I'd say a conservative group is one that does not want to re-engineer their 
thinking and culture.  Infrastructure is just a result of that thinking and 
culture.  A conservative believes the culture and the power structures embodied 
in it are time-tested and have inertia that should be maintained to the extent 
possible.

I don't think Sabine is especially conservative, but it is probably true that 
grouchy behavior brings different kinds of grouchy people together, and usually 
for the worse.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 9:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] deducing underlying realities from emergent realities

Do we expect or need to find a better structure to explain her behavior? - 
Well, the structure I've posited (clickbait to make money as a youtuber) is a 
pretty good one, I think. Yes, she chooses a target domain (things like physics 
and peri-mathematical things like LLMs) for a deeper reason (because she's 
formally trained in such STEAM stuff). But the rhetoric she uses to claim 
things like "LLMs have plateaued and will stay that way" and "Science is 
Failing" is generalizable to other domains like "Fossil fuels aren't the 
problem, CO2 released from fossil fuels is the problem", an argument giving 
[ahem] fuel to the fire of carbon sequestration tech. [⛧]

These arguments are inherently conservative, intended to preserve the status 
quo. And they are trimmed with the kind of clickbait that appeals to modern 
conservatives (reactionaries). So I'll go ahead and answer "no, we don't need a 
better model". You might argue that The Algorithm is emergent, built atop some 
amalgamation of postmodernism, big tech, the social impact of the changing 
climate, etc. And if you add in the gig economy and such, you might get to a 
society that's qualitatively different from, say, the US in the mid 50s. But 
even if you did that, you'd have to demonstrate and justify the *decoupling*. 
Is that use of "emergent" analyzable/decomposable or not? I'd argue that it is 
decomposable and the decoupling is more metaphor than reality.

[⛧] It's interesting that the typical conservative argument against gun control 
argues that the proximal cause (the gun) isn't the important cause (the person 
firing the gun), further up the causal chain. Contrast this with the reversal 
in the fossil fuel case, where they might argue that the proximal cause (CO2 
for fossil fuels, CH4 for industrial meat) is important and the distal cause 
isn't important. The difference is conservatism, the extent to which we have to 
re-engineer our infrastructure to alleviate the stresses.

On 11/18/24 09:22, steve smith wrote:
> An interesting self-similar discussion to the topic of the discussion?
> 
> So we have deduced the generative structure of Sabine's argument to be/"just" 
> a mish mash of semantic concepts arranged to fit her conservative narrative/? 
>   We don't expect ( or need ) to /find a better structure/ to explain her 
> behaviour?
> 
> Is her behaviour in some sense a part of an emergent, qualitatively distinct 
> paradigm?
> 
> And is my offering here just a mish-mash of dense semantic concepts arranged 
> to be disruptive or self-aggrandizing?
> 
> glen wrote:
>> Yeah, it's kinda sad. Sabine suggests someone's trying to *deduce* the 
>> generators from the phenomena? Is that a straw man? And is she making some 
>> kind of postmodernist argument that hinges on the decoupling of scales? E.g. 
>> since the generator can't be deduced [cough] from the phenomena, nothing 
>> means anything anymore?
>>
>> What they're actually doing is induction, not deduction. And the end 
>> products of the induction, the generative constraints, depend fundamentally 
>> on the structure of the machine into which the data is fed. That structure 
>> is generative, part of the forward map ... deductive. But it's parameterized 
>> by the data. Even if we've plateaued in parameterizing *this* structure, all 
>> it implies is that we'll find a better structure. As Marcus and Jochen point 
>> out, it's really the same thing we've been doing for decades, if not 
>> centuries, in many disciplines.
>>
>> So her rhetoric here is much like her rhetoric claiming that "Science if 
>> Failing". It's just a mish-mash of dense semantic concepts arranged to fit 
>> her conservative narrative.
> 
>>
>> On 11/17/24 08:45, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>>> Sabine is wondering about reported failures of the new generations of LLM's 
>>> to scale the way the their developers expected.
>>>
>>> https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/11/ai-scaling-hits-wall-rumours-say-how.html
>>>  
>>> <https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/11/ai-scaling-hits-wall-rumours-say-how.html>
>>>
>>> On one slide she essentially draws the typical picture of an emergent level 
>>> of organization arising from an underlying reality and asserts, as every 
>>> physicist knows, that you cannot deduce the underlying reality from the 
>>> emergent level.  Ergo, if you try to deduce physical reality from language, 
>>> pictures, and videos you will inevitably hit a wall, because it can not be 
>>> done.
>>>
>>> So she's actually grinding two axes at once: one is AI enthusiasts who 
>>> expect LLM's to discover physics, and the other is AI enthusiasts who 
>>> foresee no end to the improvement of LLM's as they throw more data and 
>>> compute effort at them.
>>>
>>> But, of course, the usual failure of deduction runs in the opposite 
>>> direction, you can't predict the emergent level from the rules of the 
>>> underlying level.  Do LLM's believe in particle collliders?  Or do they 
>>> think we hallucinated them?
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... 
> --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>    1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... 
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... 
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Reply via email to