At this point, we can confidently say that no, capabilities are not hitting a wall. Capacity density, how much you can pack into a given space, is way up and rising rapidly, and we are starting to figure out how to use it.
Not only did we get o1 and o1 pro and also Sora and other upgrades from OpenAI, we also got Gemini 1206 and then Gemini Flash 2.0 and the agent Jules (am I the only one who keeps reading this Jarvis?) and Deep Research, and Veo, and Imagen 3, and Genie 2 all from Google. Meta’s Llama 3.3 dropped, claiming their 70B is now as good as the old 405B, and basically no one noticed.
This morning I saw Cursor now offers ‘agent mode.’ And hey...
We still can find errors in every phishing message that goes out, but they’re getting cleaner.
Whether or not this is true today, it is a statement in which I put near-zero credence.
...Harry had unthinkingly started to repeat back the standard proverb that there was no such thing as a perfect crime, before he actually thought about it for two-thirds of a second, remembered a wiser proverb, and shut his mouth in midsentence. If you did commit the perfect crime, nobody would ever find out - so how could anyone possibly know that there weren't perfect crimes? And
I’ve updated quite hard against computational functionalism (CF) recently (as an explanation for phenomenal consciousness), from ~80% to ~30%. Of course it’s more complicated than that, since there are different ways to interpret CF and having credences on theories of consciousness can be hella slippery.
So far in this sequence, I’ve scrutinised a couple of concrete claims that computational functionalists might make, which I called theoretical and practical CF. In this post, I want to address CF more generally.
Like most rationalists I know, I used to basically assume some kind of CF when thinking about phenomenal consciousness. I found a lot of the arguments against functionalism, like Searle’s Chinese room, unconvincing. They just further entrenched my functionalismness. But as I came across and tried to explain away more and more...
Two thoughts here
I feel like the actual crux between you and OP is with the claim in post #2 that the brain operates outside the neuron doctrine to a significant extent. This seems to be what your back and forth is heading toward; OP is fine with pseudo-randomness as long as it doesn't play a nontrivial computational function in the brain, so the actual important question is not anything about pseudo-randomness but just whether such computational functions exist. (But maybe I'm missing something, also I kind of feel like this is what most people's objec
A new article in Science Policy Forum voices concern about a particular line of biological research which, if successful in the long term, could eventually create a grave threat to humanity and to most life on Earth.
Fortunately, the threat is distant, and avoidable—but only if we have common knowledge of it.
What follows is an explanation of the threat, what we can do about it, and my comments.
Glucose, a building block of sugars and starches, looks like this:
But there is also a molecule that is the exact mirror-image of glucose. It is called simply L-glucose (in contrast, the glucose in our food and bodies is sometimes called D-glucose):
This is not just the same molecule flipped around,...
That was a fascinating post, thanks for writing it!
In Scott Alexander's review of Twelve Rules for Life he discusses how Jordan Peterson and CS. Lewis seem to have the ability to express cliches in ways that don't feel cliched.
Jordan Peterson’s superpower is saying cliches and having them sound meaningful. There are times – like when I have a desperate and grieving patient in front of me – that I would give almost anything for this talent. “You know that she wouldn’t have wanted you to be unhappy.” “Oh my God, you’re right! I’m wasting my life grieving when I could be helping others and making her proud of me, let me go out and do this right now!” If only.
This seems like an undervalued skill, particularly within the rationalist community where the focus tends to...
As far as I can tell, you do not really argue why you think platitudes contain valuable wisdom. You only have one example, and that one is super-vague.
For me this post would be much better if you added several examples that show in more detail why the platitude is valuable.
Exactly. But then what does "curiosity" signal? Not laziness (as suggested in the post), but the opposite, right? Just asking seems the lazier version.
No one is explicitly giving a link to the rules or stating an answer otherwise so let me word out what I gathered from the nonverbal feedback.
I have received -7 agreement within a few minutes of posting this. Me assuming "when not defined it must be free game" was tagged as locally invalid and I can see how this is true. In other words: English is the de facto language of the LessWrong forum if not only due to policy then at least due to custom.
I like the LW community and the feature of ForumMagnum/LW2 they developed a lot and I didn't even knew one can ta...
The creation of a “mirrored” organism could “trigger severe ecological disruptions,” according to a 300-page technical report released today. Its authors claim such organisms could quickly spread across the world, fatally infect humans, and “directly drive vulnerable plant and animal species to extinction.” The report accompanies an article in Science, also released today, entitled “Confronting Risks of Mirror Life.”
But what, exactly, is a mirrored organism? To answer that, let’s consider how extant life works.
Proteins, sugars, lipids, and nucleic acids — key molecules used by cellular life — are all “chiral,” a term derived from the Greek for “hand.” Just as our hands cannot be perfectly aligned on top of one another regardless of how they are rotated, despite being mirror images, the same is true of chiral...
I think the risk of infection to humans would be very low. The human body can generate antibodies to pretty much anything (including PEG, benzenes, which never appear in nature) by selecting protein sequences from a huge library of cells. This would activate the complement system which targets membranes and kills bacteria in a non-chiral way.
The risk to invertebrates and plants might be more significant, not sure about the specifics of plant immune system.
Are apples good to eat? Usually, but some apples are rotten.
Do humans have ten fingers? Most of us do, but plenty of people have lost a finger and nonetheless qualify as "human".
Unless you descend to a level of description far below any macroscopic object - below societies, below people, below fingers, below tendon and bone, below cells, all the way down to particles and fields where the laws are truly universal - then practically every generalization you use in the real world will be leaky.
(Though there may, of course, be some exceptions to the above rule...)
Mostly, the way you deal with leaky generalizations is that, well, you just have to deal. If the cookie market almost always closes at 10pm, except on Thanksgiving it closes at 6pm, and today...
Amusing instructive and unfortunate this post's actual meaning got lost in politics. IMO it's one of the better ones.
Am left wondering if "local" here has a technical meaning or is used as a vague pointer.
(Excerpted from "mad investor chaos and the woman of asmodeus", about an unusually selfish dath ilani, "Keltham", who dies in a plane accident and ends up in Cheliax, a country governed by D&D!Hell. Keltham is here remembering an incident from his childhood.)
And the Watcher told the class a parable, about an adult, coming across a child who'd somehow bypassed the various safeguards around a wilderness area, and fallen into a muddy pond, and seemed to be showing signs of drowning (for they'd already been told, then, what drowning looked like). The water, in this parable, didn't look like it would be over their own adult heads. But - in the parable - they'd just bought some incredibly-expensive clothing, costing dozens of their own labor-hours, and less resilient...
I have heard a number of people saying that they don't want to give money to charity because they don't trust the charities spend the money well.