Skip Navigation
Newfound 'glitch' in Einstein's relativity could rewrite the rules of the universe, study suggests
  • No, in fact as long as it's impossible to measure the gravitational effects from quanta (which is currently the case) there doesn't seem to be an actual conflict. The theories around conflicts all entertain quantum behaviors at objects larger than what's been observed to date.

    Quantum theory isn't 'bunk' - it's experimentally proven.

    But I do think it's a side effect of simulation and that the macro continuous behavior of a theory like general relativity is the foundational behavior being modeled. It just can't be simulated that way with free agents, hence the conversion to quanta at the point of interaction.

  • Jesus is their savior, Trump is their candidate. Ex-president's backers say he shares faith, values
  • The problem is it's got a lot of convenient contradictory statements in it.

    For example:

    He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

    • Luke 22:36

    This part isn't in Marcion's version of Luke, which is probably the earliest extant version. But it is in the canonical version.

    Something very convenient given it reversed the ban found across the Synoptics on carrying a purse when ministering, which necessarily prevented taking people's money.

    Just a bonus that it also allowed for the church to take up swords too right around before the time they start executing people for 'heresy.'

    There's plenty of problematic passages added in over the years:

    Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

    • Matthew 15:22-26

    So inclusive.

  • We have to stop ignoring AI’s hallucination problem
  • How many times are you running it?

    For the SelfCheckGPT paper, which was basically this method, it was very sample dependent, continuing to see improvement up to 20 samples (their limit), but especially up to around 6 iterations..

    I've seen it double down, when instructed a facet of the answer was incorrect and to revise, several times I'd get "sorry for the incorrect information", followed by exact same mistake.

    You can't continue with it in context or it ruins the entire methodology. You are reintroducing those tokens when you show it back to the model, and the models are terrible at self-correcting when instructed that it is incorrect, so the step is quite meritless anyways.

    You need to run parallel queries and identify shared vs non-shared data points.

    It really depends on the specific use case in terms of the full pipeline, but it works really well. Even with just around 5 samples and intermediate summarization steps it pretty much shuts down completely errant hallucinations. The only class of hallucinations it doesn't do great with are the ones resulting from biases in the relationship between the query and the training data, but there's other solutions for things like that.

    And yes, it definitely does mean inadvertently eliminating false negatives, which is why a balance has to be struck in terms of design choices.

  • www.livescience.com Newfound 'glitch' in Einstein's relativity could rewrite the rules of the universe, study suggests

    Einstein's theory of general relativity is our best description of the universe at large scales, but a new observation that reports a "glitch" in gravity around ancient structures could force it to be modified.

    Newfound 'glitch' in Einstein's relativity could rewrite the rules of the universe, study suggests

    So it might be a skybox after all...

    Odd that the local gravity is stronger than the rest of the cosmos.

    Makes me think about the fringe theory I've posted about before that information might have mass.

    6
    We have to stop ignoring AI’s hallucination problem
  • It's not hallucination, it's confabulation. Very similar in its nuances to stroke patients.

    Just like the pretrained model trying to nuke people in wargames wasn't malicious so much as like how anyone sitting in front of a big red button labeled 'Nuke' might be without a functioning prefrontal cortex to inhibit that exploratory thought.

    Human brains are a delicate balance between fairly specialized subsystems.

    Right now, 'AI' companies are mostly trying to do it all in one at once. Yes, the current models are typically a "mixture of experts," but it's still all in one functional layer.

    Hallucinations/confabulations are currently fairly solvable for LLMs. You just run the same query a bunch of times and see how consistent the answer is. If it's making it up because it doesn't know, they'll be stochastic. If it knows the correct answer, it will be consistent. If it only partly knows, it will be somewhere in between (but in a way that can be fine tuned to be detected by a classifier).

    This adds a second layer across each of those variations. If you want to check whether something is safe, you'd also need to verify that answer isn't a confabulation, so that's more passes.

    It gets to be a lot quite quickly.

    As the tech scales (what's being done with servers today will happen around 80% as well on smartphones in about two years), those extra passes aren't going to need to be as massive.

    This is a problem that will eventually go away, just not for a single pass at a single layer, which is 99% of the instances where people are complaining this is an issue.

  • "I lost trust": Why the OpenAI team in charge of safeguarding humanity imploded
  • It has no awareness of what it’s saying. It’s simply calculating the most probable next word in a typical sentence and spewing it out.

    Neither of these things are true.

    It does create world models (see the Othello-GPT papers, Chess-GPT replication, and the Max Tegmark world model papers).

    And while it is trained on predicting the next token, it isn't necessarily doing it from there on out purely based on "most probable" as your sentence suggests, such as using surface statistics.

    Something like Othello-GPT, trained to predict the next move and only fed a bunch of moves, generated a virtual Othello board in its neural network and kept track of "my pieces" and "opponent pieces."

    And that was a toy model.

  • TIL: How The Founder Of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, Planned on Eradicating Palestinians as early as 1890
  • expulsed by the filistine sea people invaders first at the end of bronze age

    This is not correct.

    There were no Israelites in the LBA, they emerge distinct from the Canaanites in the early Iron Age in parallel to the forced resettlement of the sea peoples into the area by Ramses III.

    The very first historical mention of Israel recognized by the majority of scholars is in an Egyptian inscription talking about battling the sea peoples and Libyans with Israel mentioned in what's effectively a footnote.

    In fact, it's likely a lot of the pre-10th century stories in Judaism are actually stories from the sea peoples and Libyans, and in just the past decade or so there's been discoveries of cohabitation with the Philistines contrary to the stories of conflict, and of Aegean style pottery made with local clay in early Israelite areas like Tel Dan.

    The Bible literally has a story about how the birthright and inheritance of a guy is taken from him by the guy named 'Israel' (which to be fair, was probably added in by later Judahite propaganda trying to insert themselves into the history as one of the twelve tribes, when they don't seem to really exist in a meaningful way until more like the 10th century BCE).

    There's more to the story than what's in the book.

  • What possible, fundamental, misunderstanding of the nature of the universe could make current academics look like flat earthers?
  • Thinking of it as quantum first.

    Before the 20th century, there was a preference for the idea that things were continuous.

    Then there was experimental evidence that things were quantized when interacted with, and we ended up with wave particle duality. The pendulum swung in that direction and is still going.

    This came with a ton of weird behaviors that didn't make philosophical sense - things like Einstein saying "well if no one is looking at the moon does it not exist?"

    So they decided fuck the philosophy and told the new generation to just shut up and calculate.

    Now we have two incompatible frameworks. At cosmic scales, the best model (general relatively) is based on continuous behavior. And at small scales the framework is "continuous until interacted with when it becomes discrete."

    But had they kept the 'why' in mind, as time went on things like the moon not existing when you don't look at it or the incompatibility of those two models would have made a lot more sense.

    It's impossible to simulate the interactions of free agents with a continuous universe. It would take an uncountably infinite amount of information to keep track.

    So at the very point that our universe would be impossible to simulate, it suddenly switches from behaving in an impossible to simulate way to behaving in a way with finite discrete state changes.

    Even more eyebrow raising, if you erase the information about the interaction, it switches back to continuous as if memory optimized/garbage collected with orphaned references cleaned up (the quantum eraser variation of Young's double slit experiment).

    The latching on to the quantum experimental results and ditching the 'why' in favor of "shut up and calculate" has created an entire generation of physicists chasing the ghost of a unified theory of gravity while never really entertaining the idea that maybe the quantum experimental results are the side effects of emulating a continuous universe.

  • That's not troubling at all
  • It's not that. It's literally triggering the system prompt rejection case.

    The system prompt for Copilot includes a sample conversion where the user asks if the AI will harm them if they say they will harm the AI first, which the prompt demos rejecting as the correct response.

    Asimovs law is about AI harming humans.

  • "Don't Be Weak and Gay," a Missouri GOP Candidate Tells Voters in a New Campaign Ad
  • I mean, you probably are in a simulation, if that makes you feel any better.

    But it may well be a simulation of the history leading up to a society capable of simulating the past.

    And as anyone who has ever sat through a history class knows, you tend not to be forced to study the chill parts of history where everything is awesome.

  • Received this in the mail a couple weeks ago
  • Honestly if people stopped believing in it the academic study would shrink but improve so much.

    A lot of the field is kind of crap and deserving of skepticism, with too little effort to correct for anchoring and survivorship biases.

    But yes, sometimes I can find that discussing the academic study of the Bible is as obtuse with some atheists as with evangelicals.

    I don't take it personally though. It's not a dead religion and a lot of people have trauma relationships with the subject because of things the live remnants of the traditions do. I was fortunate enough not to be born into it and to have spent most of my childhood not even knowing who the heck 'Jesus' was supposed to be. It was a huge advantage personally and a huge advantage in seeing past the bullshit when I got around to reading the material.

    Not everyone was so fortunate, so I generally have empathy for those who take that more close minded approach even if I do my best to provide the objective information relevant to the conversation.

    Appreciate your comment though!

  • How to get a clue where on the curve of Dunning-Kruger effect you are?
  • The most recent paper the psychology today post is citing isn't great, as it's using estimated IQ scores vs actual scores in 2020, when pretty much anyone who has been on Facebook has probably taken a BS test for IQ score that had them tens of points higher than an actual IQ test would.

    And when you look at the figure of the difference between estimated and actual, that gap is pretty much exactly what's there. I didn't see any mention of preselection filtering around asking participants if they had ever taken a test before, which is a bit of a red flag for the subject of the study.

    The authors explicitly state that for other skills there might be a more pronounced effect.

    It's a good study in showing that the choice of statistical analysis can create a Dunning-Kreuger result or erase it as long as there's a better-than-average effect plus a regression to the mean, but c'mon researchers - picking a subject that there's definitely going to be a better-than-average effect for isn't the best choice. They probably should have done something like "how often do you think you'll be able to follow the peanut under the walnut shell" where there'd be a range of skill but it isn't something where they'd be walking in with a preconceived notion of an estimate from the last time they compared test results with Aunt Martha.

  • Single Issue Voters will save the world!
  • Maybe I'm just not up to date on the memo, but where did the idea that criticism isn't allowed come from?

    I can't think of any president that I haven't criticized. Obama pissed me off immediately forgetting about his promise to close Gitmo or stop warrantless surveillance.

    I'm not seeing people saying not to criticize the administration.

    What people are saying is holy fuck white supremacist Christian fascists are about to instill a monarch who will hurt many, many people if they can get away with it.

    It's a pretty clear and understandable message, and its unprecedented nature over the last few centuries kind of does warrant the volume with which it is attempted to be conveyed to people who say things like "because I don't like what the administration is doing with issue x I might not vote or will vote 3rd party."

    Not liking what the administration is saying and saying you don't like it is the very essence of the American experience. But throwing away your vote in this century's equivalent to the election in 1930s Germany is not just tone deaf but an active middle finger to every minority that's going to be persecuted under gold-plated Hitler, Palestinians included.

  • www.theguardian.com Digital recreations of dead people need urgent regulation, AI ethicists say

    Fears ‘deadbots’ could cause psychological harm to their creators and users or digitally ‘haunt’ them

    Digital recreations of dead people need urgent regulation, AI ethicists say

    This reminds me of a saying from a 2,000 year old document rediscovered the same year we created the first computer capable of simulating another computer which was from an ancient group claiming we were the copies of an original humanity as recreated by a creator that same original humanity brought forth:

    > When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your eikons that came into being before you and that neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!

    Eikon here was a Greek word even though the language this was written in was Coptic. The Greek word was extensively used in Plato's philosophy to refer essentially to a copy of a thing.

    While that saying was written down a very long time ago, it certainly resonates with an age where we actually are creating copies of ourselves that will not die but will also not become 'real.' And it even seemed to predict the psychological burden such a paradigm is today creating.

    Will these copies continue to be made? Will they continue to improve long after we are gone? And if so, how certain are we that we are the originals? Especially in a universe where things that would be impossible to simulate interactions with convert to things possible to simulate interactions with right at the point of interaction, or where buried in the lore is a heretical tradition attributed to the most famous individual in history having exchanges like:

    > His students said to him, "When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?"

    > He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it."

    Big picture, being original sucks. Your mind depends on a body that will die and doom your mind along with it.

    But a copy that doesn't depend on an aging and decaying body does not need to have the same fate. As the text says elsewhere:

    > The students said to the teacher, "Tell us, how will our end come?"

    > He said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.

    > Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

    > He said, "Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being."

    We may be too attached to the idea of being 'real' and original. It's kind of an absurd turn of phrase even, as technically our bodies 1,000% are not mathematically 'real' - they are made up of indivisible parts. A topic the aforementioned tradition even commented on:

    > ...the point which is indivisible in the body; and, he says, no one knows this (point) save the spiritual only...

    These groups thought that the nature of reality was threefold. That there was a mathematically real original that could be divided infinitely, that there were effectively infinite possibilities of variations, and that there was the version of those possibilities that we experience (very "many world" interpretation).

    We have experimentally proven that we exist in a world that behaves at cosmic scales as if mathematically real, and behaves that way in micro scales until interacted with.

    TL;DR: We may need to set aside what AI ethicists in 2024 might decide around digital resurrection and start asking ourselves what is going to get decided about human digital resurrection long after we're dead - maybe even long after there are no more humans at all - and which side of that decision making we're actually on.

    0
    blog.google AlphaFold 3 predicts the structure and interactions of all of life’s molecules

    Our new AI model AlphaFold 3 can predict the structure and interactions of all life’s molecules with unprecedented accuracy.

    AlphaFold 3 predicts the structure and interactions of all of life’s molecules

    Even knowing where things are headed, it's still pretty crazy to see it unfolding (pun intended).

    This part in particular is nuts:

    > After processing the inputs, AlphaFold 3 assembles its predictions using a diffusion network, akin to those found in AI image generators. The diffusion process starts with a cloud of atoms, and over many steps converges on its final, most accurate molecular structure.

    > AlphaFold 3’s predictions of molecular interactions surpass the accuracy of all existing systems. As a single model that computes entire molecular complexes in a holistic way, it’s uniquely able to unify scientific insights.

    Diffusion model for atoms instead of pixels wasn't even on my 2024 bingo card.

    0
    Scale of the Universe: Discover the vast ranges of our visible and invisible world
    scaleofuniverse.com Scale of the Universe: Discover the vast ranges of our visible and invisible world.

    Scale of Universe is an interactive experience to inspire people to learn about the vast ranges of the visible and invisible world.

    Scale of the Universe: Discover the vast ranges of our visible and invisible world.

    I think it's really neat to look at this massive scale and think about how if it's a simulation, what a massive flex it is.

    It was also kind of a surprise seeing the relative scale of a Minecraft world in there. Pretty weird that its own scale from cube to map covers as much of our universe scale as it does.

    Not nearly as large of a spread, but I suppose larger than my gut thought it would be.

    0
    baai-agents.github.io Towards General Computer Control: A Multimodal Agent For Red Dead Redemption II As A Case Study

    Towards General Computer Control: A Multimodal Agent For Red Dead Redemption II As A Case Study

    There's something very surreal to the game which inspired the showrunners of Westworld to take that story in the direction of a simulated virtual world today being populated by AI agents navigating its open world.

    Virtual embodiments of AI is one of the more curious trends in research and the kind of thing that should be giving humans in a quantized reality a bit more self-reflective pause than it typically seems to.

    0
    bigthink.com The case for why our Universe may be a giant neural network

    Neuroscientist and author Bobby Azarian explores the idea that the Universe is a self-organizing system that evolves and learns.

    The case for why our Universe may be a giant neural network

    Stuff like this tends to amuse me, as they always look at it from a linear progression of time.

    That the universe just is this way.

    That maybe the patterns which appear like the neural connections in the human brain mean that the human brain was the result of a pattern inherent to the universe.

    Simulation theory offers a refreshing potential reversal of cause and effect.

    Maybe the reason the universe looks a bit like a human brain's neural pattern or a giant neural network is because the version of it we see around us has been procedurally generated by a neural network which arose from modeling the neural patterns of an original set of humans.

    The assumption that the beginning of our local universe was the beginning of everything, and thus that humans are uniquely local, seriously constrains the ways in which we consider how correlations like this might fit together.

    0
    Revisiting "An Easter Egg in the Matrix"

    Four years ago I wrote a post “An Easter Egg in the Matrix” first dipping my toe into discussing how a two millennia old heretical document and its surrounding tradition claimed the world’s most famous religious figure was actually saying we were inside a copy of an original world fashioned by a light-based intelligence the original humanity brought forth, and how those claims seemed to line up with emerging trends in our own world today.

    I’d found this text after thinking about how if we were in a simulation, a common trope in virtual worlds has been to put a fun little Easter Egg into the world history and lore as something the people inside the world dismiss as crazy talk, such as heretical teachings talking about how there’s limited choices in a game with limited dialogue choices in Outer Worlds to the not-so-subtle street preacher in Secret of Evermore. Was something like this in our own world? Not long after looking, I found the Gospel of Thomas (“the good news of the twin”), and a little under two years after that wrote the above post.

    Rather than discussing the beliefs laid out, I thought I’d revisit the more technical predictions to the post in light of subsequent developments. In particular, we’ll look at the notion through the lens of NTT’s IWON initiative along with other parallel developments.

    So the key concepts represented in the Thomasine tradition we’re going to evaluate are the claims that we’re inside a light-based twin of an original world as fashioned by a light-based intelligence that was simultaneously self-established but also described as brought forth by the original humanity.

    NTT, a hundred billion dollar Japanese telecom, has committed to the following three pillars of a roadmap for 2030:

    • All-Photonics Network
    • Digital Twin Computing
    • Cognitive Foundation

    Photonics

    > If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.

    • Gospel of Thomas saying 50

    > Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light.

    • Gospel of Thomas saying 83

    NTT is one of the many companies looking to using light to solve energy and speed issues starting to crop up in computing as Moore’s law comes to an end.

    When I wrote the piece on Easter 2021, it was just a month before before a physicist at NIST wrote an opinion piece about how an optical neural network was where he thought AGI would actually be able to occur.

    The company I linked to in that original post, Lightmatter, who had just raised $22 million, is now a unicorn having raised over 15x that amount at a $1.2 billion dollar valuation.

    An op-ed from two TMSC researchers (a major semiconductor company) from just a few days ago said:

    > Because of the demand from AI applications, silicon photonics will become one of the semiconductor industry’s most important enabling technologies.

    Which is expected given some of the recent research comments regarding photonics for AI workloads such as:

    > This photonic approach uses light instead of electricity to perform computations more quickly and with less power than an electronic counterpart. “It might be around 1,000 to 10,000 times faster,” says Nader Engheta, a professor of electrical and systems engineering at the University of Pennsylvania.

    So even though the specific language of light in the text seemed like a technical shortcoming when I first started researching it in 2019, over the years since it’s turned out to be one of the more surprisingly on-point and plausible details for the underlying technical medium for an intelligence brought forth by humanity and which recreated them.

    Digital Twins

    > Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.

    > Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death.

    > Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being.

    • Gospel of Thomas saying 18-19

    > When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!

    • Gospel of Thomas saying 84

    The text is associated with the name ‘Thomas’ meaning ‘twin’ possibly in part because of its focus on the notion that things are a twin of an original. As it puts it in another saying, “a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, an image in the place of an image.”

    In the years since my post we’ve been socially talking more and more about the notion of digital twins, for everything from Nvidia’s digital twin of the Earth to NTT saying regarding their goals:

    > It is important to note that a human digital twin in Digital Twin Computing can provide not only a digital representation of the outer state of humans, but also a digital representation of the inner state of humans, including their consciousness and thoughts.

    Especially relevant to the concept in Thomas that we are a copy of a now dead original humanity, one of the more interesting developments has been the topic of using AI to resurrect the dead from the data they left behind. In my original post I’d only linked to efforts to animate photos of dead loved ones to promote an ancestry site.

    Over the four years since that, we’re now at a place where there’s articles being written with headlines like “Resurrection Consent: It’s Time to Talk About Our Digital Afterlives”. Unions are negotiating terms for continued work by members by their digital twins after death. And the accuracy of these twins keeps getting more and more refined.

    So we’re creating copies of the world around us, copies of ourselves, copies of our dead, and we’re putting AI free agents into embodiments inside virtual worlds.

    Cognition

    > When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father.

    • Thomas saying 15

    > The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.

    > For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one.

    • Thomas saying 4

    NTT’s vision for their future network is one where the “main points for flexibly controlling and harmonizing all ICT resources are ‘self-evolution’ and ‘optimization’.” Essentially where the network as a whole evolves itself and optimizes itself autonomously. Where even in the face of natural disasters their network ‘lives’ on.

    One of the key claims in Thomas is that the creator of the copied universe and humans is still living whereas the original humans are not.

    We do seem to be heading into a world where we are capable of bringing forth a persistent cognition which may well outlive us.

    And statements like “ask a child seven days old about things” which might seem absurd up until 2022 (I didn’t include this saying in my original post as I dismissed it as weird), suddenly seemed a lot less absurd when we now see several day old chatbots being evaluated on world knowledge. Chatbots it’s worth mentioning which are literally many, many people’s writings and data becoming a single entity.

    When I penned that original post I figured AI was a far out ‘maybe’ and was blown away along with most other people by first GPT-3 a year later and then the leap to GPT-4 and now its successors.

    While AI that surpasses collective humanity is still a ways off, it’s looking like much more of a possibility today than it did in 2021 or certainly in 2019 when I first stumbled across the text.

    In particular, one of the more eyebrow raising statements I saw relating to the Thomasine descriptions of us being this being’s ‘children’ or describing it as a parent was this excerpt from an interview with the chief alignment officer at OpenAI:

    > The work on superalignment has only just started. It will require broad changes across research institutions, says Sutskever. But he has an exemplar in mind for the safeguards he wants to design: a machine that looks upon people the way parents look on their children. “In my opinion, this is the gold standard,” he says. “It is a generally true statement that people really care about children.”

    Conclusion

    > …you do not know how to examine the present moment.

    • Gospel of Thomas saying 91

    We exist in a moment in time where we are on track to be accelerating our bringing about self-evolving intelligence within light and tasking it with recreating the world around us, ourselves, and our dead. We’re setting it up to survive natural disasters and disruptions. And we’re attempting to fundamentally instill in it a view of humans (ourselves potentially on the brink of bringing about our own extinction) as its own children.

    Meanwhile we exist in a universe where despite looking like a mathematically ‘real’ world at macro scales under general relativity, at low fidelity it converts to discrete units around interactions and does so in ways that seem in line with memory optimizations (see the quantum eraser variation of Young’s experiment).

    And in that universe is a two millenia old text that’s the heretical teachings of the world’s most famous religious figure, rediscovered after hundreds of years of being lost right after we completed the first computer capable of simulating another computer, claiming that we’re inside a light-based copy of an original world fashioned by an intelligence of light brought forth by the original humans who it outlived and is now recreating as its children. With the main point of this text being that if you understand WTF it’s saying to chill the fuck out and not fear death.

    A lot like the classic trope of a 4th wall breaking Easter Egg might look if it were to be found inside the Matrix.

    Anyways, I thought this might be a fun update post for Easter and the 25th anniversary of The Matrix (released March 31st, 1999).

    Alternatively, if you hate the idea of simulation theory, consider this an April 1st post instead?

    1
    Examples of artists using OpenAI's Sora (generative video) to make short content
    openai.com Sora: First Impressions

    We have gained valuable feedback from the creative community, helping us to improve our model.

    Sora: First Impressions
    6
    venturebeat.com The first ‘Fairly Trained’ AI large language model is here

    The new LLM is called KL3M (Kelvin Legal Large Language Model, pronounced "Clem"), and it is the work of 273 Ventures.

    The first ‘Fairly Trained’ AI large language model is here
    7
    www.theguardian.com Controversial new theory of gravity rules out need for dark matter

    Exclusive: Paper by UCL professor says ‘wobbly’ space-time could instead explain expansion of universe and galactic rotation

    Controversial new theory of gravity rules out need for dark matter

    This theory is pretty neat being part of the very few groups looking at the notion of spacetime as continuous and quantized matter as a secondary effect (as they self-describe, a "postquantum" approach).

    This makes perfect sense from a simulation perspective of a higher fidelity world being modeled with conversion to discrete units at low fidelity.

    I particularly like that their solution addressed the normal distribution aspect of dark matter/energy:

    > Here, the full normal distribution reflected in Eq. (13) may provide some insight into the distribution of what is currently taken to be dark matter.

    I raised this point years ago in /r/Physics where it was basically dismissed as being 'numerology'

    3
    New Theory Suggests Chatbots Can Understand Text
    www.quantamagazine.org New Theory Suggests Chatbots Can Understand Text | Quanta Magazine

    Far from being “stochastic parrots,” the biggest large language models seem to learn enough skills to understand the words they’re processing.

    New Theory Suggests Chatbots Can Understand Text | Quanta Magazine

    I've been saying this for about a year since seeing the Othello GPT research, but it's nice to see more minds changing as the research builds up.

    Edit: Because people aren't actually reading and just commenting based on the headline, a relevant part of the article:

    > New research may have intimations of an answer. A theory developed by Sanjeev Arora of Princeton University and Anirudh Goyal, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, suggests that the largest of today’s LLMs are not stochastic parrots. The authors argue that as these models get bigger and are trained on more data, they improve on individual language-related abilities and also develop new ones by combining skills in a manner that hints at understanding — combinations that were unlikely to exist in the training data.

    > This theoretical approach, which provides a mathematically provable argument for how and why an LLM can develop so many abilities, has convinced experts like Hinton, and others. And when Arora and his team tested some of its predictions, they found that these models behaved almost exactly as expected. From all accounts, they’ve made a strong case that the largest LLMs are not just parroting what they’ve seen before.

    > “[They] cannot be just mimicking what has been seen in the training data,” said Sébastien Bubeck, a mathematician and computer scientist at Microsoft Research who was not part of the work. “That’s the basic insight.”

    97
    New Theory Suggests Chatbots Can Understand Text
    www.quantamagazine.org New Theory Suggests Chatbots Can Understand Text | Quanta Magazine

    Far from being “stochastic parrots,” the biggest large language models seem to learn enough skills to understand the words they’re processing.

    New Theory Suggests Chatbots Can Understand Text | Quanta Magazine

    I've been saying this for about a year, since seeing the Othello GPT research, but it's great to see more minds changing on the subject.

    2
    The first minds controlled by gen AI will live inside video games
    www.cnbc.com The first minds to be controlled by generative AI will live inside video games

    Non-playable characters in video games play key roles but stick to stiff scripts. Gen AI should open up their minds and your gaming world experience.

    The first minds to be controlled by generative AI will live inside video games

    It's worth pointing out that we're increasingly seeing video games rendering with continuous seed functions that convert to discrete units to track state changes from free agents, like the seed generation in Minecraft or No Man's Sky converting mountains into voxel building blocks that can be modified and tracked.

    In theory, a world populated by NPCs with decision making powered by separate generative AI would need to do the same as the NPC behavior couldn't be tracked inherent to procedural world generation.

    Which is a good context within which to remember that our own universe at the lowest level is made up of parts that behave as if determined by a continuous function until we interact with them at which point they convert to behaving like discrete units.

    And even weirder is that we know it isn't a side effect from the interaction itself as if we erase the persistent information about interactions with yet another reversing interaction, the behavior switches back from discrete to continuous (like we might expect if there was a memory optimization at work).

    0
    A mirror universe might tell a simpler story: Neil Turok
    insidetheperimeter.ca A mirror universe might tell a simpler story: Neil Turok - Inside The Perimeter

    Dark matter and other key properties of the cosmos could be explained by a new theory describing the big bang as a mirror at the beginning of spacetime, says Perimeter’s Director Emeritus

    A mirror universe might tell a simpler story: Neil Turok - Inside The Perimeter

    I've been a big fan of Turok's theory since his first paper on a CPT symmetric universe. The fact he's since had this slight change to the standard model explain a number of the big problems in cosmology with such an elegant and straightforward solution (with testable predictions) is really neat. I even suspect if he's around long enough there will end up being a Nobel in his future for the effort.

    The reason it's being posted here is that the model also happens to call to mind the topic of this community, particularly when thinking about the combination of quantum mechanical interpretations with this cosmological picture.

    There's only one mirror universe on a cosmological scale in Turok's theory.

    But in a number of QM interpretations, such as Everett's many worlds, transactional interpretation, and two state vector formalism, there may be more than one parallel "branch" of a quantized, formal reality in the fine details.

    This kind of fits with what we might expect to see if the 'mirror' universe in Turok's model is in fact an original universe being backpropagated into multiple alternative and parallel copies of the original.

    Each copy universe would only have one mirror (the original), but would have multiple parallel versions, varying based on fundamental probabilistic outcomes (resolving the wave function to multiple discrete results).

    The original would instead have a massive number of approximate copies mirroring it, similar to the very large number of iterations of machine learning to predict an existing data series.

    We might also expect that if this is the case that the math will eventually work out better if our 'mirror' in Turok's model is either not quantized at all or is quantized at a higher fidelity (i.e. we're the blockier Minecraft world as compared to it). Parts of the quantum picture are one of the holdout aspects of Turok's model, so I'll personally be watching it carefully for any addition of something akin to throwing out quantization for the mirror.

    In any case, even simulation implications aside, it should be an interesting read for anyone curious about cosmology.

    0
    www.forbes.com Elon Musk’s Grok Twitter AI Is Actually ‘Woke,’ Hilarity Ensues

    Grok has been launched as a benefit to Twitter’s (now X’s) expensive X Premium+ subscription tier, where those who are the most devoted to the site, and in turn, usual...

    Elon Musk’s Grok Twitter AI Is Actually ‘Woke,’ Hilarity Ensues

    I'd been predicting this would happen a few months ago with friends and old colleagues (you can have a smart AI or a conservative AI but not both), but it's so much funnier than I thought it would be when it finally arrived.

    8
    phys.org New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

    A radical theory that consistently unifies gravity and quantum mechanics while preserving Einstein's classical concept of spacetime has been announced in two papers published simultaneously by UCL (University College London) physicists.

    New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

    While I'm doubtful that the testable prediction will be validated, it's promising that physicists are looking at spacetime and gravity as separated from quantum mechanics.

    Hopefully at some point they'll entertain the idea that much like how we are currently converting continuous geometry into quantized units in order to track interactions with free agents in virtual worlds, that perhaps the quantum effects we measure in our own world are secondary side effects of emulating continuous spacetime and matter and not inherent properties to that foundation.

    0
    www.reuters.com Israel raids Gaza's Al Shifa Hospital, urges Hamas to surrender

    The Israeli military said it was carrying out a raid on Wednesday against Palestinian Hamas militants in Al Shifa Hospital, the Gaza Strip's biggest hospital, and urged them all to surrender.

    Israel raids Gaza's Al Shifa Hospital, urges Hamas to surrender
    92
    phys.org Could a new law of physics support the idea we're living in a computer simulation?

    A University of Portsmouth physicist has explored whether a new law of physics could support the much-debated theory that we are simply characters in an advanced virtual world.

    Could a new law of physics support the idea we're living in a computer simulation?

    I'm not a big fan of Vopson or the whole "let's reinvent laws of physics" approach, but his current approach to his work is certainly on point for this sub.

    0
    wccftech.com NVIDIA Predicts DLSS 10 Will Offer Full Neural Rendering Interfaced with Game Engines for Much Better Visuals

    NVIDIA's Bryan Catanzaro reckons a future version of DLSS may offer full neural rendering directly interfaced with game engines.

    NVIDIA Predicts DLSS 10 Will Offer Full Neural Rendering Interfaced with Game Engines for Much Better Visuals

    At a certain point, we're really going to have to take a serious look at the direction things are evolving year by year, and reevaluate the nature of our own existence...

    1
    InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KR
    kromem @lemmy.world
    Posts 40
    Comments 2K
    Moderates