Well please do derive it then, because to me it seems you just focused on one aspect and then concluded that that aspect definitely is the correct answer.
If the goal was to reward the best and the brightest, then why does china make some of them disappear from time to time? Why reeducate the odd billionaire who misbehaves? The idea was to get him in power because he knows better and generates riches, no?
On giving away stuff for 'free': what would be good examples in your opinion? Steel? Silicon or finished solar cells? Electric cars and batteries? Masks useful during pandemics?
Seriously?
I agree with you on the network effects and winner takes all mechanics. But to me that is not related at all to exports and their subsidies. Just making good stuff at a reasonable price is enough. If desired, production can be subsidized, sure, but that has positive effects in your country as well. Chinese people own lots of real estate, top of the line electronics and electric cars, more so than we do.
They cash in politically.
Imagine some middle eastern oil and money rich country going abroad to help develop a subsaharan economy to help them extract their resources. Imagine china doing the same. Who will have more success?
I disagree with Eliezer when he says that countries with surpluses never cash them in, which is kind of part of the core of his argument.
(Equity) Billionaires live lavish lifestyles, even though they never sell their equity. Doing so would give up their power. Instead they borrow for cheap (c.f. " buy, borrow, die"). I wonder which countries typically can borrow money very cheap. Maybe Japan, or Germany...?
He just looks at a single number, and then utters "these numbers don't make sense". Well of course.
Look at the whole picture instead.
There are many ways of cashing in, without running a compensating deficit, even when only looking at money, and not at other things like political, social etc. power.
Google is skilled at marketing. The only other new information is that they were able to prove that error correction capability scales faster than errors when adding 'physical' qubits. They use about hundred 'physical'qubits to emulate a single (error corrected) 'logical' qubit.
So once they are able to scale up from N=1 to something like 256, they will be able to do what you say.
Importantly, before that happens, let's say for N=100, they will be able to simulate the behavior of chemical systems composed of 100 atoms. This is a huge thing, and your will hear about it long before they reach bigger numbers.
Scaling this number is not trivial. You should read about for example dilution regrigerators, and how to transmit a room temperature signal to ultra low temperature circuits. And then do that for tens of thousands of signal lines, (all currently done by hand).
but I see no reason to think they'll just utterly fail at scaling production at those factories
Oh they'll scale just fine.
It's just that nobody will buy all those cars. They are already not selling them all, and we are about to enter the biggest recession of many of our lifetimes
Well, for one did you ever notice how people act differently in different situations? (for example among family, friends, work, acquaintances at the gym, or online) If you limit yourself to a single situation, there is not any person on earth that you could 'reconstruct' sufficiently well.
The 50% annual revenue growth that they've averaged over the last 9 years shows no signs of stopping
What makes you think that?
I am of the completely opposite opinion, and would be amazed if they are able to repeat that even for a single year longer.
All the "creative" bookkeeping only work for so long, and right now seems to be the moment to pop bubbles, no?
A sufficiently detailed record of a person's behavior
What you have in mind is "A sufficiently detailed record of a person's behavior when interacting with the computer/phone"
How is that sufficient to any reasonable degree?
Why?
Because of perverse, counterproductive and wrong monetary incentives.
There are a few complexities:
There is only really one, and that is not accounted for.
You want to generate electricity that you actually use.
I'm no expert on your part of the world, but in Central Europe electricity prices sometimes turn negative, because eletricity is generated that nobody needs. So large producers have to pay money, to get rid of it. Taking a pickaxe to your solar panel would be net positive in that situation.
Why? because everybody maximizes electricity produced and not electricity that can actually be used.
Typically the theoretical solution is simple: turn your solar panel somewhat towards the setting sun. Generate less solar energy at noon, when no one needs it, and generate more during the evening, when everybody is at home, cooking and watching TV, and consumption is spiking.
Sadly, no one does this, because of the wrong incentives.
I wanted to comment on this, not because I think it'll answer your questions, but because it lies at the center of my interests, and you nerd-sniped me. Anyway, sorry for just now getting around to it.
I'm longtime (pretty average) go player, and interested in things like 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' (in humans really, but lately computers are also interesting)
I watched the Lee Sedol live streams, and had a lot of fun, learning about human nature.
I actually gave a very short seminar talk about them and related things once, because to me they are a very distilled example of something that I also noticed in your post.
Anyway, here goes.
What does 'creative' mean? Which humans? All of them, even both the pros, and the village idiots?
Why is this move so important to you? Why do people buy overpriced sneakers? Because they heard other people talking about them?
Regarding the understanding part:
I think it is important to distinguish between different time frames. e.g. explanations that come before the event, or, minutes, days, or years after etc.
For example, before AlphaGo, it was common knowledge, that computers will not beat Go for a long time, because they have no 'intuition'. (Similar to how they would never create art, because they had no creativity, etc.)
They first thing I learned here, is that people (apart from mathematicians, and a small number of physicists) never define their terms properly. (Neither did you, above)
Now, afterwards, since Lee Sedol lost, Alphago necessarily has to have intuition or creativity, or whatever was missing before. But this does not mean anything. I guess it's called Wittgenstein's ruler. You are not measuring the capabilities of AlphaGo relative to your (well defined) concepts, but your (ill-defined) concepts get retrofitted and filled with meaning by what AlphaGo did.
For an example at what this looks like in action, please see the game itself:
From that timestamp, for about a minute or two.
There are two commentators, which for live TV Go games is the standard format. In this case, on the right, Redmond is the 'smartest person in the room', and on the left, the 'jester', who acts the fool and asks questions, which Redmond answers for the benefit of the audience. Without them, a normal person (and many players) would not be able to understand what the fuck is happening, and who is winning (even for any other televised game). Anyway, the smart one normally is of the same level as the players, and really the only person who can follow all the details. They always understand what is going on. Not here though.
Watch Redmond. He places the stone and then just moves it somewhere else, because obviously it's wrong there and has to have been a 'misclick' by the human inputting the moves. It resembles a commonly known shape, a 'shoulder hit', but is farther from the edge than normally.
Anyway, they and other commentators go from 'misclick' to 'I don't understand' to 'this is known to be bad', to 'huh whadda ya know'
What I'm trying to say is that the smartest people in the room just make mouth noises since their heuristics no longer work. Normally, whatever the commentator says is law, since there is no one stronger present to correct them.
Again, here you don't learn anything about good Go moves (Since no one present understands at that level). You learn about human experts learning in real time.
Your whole post is full of sentences like this. What does 'intuition' mean? I think you are going at it wrong. AlphaGo just 'knows' more about Go (See, now I did it). There are no shortcuts. Out with the old (knowledge). In with the new.
Egyptians did not know how to draw using the correct perspective, and now we do. They didn't know how to do complex quantum chemical calculations either, and now we can. Still, one is more difficult (in invested energy) than the other, and I don't see how to distinguish one from the other a priori.
I don't think the move was important, to be honest. The event, the demonstration, the technological leap certainly was. As in someone dying today versus tomorrow. The date is not the important part. The dying versus not/never dying is.
Again, your focus (to me) seems to be on the less important things.
For example, if you look at the comments on LLM technology, have in mind the different timescales. Comments on fresh new things are different than comments that come years later. And you can learn a lot from how people comment on these things. Just like when Redmond automatically moved the stone, because he 'knew' where it should really be.
brute? no, extensive, yes. Humans (playing many many games) found many recurring useful patterns, but it seems not all.
It makes it more probable, which is why it found it. the word 'creativity' has to be defined before this question can be answered.
That game is a good example. It's basically a tradeoff. A professional would not typically end up in that situation, because the search tree involves a few 'obviously bad' moves before one profits. Maybe as in 'two wrongs make it right', and the pro just truncates the search after the first wrong if you will.
Still, it's easily understandable after the fact, or with very good foresight. it's just that it's maybe outside your normal heuristics.
There are only 'just-so', handwaving after-the-fact explanations (of the type seen in the video). There is no absolute truth (yet). The next iteration of Go playing robot will invalidate them, just as AlphaGo did (until the game is eventually completely solved)
To understand you just have to play (a lot in this case). Otherwise you'll just be like someone that wants to learn Parcour or Kung Fu by watching Youtube videos, and never once moving a muscle. Metis vs Episteme I guess.
There are many new moves that entered common knowledge, particularly in the opening. For example, this one comes up a lot in games at my level and has changed due to alphaGo
https://www.josekipedia.com/#path:pdqcqdpcocobncnbmc
As a result, other variations basically disappeared completely. but not because they would loose you the game, but because we have been told they are now bad, and we (average amateurs) simply lack the skill to understand every nuance.
I guess people called it alien or strange, or other words, but really all these words mean 'I don't (yet) understand why this move is good'. Once they do, AI will just play 'normal' again.
Once human Metis catches up (at least in things like openings, where few moves are involved), thing cool down again.
In the end it's just people gossiping. You learn not by memorizing what they say, but by understanding why they say it, or why others stay silent.