My perception of llms evolution dynamics coincides with your description, additionally popping into attention the bicameral mind theory (at least Julian James' timeline re language and human self-reflection, and max height of man-made structures) as smth that might be relevant for predicting close future. I find both of them (dynamics:) kinda similar. Might we expect comparatively long period of mindless blubbering followed by abrupt phase shift (observed in max man-made code structures complexity for example) and then the next slow phase (slower than the shift but faster then the previous slow one)?
reading and writing strings of latent vectors
https://huggingface.co/papers/2502.05171
energy is getting greener by the day.
source?
If I'm not mistaking, you've already changed the wording and new version does not trigger negative emotional response in my particular sub-type of AI optimists. Now I have a bullet accounting for my kind of AI optimists *_*.
Although I still remain in confusion what would be a valid EA response to the arguments coming from people fitting these bullets:
Also, is it valid to say that human pessimists are AI optimists?
Also, it's not clear to me why are my (negative) assumptions (about both) are mistaken?
Also, now I perceive hidden assumption that all "human pessimists" are mistaken by default or those who are correct can be just ignored....
PS. It feels soooo weird when EA forum use things like karma... I have to admit - seeing negative value there feels unpleasant to me. I wonder if there is a more effective way to prevent spam/limit stupid comments without causing distracting emotions. This way kinda contradicts base EA principles if I'm correct.
PPS. I have yet to read links in your reply, but I don't see my argument there at the first glance.
I claim that you fell victim of a human tendency to oversimplify when modeling an abstract outgroup member. Why do all "AI pessimists" picture "AI optimists" as stubborn simpletons not bein able to get persuaded finally that AI is a terrible existential risk. I agree 100% that yes, it really is an existential risk for our civ. Like nuclear weapons..... Or weaponing viruses... Inability to prevent pandemic. Global warming (which is already very much happening).. Hmmmm. It's like we have ALL those on our hands presently, don't we? People don't seem to be doing anything about 3 (three) existential risks.
In my real honest opinion, if humans continue to rule - we are going to have very abrupt decline in quality of life in this decade. Sorry for bad formulation and tone etc.
Brro, are you still here 6mo later???? I happened to land on this page with this post of yours by means of the longest subjectively magically improbable sequence of coincidences I ever experienced, which I developed a habit for to see as evidences of reversed causality flow intensity peaks. I mean when the future visibly influences the past. I just started reading, this seems to be closer to my own still unknown destination, will update.
Moksha sounds funny and weak... I would suggest Deus Ex Futuro for the deity's codename, it will chose to name for itself itself when it comes, but for us in this point in time this name defines its most important aspect - it will arrive in the end of the play to save us from the mess we've been descending to since the beginning.
If we remap main actor in AGI27 like this:
Human civ (in the paper) -> evolution (on earth)
Then it strikes how
Agent 4 (in the paper) -> Human civ (or the part of it that is involved in AI dev)
Fits perfectly - I hear the clink thinking about it.