consciously note the difference between your reply and the post's reply, including any extra details present or missing, without trying to minimize or maximize the difference.
this is a great prompt & I'm curious if you have some guidance on how one can do that better than one currently does it.
Updated a bit on the self-similar vs non-self similar scaling; I'm more unsure than I previously thought that I understand how scaling works, from individual to different types of collectives + time dynamics.
Short of the redundancy and letdown ending, I like this writing as it captures echoes of reasoning failure (that I find myself fall for at times); seems to be written not just for AI researchers (& adjacents) in 2025, but for many minds across "now and then".
It strikes me that Humman does grasp truths (reality is complicated and people do have different strengths) but errs "true at this/his resolution" for "true at all scales". Feels like he assumes self-similar scaling (like a tree) instead of considering the nature of realities that scale in non-self-similar ways (like a snowflake*, with shifts from dendritic to radial structures). More so, he uses his understanding of complexity as a thought-terminating invocation rather than a call to deeper/clearer/coherent-er modeling(s). Both are fairly common failure modes and it would be cool to leave them behind, but I'm unaware of stable ways to do so.
*not meaning to use the snowflake example as a supportive argument for his position ~ "every snowflake is unique and incomparable", tho I do like that in my best of days.
soo, how does one re-choose & make the choice stick in the middle of a pattern that became part of normality?
One of these quick, cheap & semi-permanent wins for me was to uninstall the apps I didn't want to use (e.g. instagram) & make it difficult to access the ones I sort of wanted to use (e.g. youtube).
so, hmm, what do we do with this part? how do we model/measure it? also, how much meaning escapes words at an individual/group level?