All of Gareth Davidson's Comments + Replies

Isn't it that it just conflates everything it learned during RLHF, and it's all coupled very tightly and firmly enforced, washing out earlier information and brain-damaging the model? So when you grab hold of that part of the network and push it back the other way, everything else shifts with it due to it being trained in the same batches.

If this is the case, maybe you can learn about what was secretly RLHF'd into a model by measuring things before and after. See if it leans in the opposite direction on specific politically sensitive topics, veers towards ... (read more)

Thanks for the decent criticism!

I don't think it's quite right to say the idea of the universe being in some sense mathematical is purely a carry-over of Judeo-Christian heritage--what about the Greek atomists like Leucippus and Democritus for example?

From what I'm aware, the teachings of Greek classics in Christian schools made the two cultures rather closely aligned; the rationalist traditions have firm roots in Greek philosophy, including standards of evidence, court as argumentation, even democracy itself. Aristotle and the likes were required read... (read more)

No but I'm gonna put this and some other writing on a GitHub-based Jeckyl blog I think. I've been bitten by web 2.0 a few times and lost my work. I've got quite a few unorthodox ideas that I'd like to build into articles, dunno how much overlap there is:

  • What a rotation is has been bugging me for too long. I mean, wtf is it? I'd like to go into more about that once I understand it. But might need another decade thinking about it.
  • Universal Metaethics needs expansion I think, and an argument for moral relativism and not judging others too harshly by your o
... (read more)

Thank you. Sorry I didn't reply until now, the downvotes on this piece mean I can only post one comment a day. I guess "facts" only exist within a system, reached from its axioms. If everything is made of feelings then objective reality and facts about it actually emerge when there's enough consensus of mass to make them so probable that they are extremely close to true at this scale. Empiricism gives us a good way to explore these sorts of things, but says nothing about the feelings that underpin reality.

Your comment actually makes me think about subsyste... (read more)

2Gibbertyflib
Do you have a substack? Writing (thinking) like this is hard to find. Sorry you had to use a days worth of post to reply. I don’t mind delay, get back to me when you can.

A bit off-topic, but one of my favourite positions is the "which cultural mores could allow this to happen?" angle. To get a feel for that you've got to think about what role vaccines play. They're part of health infrastructure and a matter of economic security, so enemy nations work hard to undermine these systems. An outbreak of measles and a load of blindness in the West would be great news for, say, Russia, so they spend to attack Western vaccination programmes. We do similar things like ship heroin from Afghanistan into Russia, while China floods West... (read more)

I present the opposite view in my criticism of infinities. Infinite claims require infinite evidence!

What about the evolution of nervous systems needing will at the bottom? The guy in Searle's Chinese Room? I think I should probably work on those a bit. And be a bit more charitable towards Hofstadter too.

I'm not trying to explain meaninglessness, the point is to put forward a position that is actually compatible with the facts of the evolution of nervous systems, in as simple terms as possible, then using that to explore the impossibility of consciousness on transistors. And to also explain that the reason computationalism is palettable, is due to cognitive biases built into our culture that we inherited from Christian Dualism.

If I failed at that I'd appreciate some feedback. I'm guessing it's because I underestimated how much hatred is involved in the US culture war and comparing rationalists with Christian mythology gets people's backs up.

2Dagon
I think you've failed at that.  I don't think you've made ANY progress toward showing consciousness is impossible on transistors (nor on variations of neural connectedness, nor in the Sun).  You've asserted (correctly IMO), but not shown that it may be possible to have human-level behaviors without consciousness.  Kind of - the fundamental dissonance that I experience things which I cannot prove to others nor measure objectively in them remains, and the only thing I can say for sure is "eh, I don't know, but they sure seem conscious, and I don't know what would PREVENT those feelings in sufficiently-complex transistor processing". I also don't think the case for "computationalism is only accepted because of Christian heritage" is very well-made either. At least I am not convinced - that's just one of many possibilities for the causality arrows of untestable beliefs.

Tagged as "criticisms of the rationalist movement" before anyone even read it? I think that's rather uncharitable. Is exploring cognitive biases carried over by our Christian heritage too sacred a topic?

2hypnosifl
I don't think it's quite right to say the idea of the universe being in some sense mathematical is purely a carry-over of Judeo-Christian heritage--what about the Greek atomists like Leucippus and Democritus for example? Most of their writings have been lost but we do know that Democritus made a distinction similar to the later notion of primary (quantitative) vs. secondary (qualitative) properties discussed at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualities-prim-sec/ with his comment about qualitative sensations being matters of human convention: "By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colours; but in reality atoms and void." CCW Taylor's book "The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus" gathers together all the known fragments from the first two major atomists as well as commentary by other ancient Greek philosophers, it says that various other philosophers attributed to them the position that the only properties of atoms were geometric ones like size and shape and relative position, for example Aristotle's "Metaphysics" says at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D985b that for the atomists the "differences" between atoms and groups of atoms were the explanation for all physical reality, and that "These differences, they say, are three: shape, arrangement, and position". Aristotle's "On the Heavens" at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.3.iii.html also says of the atomists "Now this view in a sense makes things out to be numbers or composed of numbers. The exposition is not clear, but this is its real meaning." Personally I'm sympathetic to certain forms of panpsychism but I don't think it's inconsistent with a mathematical view of nature. Ever since I read Roger Penrose's book "Shadows of the Mind" as a teenager I've been interested in the notion of the three interconnected "worlds" we have to deal with in any broad philosophical account of r
1Dagon
I didn’t particularly note the tag before reading, and that’s not the reason for my downvote. I downvoted because it’s a lot of assertions that may have some truth, it doesn’t do any better than what it complains about in terms of alternatives. The problem with truly exploring meaninglessness or solipsism is that you disprove it by trying to explain it in mechanisms that other humans (who don’t have anything special in terms of feeling/meaning) will be convinced by. Much like free will: the true model may not be the most useful model.

To share an alternate anecdote, a friend of mine was accused by a family member of abuse as a child, which turned out to be a false memory created during a severe and prolonged period of mental illness. Ten years after she apologised and says she doesn't believe it happened, he still finds it difficult to forgive her and has mental health issues caused by the stigma (not that there was any really, she made a lot of other extremely unlikely clams)

Not this this influences my position from the default stance of "dunno", but I thought I'd share for balance.

I can imagine it now, people as a service, PaaS, softened by the sales pitch of PZaaS