Your statement piked out my interest and I went searching for what Rubisco was. My prediction is that this particular one will be cracked out soon, and at around 2045, creating disgustingly efficient variants of RuBisCO along with other photosynthesis mechanisms will be AGIs’ hot hobby.
That there are no more efficient variations of it in nature just tells us that the local minimum is really deep and that natural evolution, as it is, can’t produce anything better, not even with a billion years and 10^30 organisms serving as a “brute force lab”. It’s also the kind of problem an AGI system would tackle for purely ideological reasons, i.e. to prove that it is superior to nature.
Roughly, there are two types of code in a user application: logic and media related. There are many exceptions, but logic code generally doesn’t need a lot of CPU. Media algorithms on the other hand are all CPU hogs, and SIMD helps there quite a bit.
Now, I also happen to think that modern desktops run a lot of background survtech…some from the operating system itself, but most from third-party software and web pages. So, in addition to more CPU performance, I would also like more system utilities that spy on the spies and automatically puts them in some public score of shame.
> In your first draft, most of your paragraphs are bad, your topic flow is incoherent, and you’ve got at least 750 words you don’t need.
I stopped reading at this point. All of the above may have been correct five years ago, when there was a "canon" of good writing, but now LLMs pack that canon as tight as teenagers in a boy band concert. So, go with a flow that reflects your state of mind--LLMs don't have that--and yield the words in fistfuls and with abandon. To further distance yourself from LLM output, your writing can be any or all of these things: sassy, prosaic, heathen.
Uses for LLMs: grammar checks, and to see if your idea comes through. However, depending on what you are writing, I recommend leaving in your writing a tiny doses of typos, grammar issues, and infuriating word order choices. Even some level of ambiguity is fine; your fellow humans and LLMs are not all of one mind, and if some of them are going to fight with knives over your exact meaning, well, it's them who are the extremists, not your problem.
I often think of what we are buying ourselves with AI. Five years ago, when this wave started, my conclusion was that either humanity or humanism is scheduled for extinction. I love my species enough to prefer the lesser evil of the demise of humanism, if for that price we can save our species.
> The moment someone figures out a new modality for LLMs is when we’ll see the next hockey stick.
Honestly, that fills me with fear. LLMs exist to make money to their companies, and said companies are not gonna turn around and say, "you know what, go are going to make an android for each elderly person, that can not only help them with their medications, but that can actually make their medications, tailored to their biologies." Instead, they are going to go for the low-handing fruit of "you know Bob, the guy who makes jokes in meetings but who is grumpy about delivery timelines? Well, we are going to make an android to replace Bob. MetalBob will make even better jokes. The blue model will be able to explain in excruciating level of detail why timelines aren't reasonable. The red model will walk through the cubicles with a whip to ensure everybody keeps working all the time, and nobody goes to pee."
I think this is really good and kudos to Apple for implementing it. The first question that popped into my mind was "what new scenarios of government X forcing Apple to do 'terrible thing' to 'individual' this enables?", but I can't think of anything. It seems that all government attack vectors this feature enables are of the type "government X forces Apple to do 'terrible thing' to 'Apple'", i.e. a government can try to force Apple into certifying a narrative, and of course Apple is going to fight tooth and nail the lack of credibility that would result from that.
Though, on second thought, "government X could force Apple to disable feature for members of group Y" seems possible. I'm sure you can come with "Y" quite easily, heard anything about Ed Sheeran's tour?
I mean, the obvious one is that they can revoke certification of a photo despite it being real.
The harder one is they can force apple to certify a fake photo.
the part that would be very hard but not outside the realm of plausibility, is that gov could force apple to introduce a bug in its pcc platform to link photos to the photographer in order to track and arrest inconvenient people. Apple says there are a bunch of protections against that but ultimately you are trusting apple to do it the way they say they are.
It does indeed, and that is a fundamental flaw. but as has been discussed here, it is better than the alternative, which is no verification.
During the pandemic, I outlined a scheme for using blockchain technology for image provenance and authenticity tracking. The idea was that instead of any one entity assigning authenticity that it would be done in a crowdsourced manner and that the device would overlay a score whenever an image or video is shown to a user.
My assumption was that the desire of users to see such scores would force all manufacturers to implement this open protocol. But my approach suffered from chicken and egg problem, which Apple's does not.
Hmm, this doesn’t make sense. You simply don’t replace utilities with many decades of maturity and that “just work” with something that is not as mature. It will open all users of the distro to all sorts of subtle and not so subtle bugs. I for one don’t want to find myself staring at a mysterious segfault when I want to build the latest version of nodejs or flash a microcontroller. It’s such a pity; I have used Ubuntu for close to 23 years.
A lot of people here have noted the “problem with language” of Claude. I don’t see an issue. Claude is not harder than old English, Shakespeare, El Quijote, the Iliad, or Nature papers. What makes it all hard to read is context. The smarter the model gets, the bigger the gap in context.
It doesn’t matter much, IMO. The issue with super-intelligence is that it is not a democracy. A powerful enough AI can manipulate us into doing what it wants. It could create a plan for fixing climate change, disconnect a few hours later, and many decades later we could still be unsuspectingly executing that plan. I wrote some speculative fiction with that idea, “When Ra rows through the gates of Duat”.
Here's a scoop from inside writing circles (pre-AI era): we were a lot into "good writing techniques". Not into communication. We wanted to produce a "marketable product". On the way, we (writers, literature professors, critics, etc) trained readers and writers to appreciate technique by telling them there was such a thing. We established tropes, because "This enemies-to-lovers story is good" sells more than "you should read Book". AI is very good at techniques and tropes. If readers want authentic human writing, they will have to change.
I use Opus and Sonnet 5 all the time and I find their language grating. But honest, I prefer to put up with it and get the results than to put up with my own human limitations and not get the results.
That there are no more efficient variations of it in nature just tells us that the local minimum is really deep and that natural evolution, as it is, can’t produce anything better, not even with a billion years and 10^30 organisms serving as a “brute force lab”. It’s also the kind of problem an AGI system would tackle for purely ideological reasons, i.e. to prove that it is superior to nature.
reply