Terrifying. I just don't see how this doesn't inevitably lead to brain-scale organoids. The ethics of it seem impossible. Given how we treat non-human animals this reminds me of the torment nexus meme.
If a device made of human brain cells were designed to function like a traditional, deterministic CPU, that would raise similar questions as LLMs raise today.
It would do no such thing. LLMs are neither living nor sentient nor intelligent. The fallacy of computationalism is a failure to read a coarse metaphor as merely analogical. Any correspondence is superficial and limited, and even then, merely correspondence, not identity.
So, the use of human brain cells is different territory. Bioethically speaking, it is illicit to press human body parts (which includes cells) into service for technological ends. They can only licitly enter into service of the integral human whole (such a life-saving transplants). Using them in technology also commoditizes the human body. (The reverse is not the case: it can be licit to use cybernetic devices to restore native function within a human body.)
No, not at all. For one thing, they said "made of brain cells", not brains--those are two very different things. (Yes, brains are made of brain cells, but that's a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.)
Computers made of transistors were designed to function like computers made of vacuum tubes without negating the benefits of transistors.
I get the sense that there is a school of thought I’d call “biological exceptionalism”, a belief that somehow constructs made up of many functionally simple units, is fundamentally different and special compared to a similar construct composed of silicon units. I can’t see how someone could hold this belief and be a materialist (I’m not implying you are btw). Biological exceptionalism surely implies the existence of a “soul” or “spirit” (which raises a whole bunch more questions).
I don't think it'd have to imply a soul - one of these "functionally simple units" is much less well-understood than the other, and you can insert whatever belief you want to fill the gaps.
I think it goes the opposite way, starting with a soul and arriving at biological exceptionalism: You start by saying "I have a soul / spirit". Then you extrapolate "things like me probably have a soul / spirit". But since there is no theory of souls, the extrapolation is not based on principles but rather on vibes and guesswork, ending up somewhere like "there must be something weird going on with neurons that somehow create a soul, connect with an existing one or something like that.. maybe.."
Which is an interesting argument because: do neurons somehow create a soul (as you mentioned), or are do neurons somehow attract souls, or do souls choose what to inhabit. In the first case it posits that a “soul” is purely a function of biology. In the others that there’s some sort of inextricable link between the two (which in the absence of any theory of soul or how these are linked to biology, seems rather far fetched, unless of course souls could choose to inhabit anything with sufficient degrees of freedom: a brain, a mega computer, a planet, a galaxy)
Maybe a materialist biological exceptionalism position could be that biological substrates are capable of sending kinds of signals that silicon substrates are not, in the sense that brain matter especially might give rise to far greater complex processing in ways that we don't know about or appreciate yet, and which we may discover can't be efficiently recreated in silicon?
I don't know if I buy that argument or even if it makes sense. But yeah this all smacks inextricably of soul talk.
I agree that as per current understanding, the functional biological base units have more degrees of freedom and a greater functional diversity as a result, but that’s merely a quantitative difference not a fundamental distinction. One could imagine equally more complex silicon base units beyond what we have now. Whether they need to follow the same pattern/modes as the biological units remains to be seen (but it’s pretty hard to argue against evolution as an efficiency maximiser).
Thank you for sharing your personal experience. Not only is what you said compelling, but it again highlights the importance of experience as a path to knowledge. Rationality is brittle and cannot access much of the vastness of human experience.
Dirac comments that he thinks a potential path to the discovery of new physics is to start with a mathematical domain and work outwards from there, guided by mathematical beauty. This is what I took OP's comment to be about - of course setting aside questions on an LLM's ability to recognize beauty
Superstring theory has been based on the idea of mathematical beauty, but it's run into serious complications when it comes to empirical results. Science is empirical first and foremost, because we need to verify that theories actually predict the universe we live in by testing them.
I don't know how LLMs would help sorting through the 10^500 possible universes when it comes to superstrings. You need to be able to run experiments or obtain observations.
Actually there are people attempting to find new math via biological entities. Cells and such. The interesting thing here is it is easily falsifiable even though working at these scales is still insanely hard.
Take the golden rule for example. It's a simple algorithm that shows up everywhere in nature. It represents the least amount of energy needed to assemble all kinds of structures. The gist here is nature finds these algorithms via evolution over billions of years and quadrillions of individual life experiments. We see life finding simple algorithms and platonic maths, how complex of algorithms has it found?
You no longer have to do an impossible number of experiments, instead you have to tease apart gene expressions to turn them on and off. Now, that is still a monumental task, but it's still doable in a reasonable amount of time.
It will be interesting to see how much of Thucydides Trap plays out in currency and trade as opposed to military conflict. I am hopeful that economic and financial warfare absorbs the brunt of the power struggle.
Essentially its the idea that the interaction between an incumbent power and rising "challenger" power inevitably leads to war between the two. I was expressing my hope that if this does happen, the war can play out in less destructive arenas - one of which is in the competition for reserve currency status which the US has held for the whole of the modern era. This article possibly points at China's first shots in this conflict.
Edit: credit LarsDu88 for correcting me on its age. I originally stated the idea was very old (2.5k years) but actually its a recent idea based on an ancient conflict between Athens and Sparta
The obvious counterexample would be the previous most powerful empire in the world (ie the UK) ceding that title to the USA after collapsing after WW2? No war between the UK and the US was needed.
The precious powerful empire (before Britain) was undoubtedly the Spanish Empire.
The Spanish-American war was closer to the USA opportunistically feasting upon the remains of the fallen empire (The British already overtook the Spanish in terms of power).
It's hard to pinpoint the fall of the Spanish Empire. But it's even harder to point out military action between Spain and Britain (undoubtedly the rising star in the next centuries). There is the big war of Spanish Succession but that's more opportunistic and more like a major civil war that spilled out of Spain and across Europe.
Lots of war between Spain, HRR, France and other parties. But strangely not so much with Britain....
---------
In both Spanish and British cases, the real enemy the whole time was just a boatload of debt.
No war was "needed" to settle who was #1, it was clear that we (the UK) simply couldn't maintain the empire as it was and we definitely couldn't have fought the US.
We went into WW2 the clear naval power in the world, We exited it in the #2 spot utterly broke.
In less than 4 years the US produced enough ships to eclipse our navy and did it while also producing ridiculously vast amounts of equipment for themselves and their allies across every sphere.
No one with a brain in our foreign office would have even contemplated poking that (and realistically while the US has at times been a questionable ally on the whole in that era they were a reliable ally).
In that kind of total war the side with the larger industrial base wins the war of attrition.
It doesn't matter if the enemy sinks ships if your production rate exceeds the sink rate on a sustained basis you win (somewhat related it's also why naval strategists have been sounding the clarion call about the fact that China now makes more than half of all global shipping, the US is somewhere around 1% - those peacetime yards/skilled works transfer over in a war).
The US did that, they won the war (or their part of it) in the factory lines/mines as much as they did on the actual front.
I agree. My point in the GP was that great power transitions are not ALWAYS accompanied by war between the new power and the previous one, as the Thucydides trap argument seems to imply.
War is costly, so (in the absence of bargaining frictions) game theory suggests that an agreement can be reached that leaves both parties better off compared to going to war.
The UK was a declining power that had been absolutely gutted by war and owed huge debts to the US that it had accrued to fund the war. I believe Thucydides Trap is more about the situation we have now with the US and China where both are moving from strength to strength.
I'm not really seeing the USA moving from strength to strength lately TBH. Iran is a disaster, the Navy now has 3 (or 4, depending how you count) failed warship projects in a row, economic growth outside the AI/datacenter boom has dropped to near zero and the internal political climate is polarized to the point of inactivity. Most of its traditional allies have been moving to distance themselves from the USA and worldwide trust in the USA as "leader of the free world" is at the lowest point in decades.
But quite beyond that, I'm just saying that the Thucydides trap is not an iron rule. The first place I looked was a counterexample and I'm sure there have been many more over the centuries.
AI is revolutionizing millions of white collar tasks - billions and billions of $$$$ labor requiring years of training, and making those workers wildly more productive. And its impact on robotics hasn't even started.
US is also taking leadership in space, which has deep military implications, telecomm and (maybe?) natural resources.
Lastly, it's a big mistake to write-off the US labor force and consumers, who react very quickly to change.
Its not an old idea at all. Its from a 2012 article by Graham Alison followed by a 2017 book on the rise of China specifically that Xi Jinping read and referenced.
Its claimed to be an old idea, but its actually only recently become popular
> Essentially its a very old (~2.5k year) idea that the interaction between an incumbent power and rising "challenger" power inevitably leads to war between the two.
It sounds plausible, but if it is this old there must be a long list of examples. What are some of them?
As LarsDu88 mentioned above, its actually not this old. The idea is recent but is based on an ancient conflict. That is my mistake. The wiki article has interesting info on the examples that the originator saw:
The how of the reference seems important, it's not like he brought it up first apparently
>Xi has referenced Allison’s term before. In a speech in Seattle in 2015, Xi said, “There is no such thing as the so-called Thucydides Trap.” And in an October 2023 meeting with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Xi said, “The ‘Thucydides’ Trap’ is not inevitable, and Planet Earth is vast enough to accommodate the respective development and common prosperity of China and the United States.
CNY displacing USD would entail allowing people outside China to buy really significant quantities of CNY-denominated financial products. This would entail CNY/USD changing so CNY is more expensive, because the default currency for financial products currently existing is USD. Which would slap a corresponding huge price increase with 0 increase in quality to all Chinese export. Which would murder Chinese manufacturing export. Which would entail laying off some grand proportion of an industry that employs 5% of the _human_ race. Which is why they're not gonna do that.
Same thing that happened to USD, right? Once the USA stopped having to actually manufacture things to get money, it stopped actually manufacturing things.
I don't think China wants to make the CNY the reserve currency because it would decimate China as a manufacturing hub. They prefer China to be Jakob to the U.S. being Esau. The red lentil soup can be quite bitter.
I’ll believe it when I see it, there’s a spread between onshore and offshore yuan exchange rates due to currency manipulation. It becomes harder to manipulate a currency as more of it is created, and AFAIK countries are not loading up on Chinese govt debt, but I may just be unaware?
The USD hegemony isn’t because of oil, it’s because everyone wants dollar-denominated assets. Treasury bonds, US real estate, US equities, etc. Possibly Chinese exports could soak up some of the yuan demand?
also there are salary paycuts for people who already have work, my Chinese clients tried this, but not gonna accept it, I will rather lose such client than lower my rate, I am losing money by not increasing my rates over many years already despite huge EU cummulative inflation and EU salaries growth
by my experience visiting country after almost 10 years last year just by looking at salaries, restaurant prices, real estate prices/rent their economy seems to be stagnating in last 10 years, restaurant meal cost pretty much same as 10 years ago, same goes for entry level salaries like waitress, cook and other you can see in street
they are getting stronger overall, though doesn't seem like middle class is benefiting from it, my CN family bought apartment many years ago and they would have problem to sell it for same price, let alone make any profit on it
China has a massive demographic problem in the near future (after 2040ish), and it is extremely unlikely (IMO) that it is going to catch up/surpass the US in GDP per capita within the next decades.
But its relative GDP growth has been higher than the US for decades, is higher stil and is probably going to stay higher for years:
Personally I think its most likely that chinese GDP will be larger than US GDP within 2035, but that the median citizen is NOT going to catch up to US standards in the next 50 years.
And their whole society will run into the exact same problems that many western countries are dealing with already (increasing fraction of retirees), so I'd be very careful with extrapolating their currently superior growth rate past 2040 or so.
It depends on what you find interesting. No crazy spy stories but I've been learning Chinese, so I've spent more time looking at things that are only written or said in Chinese.
China also has a bunch of political philosophy nerds that crank out wonky policy papers. I keep finding references to this one by Wu Bikang, https://www.rmlt.com.cn/2014/0403/253621.shtml
I'm still very bad at Chinese and I don't assume that I understand that paper well, even with translations, but that paper clearly interprets the Thucydides trap very differently from how it's discussed here.
Chinese idioms can be notoriously difficult to interpret.
From what I've seen, they're often an abbreviation of some passage from a famous text. The listener is expected to know the rest of that text and all the major commentaries that go with it.
I absolutely do not have a solid grasp of the full works of Mencius and I have fairly anemic knowledge of the derivative works but I'm fairly sure it's not just a simple euphemism.
My read of the idiom is that Chinese political philosophers claim that the basis of Western political philosophy is the balance of power between hegemons and the basis of Chinese political philosophy is the concept of the righteous rule/mandate of heaven.
His implication seems to be that Western nations are held together primarily by force whereas the CPC primarily maintains power by serving the people.
Conflict between humans is much much more nature than slavery was. Just look at animals. Flock animals often have conflicts which others. But none of them have ”slaves” (at least no how humans understand it)
There is a different between a conflict and a war. Humans are uniquely violent and cruel to each other, there is nothing even close in the animal world
Being a slave isn't human nature, but wanting to be a slave owner is. "Human nature" is, more often than not, a shorthand for "the parts of game theory that evolution distilled into humans"
In game theory, cooperation is a dominant strategy and evolves consistently. Slave owners and other injustice committing humans often invoke "human nature" out of trying to cope with their knowledge that it is wrong but whatever trauma or other thing makes them do it anyway, to absolve themselves of agency.
(To be clear, not targeting you personally here, but targeting the rhetoric and fallacy)
Cooperation is an unstable strategy. If everyone else is cooperating and not punishing defectors much, defecting is vastly better for you.
If everyone else is defecting and you can cooperate with a few people, that's slightly better for you. Hence we have high-trust and low-trust societies, gatekeeping, etc.
Sure, and now compare polities which manage to keep defection to a minimum or structure the process of "defecting" to serve the polities purpose instead of being truly adversarial. Bruce Bueno de Mesquitas "the logic of political survival" and various works by daron acemogolu have the data on how much better these polities do.
If there's no pure play dominant strategy, you will always get a fraction of defectors willing to try their luck. But coopération still emerges, and the polities that manage to cooperate more still tend to survive and thrive more.
Many kinds of defecting aren't punished much. For example we don't refuse to buy things made with slave labor. Some people do, but they're an extreme minority. So being a slave owner is rewarding.
It's a fundamental attribute of reality. Take it up with mother nature, because power struggles exist everywhere, even in dumb systems with no intelligence. Weak things go away, strong things stay around. Weak things need to become stronger than strong things to displace them.
There's more than enough energy and resources to go around for humans to peacefully coexist "forever", albeit in lesser numbers than today. The civilization meta game is what ruins it, despite our best attempts to regulate that. And a global self destruct button helps massively... until it does not.
Like I replied to the other commenter, it's an unstable equilibrium. Lots of things can stay perfect forever if nothing throws off the delicate balance.
We can focus effort on maintaining this balance...but doing that requires power to be used. And just like that we are back at step one.
We can communally build up trust to such a high level that everyone can act independently to maintain balance, but this naturally creates a situation where the more trust there is, the bigger the payoff for the one who breaks it. Essentially the prisoners dilemma.
Not really, kindness also exists. It is the escape hatch from the evolutionary zero sum game and let's you pick a better equilibrium (bargaining vs pure Nash).
We can just not fight. There is enough room and resources,we can get more of them and build more efficient tech, and we are all more alike than different.
Kindness is an unstable equilibrium unfortunately. Mother nature is totally uninterested in it. Otherwise we would still all be protolife quasi-cells, because consuming other cells and not sharing resources isn't kind.
Maybe you argue that we are human and intelligent, so we can override this inconvenience with a system of our own design. My response would be "Sure, put your guns down and burn them, I won't stop you."
Again, it's an unstable equilibrium. Power on the other hand is dramatically more stable.
Thats your take, I tend to not agree. Nature, with all its balance by destruction, has one approach but we humans can and do things differently in some cases, for our greater benefit.
We don't kill weak links in our population just like mother nature intended and keeps doing left and right everywhere all the time, a good chunk of this forum would not pass those harsh and often random tests yet its/ours added value is non-trivial and surpasses any additional effort by society (at least I like to think that).
'Everything good in this world is kindness'. I have yet to meet a person, situation or story where this would not apply.
There's more ways of neutralizing power than meeting it with equivalent threat. You can also make it not worth exerting the power, or introduce enough friction to let it evaporate itself.
And so far, the highest historical power concentrations have always been un-stable, while the polities that put checks on that power and embed themselves in cooperative trade networks lasted for much longer
Meh, that "empathy is weakness" is just an ideology, not the historical thing. Nazi lost the war after all. Fascists in general tend to start wars and then loose them, precisely because their arrogance and lack of empathy makes them unable win long term.
The constant war of all against all with no kindness kind of societies don't do all that well, actually. Human societies do best when the kind people assert themselves against sociopaths. And human societies do worst when the sociopaths get free reign.
Revolution can mean many things. We are heading into having a parallel post-growth economy in the coming decades. I see this transition being accelerated by several forces (AI, climate change, digitzation of law and property rights, etc.). This revolution will allow us individually to exit the majority of our time to an economic frame that works for us rather than for the ultra-wealthy and powerful. It's the first moment in history that this feels possible.
This completely negates the fact that due to how the labor market is structured, most people who sell their labour to survive are in a disadvantageous position for the negotiation you are talking about. What you are talking about works well in a basic economics text book but does not translate to the real world.
The cleaning lady at SpaceX doesn't do a better job than that at Walmart. So why should she be paid more?
You think she's doing the heavy lifting there? Creating the billions? While the underperformer at VideoBuster / Radio Shack is responsible for tanking the business? That's just not true.
If you think they were commenting on physical labor your reading comprehension is poor. The example job could have been a “non physical” job, say the hallway CCTV monitor, and made the same point.
Their point is that labor they consider low impact or menial doesn’t drive returns, and therefore shouldn’t share in the returns. You’re right that the labor being physical is incidental, really they’re just classist/elitist and any job they consider beneath them would fit this model, while others wouldn’t. There’s a reason they chose a cleaner (and a woman!) instead of a product manager or CPA, though the quality is also unlikely to differ between spaceX and Walmart there.
Speaking of reading comprehension, they didn’t address the core argument of the person they were responding to, which is that labor that falls “beneath the fold” of this class line is not able to negotiate aggressively due to the inelastic costs of food, shelter, and basic necessities. It doesn’t matter how “high impact” you are, if you’re negotiating and need to eat you’ll accept any amount that lets you eat.
In fact, having impact or driving revenue is never the most important factor to reaping the rewards. Anyone who’s worked for a few years with their eyes open should reach this conclusion unless they have some strong motivation not to.
Since you've put in effort, I will return to doing so, too. But note that your ad-hominem attacks only reflect on yourself and don't strengthen your argument at all.
My point was simply that some work isn't essential to the business. Be that a cleaning lady, a corporate lawyer, or a CPA. They perform interchangeable work they could perform in the exact same way for a different company.
One obvious problem is that you can't scope the parents of success: Should the utility company get more money for supplying SpaceX than for Walmart? Should the municipal firefighter lady who stands ready for SpaceX share the spoils, should the husband who cares for their kids at home? Who knows.
Second, and you have ignored that, should they also share the defeat? If a company tanks, should we not pay the CPA who worked for that company? Because that's what happens to stocks who are worthless. If you argue the cleaning lady is responsible for success, she is responsible for failure also.
As an aside, I chose a cleaning lady because it's a relatable job. I don't even know what a CPA is but I guess it's an acronym that only makes sense in the US. See, that's what I wanted to avoid. Also it's easier to see how that is detached from the success of the core business, as you're familiar with the work (I presume you clean at home? But don't CPA at home, and don't lawyer at home.) The interchangeable work also works with corporate lawyers performing standard work, but it's not immediately obvious and harder to argue.
> which is that labor that falls “beneath the fold” of this class line is not able to negotiate aggressively due to the inelastic costs of food, shelter, and basic necessities.
Not to mention the U.S. encourages organization of the capitalist class while breaking up (often by force) organization of the working class, so any attempt at the working class gaining leverage in this negotiation is artificially limited.
You dont need the failing stamps to hang around. All you need are the successful stamps. It's actually better from a human psychology perspective anyway. Less shame.
Everyone will have some successful stamps, and they accrue over time giving better signal. Hiring managers can make a rational decision about what number of stamps over what period of time is sufficient to evaluate a person, trading against the risk of misreading a profile by accepting someone with fewer stamps.
Reading that part of the post leads me to conclude that Yegge is founding a startup called 'StampTown' or something similar as a talent incubator. Each candidate would have a digital avatar with suspenders that would display their accumulated stamps.
reply