jtuffy117@gmail.com
2
3
jtuffy117@gmail.com has not written any posts yet.
jtuffy117@gmail.com has not written any posts yet.
Responding to some of the overarching evolution ideas.
A while back I went down the rabbit hole of “how life started” and how this incredible evolutionary process, in feats only describable as magic, was somehow able to turn dirt into conscious, questioning beings, which then might eventually evolve into “basically god”. Drawing a path all the way from the original LUCA. What an astounding phenomena of the universe.
Maybe what helped lift this naivety, and I think it was explained well by Nexus, is that “evolutionary” selection algorithms are one type of optimization tool/pattern. Comparatively, not even a very good one. Evolution’s “prime quality” is just that it is the only one which seems... (read more)
I don’t agree that there is no conceivable path forward with current technology. This perspective seems too focused on base LLM models diminishing returns (eg 4.5 to 4). You brought up CoT and limited reasoning window, but I could imagine this solved pretty easily with some type of master / sub task layering. I also believe some of those issues could in fact be solved with brute scale anyway. You also critique the newer models as “Frankenstein” but I think OAI is right about that as an evolution. Basic models should have basic inputs and output functionality like we have for computers. “Models” don’t need to be pure token generators and can... (read more)
To be honest, you are not actually responding to ideas in this essay. That's okay, just want to flag this.
I’m sorry this was your takeaway, but feel free to return to my OP for deeper reflection at any point. The general idea, which I tried to put sensitively, is you are the one “misunderstanding evolution” at a rather deep level.
And yes I saw your comment that was partly what I was replying to