Ero

Predicting outputs from inputs is what all ML models do (that's why they are called models). They need this much compute, because they are 'searching' a parametric space of trillion parameters - it comes from the sheer size of the models. You are intuition is on point IMO. Similar to Gary Marcus, and more recently Yann LeCunn, I am a proponent of the idea of 'embedding' the representations of human thinking/ knowledge to achieve immense efficiency speed-ups. I am quoting the Lie-Poisson paper in my previous post for this: 'The advantage of PINNs is their computational efficiency: speedups more than 100,00x for evaluations of solutions of complex systems like weather have been reported' - referencing Accurate medium- range global weather forecasting with 3d neural networks and Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model using adaptive Fourier neural operators

How could I? I am writing a thesis, referencing many of those papers. Nowhere did I say it is the end of the process. GPUs will always help, but what I was pointing at is that alone won't be enough. There are physics- and biology-related systems that are provably unsolvable by Transformers (part of what I am working for my thesis). That is what I meant by that not being sufficient, no matter how much compute you throw at it. Again, you seem to take for granted 'new paradigms' coming along. As someone who works on the categorical/reasoning side of AI, I can tell you that their construction would be painstakingly slow, utilizing all the domain-specific knowledge we have. An example are Lie-Poisson Networks, part of a broader class of PINNs. Embodied AI would definitely be a revolutionary technology, but you won't achieve it without having first some breakthroughs in the PINNs and Reasoning paradigms. I agree with the AI ecosystem vision, moreso than singular foundational models. Local domain-optimized models would be far more effective for the wide range of scenarios that would cause the disruption you are foreseeing. The thing is, when you say exponential, then you assume a multiplicative improvement year-by-year, similar to the AGI by 2027 wacko, whereas I am predicting more a cycle-like trend with general improvements with two important notes: first, the current peak is not the final, and second, the 'intelligence explosion'/ 'run off' scenario is almost impossible, considering the underlying energy constraints - with the current Energy production, there is just not enough to handle such a scenario (Wells Fargo predicts a 550% surge by 2026 to 52 TWh). We gotta scale up 5-10x Nuclear and work towards Fusion to have even a remote chance of satiating the upcoming energy demand.

Absolutely. I agree with your frame about evading politics, I don't see how that would be productive.

Not within the current paradigm, i.e Transformer/LLM . Mira Murati, the CTO of OpenAI has already stated they don't have anything in production that is much better. Check the MMLU benchmark plateau in the second image - you can see only marginal improvements. LLMs are already at the their maximum, since they have exhausted pretty much all data, synthetic data doesn't work as yesterday's article from nature shows. What you are referring to is ASICs, or dedicated chips, such as those my classmates built for etched.ai. The problem with them is that they work only for inference and not for training. You still need GPUs for that and even with the latest H100, LLama 3 or GPT-4 is estimated to have exceeded $1B, and that is only training. So no, dedicated silicon will not solve this problem. I agree with this, but you seem to take for granted the invention of 'new more effective techniques'. The last innovation was the transformer and that was 7 years ago. We haven't had any vertical/ architectural jumps since then, it has only been scaling. And even that doesn't prevent representational collapse or incorrect reasoning.

Hows your reading comprehension? Let me do a breakdown of what you said, vs. what I said: consciousness will be heavier, anchored, simpler vs. fluid, I have had vivid dreams and spiritual experiences they will be overtly much more interested in playing and sleeping vs. mnot interested in playing or sleeping, if... interested in 'abstract stuff' will be very pragmatic and without qualms, openly selfish and in search of a "simple" paradigm vs. I study Pure Mathematics, which is as abstract as it gets (which is also as far from pragmatic as a subject can be), have a disdain for reductive and 'simple' paradigms If you really go against his interests, he can on the other hand go much further from time to time in physical violence. vs. have NEVER resorted to physical violence OUTSIDE when it has been absolutely necessary for my own and my friends' safety.

Regretfully, I this is how it had to be for me. I was smoking/ taking edibles almost daily to the point that it started directly interfering with my responsibilities for uni, so I had to a cold turkey stop. I haven't smoked in like 7 months.

@Schizophonia I have very very high levels of Testosterone naturally and almost entirely disagree with your following description: My consciousness is very fluid, I have had vivid dreams and spiritual experiences since very young. I need 3 sec to begin experiencing the 'Dancing Buddha'. I am not interested in playing or sleeping, I study Pure Mathematics, which is as abstract as it gets, have a disdain for reductive and 'simple paradigms' and have NEVER resorted to physical violence outside of being jumped or surrounded on the streets. Be careful with being this reductive or simplistic in your assumptions.

@cjoseph90 Have you been experiencing any long-term side effects? I am asking, because I was really big into tea, but when I started doing a lot of cognitive work for uni, the caffeine was just not enough. I started drinking like 3-4 cups a day for the last year or two and haven't had any problems with sleep or heart rate. I am physically active, so that might be helping, but I wonder if I should dial it back.

@RedLine That is very interesting. Mushrooms and LSD are very different for me, Haven't tried DMT yet, trying to get my hands on it. From my experience Mushrooms are very magical, almost archetypal in their imagery and messages. I have had hallucinations of serpents, pyramids, my ancestors, whilst simultaneously the experience being very blissful. My first mushroom trip was 2g, which I barely remember, same as the 5 g I did a year later. All my other mushroom trips were in the 1.5-3 g range with extremely positive impact, meta-awareness, ego death and the sort. I They feel good only when I am in nature. LSD I have probably around 20 trips, the lower doses of which are 150-200 ug and the higher doses being 250-350 ug. The lower doses are perfectly manageable, with great insights into cognition, science and technology. LSD is very cerebral and sharp for me. The sharpness gets stronger towards the higher doses. For some reason my last 4-5 trips on LSD were all chaos-like. For the first of them I made the mistake of having watched Horror (Evil Dead Rise) and researching the sigil Solomon mythos, which backfired. The subsequent ones were very much geared towards the realizations of the sheer Chaos in Consciousness. The analogy I have is that most of the nature documentaries show only the butterflies, colorful birds and puffy animals, but don't show the parasites, hornets and all the murder and death that is part of the cycle of life, the latter of which was essentially where my trips were forcing me to look at. Wouldn't call any of the latter trips 'bad', but they were definitely humbling. So much so that I haven't tripped on LSD in almost a year and I am lowkey anxious to take the one tab I got rn.

Elon has definitely done some questionable 'marketing'. His famous predictions that never happen are part of it. But if you look in general at Silicon Valley, it seems to breed that type of over-zealous vision crafting. Sam Altman, who in my opinion is straight-up a sociopath, is currently doing some of the most bonkers predictions, all to rile up investors. Amongst their ilk, Musk is probably the one who deserves the most credit, but that still comes with a disclaimer about his political opinions and employer style. I have a friend who worked at SpaceX and he told me that with Musk at the helm, you can kiss goodbye your personal life.

I read on the author's wiki, that his original work 'All Yesterdays' was based on an alternative evolutionary history of cryptds. There is this awesome series on YouTube, covering the latter. Could be an interesting watch:

@Ayham College is not for everybody, but if you are deeply interested in certain subjects, such as math, physics, engineering, etc. college is really the only place you can learn them. I had similar qualms, because I had always been multi-faceted with a deep curiosity about the world. I don't know where you are based, but my advice is to try and get to study in the US. There is the only system that allows you to switch majors - I got in Ivy with Physics, switched to CS and eventually ended up with working towards a joint concentration of Pure Math and Statistics. Reason it would be good to have that opportunity is that you may realize the way the subject is taught is not aligned with your interest. For example, my uni's Theoretical Physics department is all String Theory BS and all else is considered heresy. CS in university is taught mostly language-agnostic and the focus is on algorithms (the stuff of FAANG interviews). What I couldn't bare was the fact that I was going from obscure language to obscure language and was spending an exorbitant amount de-bugging, which was just killing all the fun of it. I ended up with Math for two reasons - first, I actually had to work for it, and second, one of my professor told me that with his graduate math education he was able to understand all the scientific papers with minimal background reading. That honestly sounded like a super-power and would allow my ability to switch from field to field if I wanted. Now, my advice is the following - college is HARD. I was straight As in the best HS in my country without much effort, but for example last semester I had to work for 10-12 a day throughout all 4 months and I still didn't get all As. So, unless you have a clear vision of why you need to study or you love it, don't do it. This is a video of an MIT neurosurgeon who quit after 10 years of practice sharing similar sentiment - even if you are curious about medicine, the workload would most likely take it out of you, unless you really love it. Lastly, don't feel that your degree or lack thereof defines you. It really depends on what you want to do and in general, I know too many people who are not even working what they studied for. I for one, will be one of those. I used my education as an entryway to the US, since I realized long ago that whatever I wanted to do, my home country was too small for it.

I loved this video when it came out. I have a sweet spot for this type of sci-fi/ cosmic horror. I think the author is fundraising to complete the translation (link)

This is just False. However, it is true that we are heading into an AI winter, since the current scaling paradigm has already reached the two fundamental bottlenecks of data and compute/energy. I think it is necessary to sober up. I am foreseeing a year or two until the markets correct for all the burned money that hasn't seen returns (check out Sequoia's Article on AI's 600B Questions) We need fundamentally different approaches to architectures, employing all the scientific knowledge we have through a functorial bridge that is yet to be built (Paper by Google Deep Mind and others suggesting precisely that)

Looking forward to that one.

@Phil King Ah, I forgot about that one, thanks. Imma rewatch it. I have had far worse, trust me.

@Leo Gura If you are referring to the video ‘Dangers of Psychedelics’ (2021) I have watched it. I am referring more so to your more recent posts in the forum: You have given necessary precautions, I am not saying you haven’t. What I am asking is related to some of my recent trips/realisations about sheer scale of Chaos/ Insanity realms in an almost Lovecraftian manner. Remember when you said that if you go deep enough, you will eventually meet Insanity face to face? That’s what I am referring to, and from what I have seen in your videos and forum to date, that is a fairly recent encounter you have had.

Courageous stuff, thanks for sharing. I definitely resonate with your realization - on certain trips of LSD and shrooms I stepped outside the 'human story' almost in 4D and realized how everything that had occurred in my life was somehow placed by me from outside the veil of the human story - my family, my life experiences - all of them were decision from a place beyond time.

Do you plan on sharing at some point your experiences with the Horrors of Consciousness/ the Insanity Realms? It would be an important counter-balance to the rosy New Age approach to psychedelics which is implicitly dangerous. Kilindi Iyi, the ultra high-dose guy has spoken on some of it, but I would be genuinely interested in your perspective.

I can give a few examples about why and how Infinity is so terrifying. It is related to something called a 'combinatorial explosion': You probably have heard of the idea that an immortal monkey with a typewriter and infinite time will eventually write 'Hamlet'. This is because in the 'parametric space' of all possible strings, there is a non-zero chance of the monkey typing up any one of them, including your past, future and all the gruesome ways you and your family can die. If we extrapolate this idea to potentially disruptive technologies, the consequences become quite worrying. If, for example, we want to develop the ability to restore all extinct species and/or be able to eliminate genetic diseases, this necessarily requires traversing the space of all possible genetic codes (instead of the alphabet, we use only A, C, G, T). By the same principle as above, there is a non-zero chance of us stumbling on the facehuggers/xenomorphs from 'Alien' or the 'The Thing', which consumes all organic matter it touches. Taming the Chaos/ Infinity is dangerous work.

Despite this not being my formal background, I have found not only his work, but also his ontology and epistemic openness as a model to aspire to. Bernardo Kastrup coined him 'one of the most important people alive' and after watching his latest interview with Curt Jaimungal, I can't help but share the sentiment. Below I am listing some of the highlights from my 5-6 pages of notes: - He is a panpsychist/ idealist, i.e sees consciousness as the fundamental ontology. Understands the fact that consciousness cannot be subject to the 'scientific method' due to the fundamental first-person nature of it. Understands the emergent/ holistic nature of reality, i.e different levels of abstraction require different tools - not everything can be or should be described through physical laws. - He sees the underlying approach of his work as the study of embodied mind, i.e cognition/intelligence in various embodiments, both biological and synthetic/ cybernetic in nature. Sees the world as varying levels of cognition, including down to the physical level of what he describes as 'basal cognition' in the form of potential energy and least action principles. - Developed the first methods for bioelectrical manipulation of cell networks, which leads to manipulations of the phenotype in ways that break the existent paradigm as genes being the only factor for the shape and form of an organism (the first person to induce permanent change in planaria, i.e flat worm, which is a non-genetically-modifiable species). He describes bio-electricity as the 'cognitive glue', allowing for collective intelligence. - Introduced the idea of 'cognitive light cones' - the larger parametric/goal-oriented space of the organism's collective intelligence that allows for separate cells to collude/ organize the higher-order complexity and emergence of tissues, organs, limbs and the organism itself. The 'breakdown' of the cognitive light cone is what leads to metastatic cells. Proper function can be restored by establishing bioelectrical networks with neighboring cells. There were many other gems. I am going to dive deeper in the technical papers and some of his other talks. Hope you find it as useful, or at least as inspiring as I did.

@questionreality Your observations about Leo seem to be limited. To call him a narcissist just demonstrates you either don't know the meaning of ASPD or are just being inflammatory. Sure, he has a strong ego. But to question reality is not for the weak. Not displaying vulnerability? This is you not being aware of the many times we have seen genuine tears from him. Do a little research. For the intellectual integrity you accuse him of not having,

Sure I do. The good ol' Eastern European shit hole.

I don't think so. She still has to convince voters, but Trump seems to forget what lost him the election in 2021 - the demographic that likes the over-zealous rhetoric and personal attacks is a minority. The moderate voter in swing states that doesn't follow politics closely is the one who essentially decides. That's definitely true, but I still think she has to forcefully check him when he is spewing lies, otherwise she may look weak. This is regretfully something that will be examined due to her being potentially the first woman president. I hope her prosecutor background shines. Trump needs to be met precisely with that strong and poignant critique.

LSD is also fairly brutal for me (starting at around 300 ug). I enjoy the trips, because they are very humbling and consciously expanding, but I feel exhaustion after each one. I have had far more blissful and cosmic experiences on shrooms. I think it comes down to the molecule and dose.