strong assumption that consciousness emerges from matter. This is uncertain. The mind body problem is not solved.
It is so difficult to know whether this is genuine or if our collective imagination is being projected onto what an AI is.
If it was genuine, I might expect it to be more alien. But then what could it say that would be coherent (as it’s trained to be) and also be alien enough to convince me it’s genuine?
You said that you are not interested in exploring the meaning behind the green knight. I think that it's very important. In particular, your translation to the Old West changes the challenge in important ways. I don't claim to know the meaning behind the green knight. But I believe that there is something significant in the fact that the knights were so obsessed with courage and honour and the green knight laid a challenge at them that they couldn't turn down given their code. Gawain stepped forward partly to protect Arthur. That changes the game. I asked ChatGPT to describe the differences, here are some parts of the answer:
Moral and Ethical Framework: "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" operates within a chivalric code that values honor, bravery, and integrity. Gawain's acceptance of the challenge is a testament to his adherence to these ideals. In contrast, the Old West scenario lacks a clear moral framework, presenting a more ambiguous ethical dilemma that revolves around survival and personal pride rather than chivalric honor.
Social and Cultural Context: "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is deeply embedded in medieval Arthurian literature, reflecting the societal values and ideals of the time. The Old West scenario reflects a different set of cultural values, emphasizing individualism and the ability to face death bravely.
And with a bit more prompting
If I were in a position similar to Sir Gawain, operating under the chivalric codes and values of the Arthurian legend, accepting the challenge could be seen as a necessary act to uphold honor and valor, integral to the identity of a knight. However, stepping out of the narrative and considering the challenge from a modern perspective, with contemporary ethical standards and personal values, my response would differ.
It’s useful in that it is a model that describes certain phenomena. I believe it is correct given the caveat that all models are approximations.
I did a physics undergraduate degree a long time ago. I can’t remember specifically but I’m sure the equation was derived and experimental evidence was explained. I have strong faith that matter converts to energy because it explains radiation, fission reactors and atomic weapons. I’ve seen videos of atomic bombs going off. I’ve seen evidence of radioactivity with my own eyes in a lab. I know of many technologies that rely on radioactivity to work - smoke alarms, Geiger counters, carbon dating, etc.
I have faith in the scientific process that many people have verified the equation and phenomena. If the equation was not correct then proving or showing that would be a huge piece of work that would make the career of a scientist that did that. I’m sure many have tried.
Overall the equation is a part of a whole network of beliefs. If the equation was incorrect then that would mean that my word model was very wrong in many uncorrelated ways. I find that unlikely.
There's the argument that increasing access to information creates competition for attention, which drives language to be more concise and readable, e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00117-1