Why are our conscious lives so full of suffering? Because the role of consciousness is PR, and PR gets involved mostly when shit goes wrong and our reputations need defending.
sark retweeted
When they say AI will make academics obsolete, this is a good thing!
Claude understands my position on naive binary forecasting (and betting markets) better than 100% of academics in Decision "Science"/Psychology, all verbalistic.
"Why does Taleb despise @PTetlock"?
Theory builders define games, the objective being fruitfulness. Problem solvers play them, the objective is to win. Both involve meta-game coordination dynamics.
Math is seen to be this body of unavoidable, necessary facts only because what math is used in practice has long been negotiated and polished. Even with problem solving at the frontier, the frame has already been decided by past choices in just what math we should care about.
Saying mathematics is about "understanding" still trivialises how un-pregiven and actively-negotiated such understandings are. LLMs can decide to understand something a certain way only within some culture. Whether that culture also involves human participation is the question.
I think much difference in attitudes to LLMs can be explained by how propositional one’s understanding (and meta-understanding) is. Those who operate non-propositionally recognise that most of life isn’t factored through propositions.
At the same time, rationality is a self-reinforcing game which is eating up more and more of the world. It is a mega Schelling point more and more of us are coordinating about. Could be the universe was already long being tiled, by propositions.
Funny how we seem to think the more fundamental something is the more necessary, when the compressibility interpretation of randomness suggests quite the opposite.
Even human-level political-social intelligence among agents would scare the non-AI pilled general public far more any amount of nerdish superintelligence ever would.
Truth is virtue projected onto reality: morality’s old trick of collapsing expected behaviour into identity.
Our language is wiser than ourselves: when we say that something is "a thing" we implicitly recognise that questions of ontology are questions of social coordination.
LLM coding agents are to software what informal proof is to mathematics: a social technology for coordinating above the level of formal objects.
The LLM agents will foreground (i think, and i hope) that following rules is trivial, and the hard part is in deciding which rules to play by in the first place, a fundamentally arational process.
Will LLMs finally wake us up from the thousands-year-long fugue of rationalism, and recover what it means to be human?! youtube.com/watch?v=jkXOudIm…



