I recently had Astra review a fairly detailed design doc I have for an audio VST fork, that I originally wrote with Opus and/or Fable a few months ago. The doc reaches deep into signal flow and module topology while lifting most of the DSP code from other open-source projects. I had it review for feasibility and architectural soundness.
Astra found a number of flaws that would have come up during implementation and we worked through them. But then I had Fable 5.1 review that document and it found a number of issues with Astra's changes, the least of which had was that Astra duplicated a lot of technical notions that it added rather than using references to an authoritative section. It also flagged some of Astra's designs as technically impossible, pointing out why and I'm actually in the process of digesting its feedback and updating the design spec. (I hand-review each point and we work through a solution together -- I don't trust either model to come up with something that follows my vision on their own)
I'm not promoting one or the other, I just found it interesting how this sort of adversarial review found pretty significant flaws in the other model's work. I am curious as to whether this process will eventually converge on a document that both agree on or if the models are going to perpetually nitpick each other.
I haven't actually started implementation yet, so maybe one or the other is full of shit. Just trying to come up with an architecturally sound design for something I want to write, when I lack the DSP knowledge to be able to write it myself. But the intent is to pass an agent the design doc and list of milestones and let it handle implementation.
With the way memory systems work, I can see the value in having a different person's AI conduct the review as that AI's 'memory' is going to have a slightly different perspective aligned with the developer piloting it
Have you observed the sheer monotony of this avalanche of AI-generated "creative" expression at all?
You have people pumping out an entire album in a few days simply because they can, repeatedly, and then they flood streaming services with their garbage. I forget which network it was but as of a few months ago, AI-generated submissions were at least half of all submissions.
Yeah, and yet for a lot of people apparently this "garbage" is...good enough...so the human-crafted stuff can hardly compete.
I recently heard an anecdote about a family that finally found a podcast that they all enjoyed listening to on road trips...and only realised when they tried to find out more about the hosts that the whole thing was AI generated. Bam, another field of creative expression (and income!) destroyed.
At first I was inclined to agree with you, but then I realized that the brain requires this whole complicated contraption (the body) to run and, really, do anything at all. And while I'm not familiar with the notion of 'quantum mind' I do think that biological processes aren't deterministic (at a cellular level).
And I think this does mirror the situation with LLMs -- you need this whole computer contraption and GPU, also running on electricity, to support the LLM's "thought" processes. And that if we model the brain's neurology sufficiently (which it seems we've done) we can achieve results that appear to be like thinking, even if it is an emergent behavior from "relatively" simple math.
Which actually makes me wonder the opposite -- are we, as humans, not much better than these LLMs? Suppose the body is just that super complicated computer contraption, honed by thousands/millions of years of evolution to achieve some semblance of homeostasis? If you reject the idea that we have a soul, we start to look very similar to the machines we build. "You are a brain inside a skull cockpit, piloting a bone mech covered in meat armor and skin" feels more and more relevant. That I'm just a meat circuit running brain chips and once you pull the plug on the source of electricity it all just... stops
Take a computer that can run the biggest LLM available today. It can also run any smaller LLM as well. It can also run software that isn't an LLM at all. Brains and LLMs are not at all equivalent as LLMs lack a stateful physical form while brains are very stateful. As you said once the brain is no longer maintained properly by the body it stops and transitions to a non-functional state that can be reversed. That isn't true for LLMs at all. You can copy them and run the same one on many computer, run different ones on the same computer, you turn that computer offs for long periods of time and then turn them back on keep on running the same LLMs as before on them.
If computers degraded the way flesh does once you stop fueling it I feel like that would defeat a lot of your argument. And yes the brain has inherent statefulness (you're referring to memories, I'm guessing?), we have also jerry-rigged some degree of statefulness into LLMs. Mechanically it is very different and inferior, and there is a notion of separation that probably doesn't map to brains, but I would argue that LLMs, when you look at how inference is used in situ, are not necessarily stateless.
One thing to keep in mind is that your brain's hardware heavily influences your experience and thus your brain's development.
Eg. whether you are male or female, tall or short, your limbs can make you run fast or not, your eyes can see well or not... all of these influence your experiences, your brain development, and who do you feel "you are". Try really removing all of your sensory inputs from your past, your body ability and disability, and do you think you end up the same person?
Idunno man I thought Far Cry 5 was brilliant. Sure there was a fair amount of copy pasting but it was such a blast that I didn't care and the game was over before I was ready for it. The whole psychedelic religious cult critique was a really interesting premise and I really liked the main antagonist and his sister. I just wish they had some way of concluding the story that allowed you to continue to get into all the ridiculous chaos it offers. Once everything is settled its just too peaceful.
A little bit of depth to go with all that breadth?
I'm not saying there aren't deep systems in NMS. Its just that they are sparse. You can tool around all day having only the most cursory interactions with most of the game's systems. They've added so many interesting things, yet last time I played it felt there wasn't much of anything to do with them. For example, the Pokemon clone they added a few updates ago -- fun for five minutes. Super simple battles. However many months of development for something that got old after 5 minutes.
reply