Hard to say. Oyster larvae are highly mobile and move their bodies around extensively both to eat and to find places to eventually anchor to, but I don't know how I would compare that to spores or seeds, say, or to lifetime movement; and oysters "move their bodies around" and are not purely static - they would die if they couldn't open and close their shells or pump water. (And all the muscle they use to do that is why we eat them.)

Anthropic doesn't delete weights of released models

How do you know that? Because OpenAI has done that.

Fulltext link: https://gwern.net/doc/statistics/bayes/1963-mosteller.pdf since it doesn't turn up in GS. (One of many papers I host with clean metadata and easily scraped and listed in the sitemap.xml for a long time which still doesn't turn up for unknown reasons.)

Isn't that just mode-collapse?

Plants have many ways of moving their bodies like roots and phototropism, in addition to an infinite variety of dispersal & reproductive mechanisms which arguably are how plants 'move around'. (Consider computer programs: they 'move' almost solely by copying themselves and deleting the original. It is rare to move a program by physically carrying around RAM sticks or hard drives.) Fungi likewise often have flagellum or grow in addition to all their sporulation and their famous networks.

There's no reason whatsoever to think that they are independent of each other. The very fact that you can classify them systematically as 'positive' or 'negative' valence indicates they are not and you don't know what 'raw chance' here yields. It might be quite probable.

I don't know what the samples have to do with it. I mean simply that the parameters of the model are initialized randomly and from the start all tokens will cause slightly different model behaviors, even if the tokens are never seen in the training data, and this will remain true no matter how long it's trained.

Or it could just be randomness from initialization which hasn't been washed away by any training. "Subliminal" encoding immediately comes to mind.

but I don't think it would extend lifespan indefinitely.

I think the big question about head transplants for me is how it interacts with the process of aging, given that body systems are heavily intercorrelated and damage in one system will damage other systems (and vice versa with healing).

Intuitively, I would expect it to work statistically in one of two ways. In the pessimistic case, the brain keeps aging on the normal Gompertz schedule, and even a perfect head transplant can never buy you more than a decade or two before any of your head-located diseases kill you; it corresponds to shifting the aging mortality spike down somewhat, but it is still going to spike soon. (In this scenario, the trauma and cost of a head transplant might rule it out for a lot of elderly people: you might die on the operating table or afterwards, and it doesn't buy you much time.) In the optimistic case, the near-reset of the body to the pink of youth will eliminate all of the aging acceleration from the rest of the aging body and heal the brain and by changing the exponent, potentially buy you drastic increases in lifespan by flattening the spike, and 50 or 100 years might suddenly be statistically plausible. At which point you might as well consider it an indefinite lifespan extension because who knows where medical technology will be in 100+ years?