A key algorithm for general intelligence is a compensation mechanism for category error. This is because anything that learns must recognize that their habitual models of thought can be in error.
Planck remarked that science makes progress one funeral at a time. The problem with the human condition is that we are so devoted to the personal habits we invented for ourselves that we have difficulty letting them go.
Even more difficult, we embed in our language habits of thought. We are unable to break out of this jail because we cannot express new things with an old vocabulary.
Thus to make progress we develop new vocabularies. Unfortunately, new vocabularies cannot be understood by other people who did not go through the experience of deriving the new concept for themselves.
Pioneers are those people who are able to expand into new territories. They learn by exploring and uncovering hidden ideas. In contrast, the settlers are people who learn only by imitation. Most people are settlers.
People are settlers because it's always more comfortable to fall back on your old habits. Furthermore, civilization indoctrinates people to become settlers. The machinery of civilization requires many to sacrifice their lives to be cogs in the great machine.
We are so entrenched in the machine metaphor of civilization that we are unable to recognize the difference between narrow and general intelligence. What we usually see as intelligence is of the narrow kind. We fail to notice the general kind.
Intelligence becomes narrow as a consequence of habit. Habit are behaviors that we perform subconsciously and automatically. The problem with all conscious thought is that they are also a consequence of habit. Thus to see error we have to cultivate a different kind of habit.
The practice of science leads to the breaking of habit. It is through experimentation that we gain insight into how reality works. Reality is sufficiently complex that we need complex interactions with reality to uncover its inner workings.
We do not discover how reality works by reasoning based on old habits. Experimental discoveries are what leads to new habits that lead to new vocabularies and hence new hypotheses about reality.
Mathematics is that peculiar field that we discover new vocabularies that are independent of reality. Math provides vocabularies that can express all kinds of realities that include alternative realities.
It is the combination of new vocabularies influenced by experiential discoveries and vocabularies discovered in math that lead to new formulations of reality. Recently, however, computational discoveries are also creating new vocabularies. Experimentation, math and computation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Challenge: Describe in words why when you look in the mirror your left and right sides have flipped but not the top and bottom. But when you lie down horizontally, what side was on the bottom is now on the top. As if the top and bottoms have flipped.
This demonstrates that words can generate a paradox when there is none. Why is it that in one case the mirror flips horizontally and in another case, it flips vertically? How does the mirror know when and how to flip the image?
Words are instructions of imagination. It is like a magic trick when words distract you from the solution of the problem. Why does a mirror flip an image vertically or horizontally depending on a person's reference frame?
The biggest effect of the global pandemic is that it disrupts how everyone frames their daily life. It breaks us out of our old habits and creates entirely new ones.
Modern humans are creatures of habit. At a very young age, we are introduced to routines that eventually become habitual. The most efficient of us learn the habits of success at a very early age. The rest of us just muddle our lives away.
The habits that we develop from childhood to the present are who we are. They are our own personal creations. This is why habits (which are all mental in nature) are something we have difficulty abandoning. They are what defines us.
SMH, seems like researchers don't know how to measure the generality of a large language model. Larger GPT-3 models are much better at discerning intent in zero-shot tasks. So I do find the paper described here as missing the target.
Generality implies greater creativity. Lying just happens to require creativity. I better measure would perhaps be a rewriting task. Smaller models don't have subspaces where rewriting even exists.
Another measure may be in joke generation. Larger models without a doubt come up with more unique jokes.
I am curious, what countries actually have restrictive rules against multi-level marketing business models? It's pervasive and legal in the USA. I ask because this docuseries about Lularue is an eye-opener to its inner workings. amazon.com/LuLaRich-Seaso…
Multi-level marketing has been around for a long time in the USA. Examples of companies that have been around a long time are Tupperware, Avon and Amway.
But it's interesting that almost every human institution is like a multi-level marketing scheme. But unlike an MLM the rules of the hierarchy are tacitly encoded and the rewards are more intangible.
What I find very weird is that people are surprised with the notion that someone taught himself a skill. As if a teacher was absolutely necessary to learn anything. As if you can't learn anything by reading and experimenting by yourself.
"Wow, he's self-taught, he must be extremely gifted!" Are people, in general, incapable of learning anything without a teacher?
But to be perfectly fair, I'm in awe with kids who self teach themselves how to play music. I don't think I have the passion to do that! So I suspect this self-taught thing has everything to do with passion and talent.
I'm coming to the realization that the GOP isn't a conservative party but rather an incoherent group of disenfranchised parties. Any group that has trouble pushing its agenda sees an opening by joining the GOP. It's also a business model to milk the disenfranchised.
Trump perhaps saw this so he reached out to any and every fringe group for their support. Any group, no matter how abhorrent their views are welcome in the GOP. But how do they handle conflicts between parties in the group?
They actually don't need to be because incoherence is the mode of operation. Trump has consistently been logically inconsistent. It is the same for parties within the GOP. They band together not because of commonality but rather because of shared disenfranchisement.