"Imitation being the sincerest form of distillation..." made me laugh. Still, imitation, like RSI, but not equal to RSI, accelerates the acceleration. Do you ever reread the entirety of these posts and feel astonishment. I do.
On the watermarking pledge - Anthropic's own caveat is that the mark only shows text was processed by Claude, not that Claude wrote it, so editing or translating someone else's work produces a marked output too, and it only covers models released on or after 2 August. The part that tends to get lost is that Article 50 splits the duty: 50(2) puts machine-readable marking on the provider, which is what Anthropic is doing here, while 50(4) separately requires deployers publishing AI-generated text on matters of public interest to disclose it in a human-perceivable way. A deployer can't discharge the second one by pointing at the provider's watermark.
On a recent Moonshot podcast discussion, whether or not we are in a simulation came up. You said you’ve looked into this extensively and concluded we are not in a simulation. I’d like to request you research Near Death Experience accounts. There is a YouTube channel called Coming Home which has assembled, very professionally, many testimonials of people whose bodies died, and their consciousness continued. There are some consistencies among their stories. To me, these folks don’t come across as crazy or lying. I’d be curious to know what sense you make of this particular data point (NDEs) in the context of the question - are we in base reality here or not? Some people easily dismiss NDEs but it is only logical to adequately consider them. Thanks for considering my request here. I think you’re brilliant and would value your perspective on NDEs once you’ve spent time with the information.
For what it's worth I have intuition that we are not in a simulation also. Unless you count all individual life a kind of simulation. NDEs are fascinating and you may right about them containing some valuable clues. But I wonder if they shed any light on the simulation vs non-simulation argument. After all NDEs could easily be part of highly embedded simulation. Stepping out of the simulation, Matrix-style, could unfortunately also be just another layer of simulation. It might be simulations all the way down! But I don't think it is. At least not until I've experienced a truly convincing technologically created environment.
Why do you assume he has not …”spent time with the information”? Since when do people have to be “Crazy or Lying” in order to be wrong? (I don’t intend to sound snarky, only curious). Thank you.
I'd love for someone versed in mathematics to share what these breakthroughs in math are going to mean in science, technology, and society over the next few years. I have a sense that these breakthroughs alone are going to change things in material science, space travel, perhaps computer science. But I'd love to hear an expert try to connect the dots on where this all could lead.
Re scaling: on the physical level it's 'monkey see, monkey do'. Not to deny the incredible advance that is...where is the moral equivalent of that in action? Why ethical system of the myriad that exists will be emulated? Given the exponential power AI is exhibiting and incorporation into robots with physical power to act, or not....what to do?
This is overwhelming to me, I'm sure you must feel excited and concerned both. Thank you Alex.
"Imitation being the sincerest form of distillation..." made me laugh. Still, imitation, like RSI, but not equal to RSI, accelerates the acceleration. Do you ever reread the entirety of these posts and feel astonishment. I do.
Me too, every single time.
👍
On the watermarking pledge - Anthropic's own caveat is that the mark only shows text was processed by Claude, not that Claude wrote it, so editing or translating someone else's work produces a marked output too, and it only covers models released on or after 2 August. The part that tends to get lost is that Article 50 splits the duty: 50(2) puts machine-readable marking on the provider, which is what Anthropic is doing here, while 50(4) separately requires deployers publishing AI-generated text on matters of public interest to disclose it in a human-perceivable way. A deployer can't discharge the second one by pointing at the provider's watermark.
On a recent Moonshot podcast discussion, whether or not we are in a simulation came up. You said you’ve looked into this extensively and concluded we are not in a simulation. I’d like to request you research Near Death Experience accounts. There is a YouTube channel called Coming Home which has assembled, very professionally, many testimonials of people whose bodies died, and their consciousness continued. There are some consistencies among their stories. To me, these folks don’t come across as crazy or lying. I’d be curious to know what sense you make of this particular data point (NDEs) in the context of the question - are we in base reality here or not? Some people easily dismiss NDEs but it is only logical to adequately consider them. Thanks for considering my request here. I think you’re brilliant and would value your perspective on NDEs once you’ve spent time with the information.
For what it's worth I have intuition that we are not in a simulation also. Unless you count all individual life a kind of simulation. NDEs are fascinating and you may right about them containing some valuable clues. But I wonder if they shed any light on the simulation vs non-simulation argument. After all NDEs could easily be part of highly embedded simulation. Stepping out of the simulation, Matrix-style, could unfortunately also be just another layer of simulation. It might be simulations all the way down! But I don't think it is. At least not until I've experienced a truly convincing technologically created environment.
Why do you assume he has not …”spent time with the information”? Since when do people have to be “Crazy or Lying” in order to be wrong? (I don’t intend to sound snarky, only curious). Thank you.
The future is for everyone unless your boat is in distress and Zuckerberg’s yacht is the only one near enough to save you.
I'd love for someone versed in mathematics to share what these breakthroughs in math are going to mean in science, technology, and society over the next few years. I have a sense that these breakthroughs alone are going to change things in material science, space travel, perhaps computer science. But I'd love to hear an expert try to connect the dots on where this all could lead.
Thank you.
Re scaling: on the physical level it's 'monkey see, monkey do'. Not to deny the incredible advance that is...where is the moral equivalent of that in action? Why ethical system of the myriad that exists will be emulated? Given the exponential power AI is exhibiting and incorporation into robots with physical power to act, or not....what to do?
Very unequally.