YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
1d ago
This is simply not true.
Ok they were medium articles when I looked yesterday. But my search doesn't have them show up, here are the links. Full disclosure: I just scanned them.
Medium, Research Paper from 2016, Some open source textbook, The Cellophane paradox from the DuPont court case
You would just give actually interesting arguments instead of name dropping references and getting triggered.
I'm not making claims I am a genius wiz kid with a mega IQ. As Dase puts it: I'm a 120IQ midwit ML engineer. Furthermore my interest in this conversion is quite low to put any serious effort in a field that is outside my expertise.
but it's high enough for a quant finance job
It probably is, but it sounds like quant finance jobs are looking for more than intelligence.
I guess I can't be frank about that here without people getting triggered.
The only thing that triggered anyone here is the sheer autistic arrogance: "The I'm smarter than everyone but can't seem to tie my own shoe laces" mentality. Followed by repeated attempts at trying to flex that and just failing.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Absolutely, for some reason there's this insane arrogance that smart-ish autistics get. Not sure why it's such a thing.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
God I've been around here for a bit, I'm not sure I remember who this is. There's been a couple people that will flex credentials in other fields to give themselves a flex, but IQ flexers are not something I've remembering.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I'm going to reply to both of our chains here because I think they overlap.
Someone who hasn't mastered the basics misinterprets that as "wrong" or "dumb."
Your whole linguistic verbiage reads as this weird striver/hustle slang. The fundamentals of what? If you were a CEO or COO doing hiring successfully I'd be more inclined to believe demonstrated mastery of the "position of intuitive mastery of the fundamentals" but if you were an executive you wouldn't be trying to get rich, you'd already be rich. So I think the implication that you've mastered hiring for talent is unfounded. Otherwise that could be your startup idea. I'm sure a lot of people would pay top dollar to a firm that could hire them the right person for the job.
upwards due to the intelligent logic like the critique of the pedigree lingo, the assessment of hiring practices from a psychometric point of view, as well as the concept of Fallacy of Sufficient Competition.
Your critiques don't read as a genius, they read as someone bitter about being gatekept out of a field. If I google "Fallacy of Sufficient Competition" I get 6 medium/substack articles, not the epitome of an original idea.
Aka, the poster is wrecking 115-125 IQ normies which is a robust sign of higher intelligence.
One, I seriously doubt anyone here is considered a normie. Two, I just realized you sound like this guy from slow horses. I couldn't find the clip where he talks about how much a genius he is but this is the general level of obnoxiousness, midwit behavior that you are engaging in: Roddy Ho. People who are smart don't feel the need to flex their IQ continuously. You would just give actually interesting arguments instead of name dropping references and getting triggered.
You have to be smart enough to do this yourself to appreciate it, though
Wow I really got hit with the rick and morty special unironically, maybe you are a troll lol.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
All of politics is. Contrary to it's pretense, sociology is not a science, so there's a lot of going with your gut when you're governing.
No but economics is and is a far better tool than your gut when dealing with large markets and the mass decisions of human behavior. Mass human interactions are all fundamentally markets. I think assuming sociology = politics is the exact urge that technocrats have...
Though I object to being called a technocrat.
What else do you call someone who attempts to solve human problems like its an experiment to be managed or its factorio/paradox/rimworld esque. I think this impulse is exactly the technocratic one.
Not everyone on the right is a libertarian. In fact, it's only a small minority that is.
Obviously not, but plenty on the right object to being forced into compliance as though they were playthings of the technocratic mind. A principle they do not reciprocate in their own wild fantasies of power. So for them the question is not "Is the boot good" but "How do I get to wear the boot". As such when they morally grandstand about the abuse of the progressive wokes they aren't standing on principle but against the radical belief that in a democracy you will need to share the boot. There is dark humor in the idea that adults are fundamentally just kindergarteners with power who never learned to share.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
your general axe to grind about how awful western women are is particularly ill suited to explain the problem.
Nah my axe is with how awful western elites are, its not gendered. I wouldn't even say its a western elites vs eastern elites, I just live in the west. Rather it seems that the current crop of elites are particularly incompetent and out-of-touch with the world. Despite centralizing power and authority they seem incapable of actually using it to make things better for anyone besides themselves.
Your rights are not being trampled because you're asked to pay for taxes to support things that will pay dividends to you in your old age dude, be serious
What dividends am I getting? I'm pretty sure if I just invested that money I would get better returns be it in stocks, gold, or lead and rations. Considering the last time the government got money for people's elderly age they spent it all on booze and hookers, and setup the current ponzi scheme we have now.
Some problems can't be solved with money. And if raising taxes is a means to punish the childless, then yes it is trampling rights.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
It's cheaper?
But apparently less effective. I feel like a percussive maintenance approach to fixing a defect-defect is similar to a pray and spray approach to shooting. It might work, it might not, but punishing people on a "might" is how you get the saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
I always find it funny, ironic, and depressing how people on the right are not opposed to technocratic solutions, they just don't want to be a on the receiving end of them. Everyone wants to wear the boot.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
I think I have a better grasp on empirics of the world than the median mottizen.
Idk you seem to be struggling with the concept of pedigree and large interview sample size. I'm not sure anyone I know who is smart fails to understand the concept of a social/meritocratic signals in the form college pedigree, credentialism, etc. You seem pretty pissed about it.
I'm 95th %ile income for my age
This is not hard, depending on how young you are. $250k in the Bay area for a 30 year old is 97th percentile and is a starting salary for any SWE of that age and commensurate experience. I was apparently 93rd percentile a couple years back, and I'm not a money chaser and I don't live in the Bay.
I think I will be in 5 years, given my intelligence and track record
Good luck, however understanding the lay of the land will be important. I think this thread has some good advice when it comes to the fact that a large percentage of the population in our culture wants to be rich and many of them are quite smart. Degrees like quants are actively setup to winnow out people, and many times to winnow out those who lack the requisite class markers like a ivy league school or advance degrees. If you really want to be rich, and are as smart as you seem to think you are, then the easier route is to be a startup founder.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Yes but considering you aren't, in a demonstratable level, some sort of polygot or martian like Von Neumann, I have to doubt you are an actual 140 IQ. No, people who brag about their IQ online tend to just be arrogant autists in that 120 range who think they are geniuses, call it a heuristic. Saying it out loud just gives further evidence that you lack the social intelligence to understand that.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
And whether it's military defense of the nation or the production of the next generation we as a society simply cannot survive without it. If tax policy can be used a tool to prevent either the birth rate or the military from collapsing it ought to irrespective of how it might make some individuals feel.
Trampling on the rights of the individuals because a State cannot get people to volunteer is a state that shouldn't exist. Let it collapse.
You're bemoaning that you might be made to make the sacrifice of marginally higher tax rates.
Why should I sacrifice for my society? What has my society sacrificed for me? It is a give and take reciprocal relationship. The state seems to have forgotten that and it has failed to instill a sense of civic responsibility in its citizens. Probably the REAL problem, is when the state exist merely for the interests of the mercenary elites. All this other stuff seems downstream of that.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
That's not what I'd normally call "beyond my control".
I would as I have been actively dating for marriage for the better part of 15+ years at this point. The reality is that I have yet to find a partner who both wants me and wants to have kids. It is literally outside of my control, as I do not possess the powers of mind control.
Yeah, how about just putting the same penalty on childless women?
If the goal is to control behavior why not just go full Gilead, 1984, or Brave New World? At least that would be intellectually honest. Punishing people for behavior that requires another agent to cooperate them is very totalitarian. Unless you just want women to have kids out of wedlock with every random dude or sperm bank to escape the societal collapse. I'm sure just like Mao, y'all will then be whining about all the single mothers with shitty kids and the dysgenic impact that has on society. One of the problems with technocracy is arrogant technocrats who can't see past the current crop of problems or plan long term.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Yet apparently not smart enough to understand how the world works and how to get what you want out of it. Maybe the world is optimizing for something other than what you think it should be...
YoungAchamian
2d ago
I put myself around true 140 IQ.
You are probably in good company with the rest of the "midwit quants". They think they of themselves much like you do.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
The problem with any redistributive scheme around this topic is that you are in essence punishing people for things that are generally outside their control. I'm a man. I cannot have kids. No about of forced taxes to pay for the privileged people who can is going to change biology. In order for me to have kids I'd need to find a woman who wants them. Single rates are up and unless the State is going to do something dysgenic like make it legal for me to go around raping woman or forcing them to marry me to get my TFR quota in, I'm not sure what there is much I can do about it.
This entire exercise is some weird technocratic meddling. Just go full authoritarian already. We already think that men don't have a right to bodily autonomy in times of crisis. Make the same argument for women, this is a fertility crisis. Go draft women to be mothers. A state that can't get its citizens to volunteer to make sacrifices for it has no right to exist. Apparently people have forgotten that quintessential rule. If that means most of the first world then let them die. Maybe the next batch of cultures will learn from our mistakes.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
I wouldn't consider this punitive or coercive, just making people internalize their externalities.
Sure, I'll internalize it further by voting to remove funding from Grandma because the boomer's couldn't save a 401k like the rest of the following generations and couldn't not blood-let the economy either.
YoungAchamian
6d ago
Wrong location?
YoungAchamian
6d ago
Because every conscious being we so far have observed to exist is on one side of that boundary. So unless you have a holistic solution to the hard problem of consciousness that can prove that boundary isn't relevant, it points to my original argument.
A lacks necessary conditions for property P, therefore A does not have P. The observed property is that all conscious beings have persistent state that is causally necessary for future behavior. LLMs seem to lack that, so i'd argue they are not conscious
YoungAchamian
6d ago
This is just giving you state mutation not state persistence. Online learning has been around for a decade+ and unless you want to grant that Alexnet with some online learning was a conscious mind then you argument is also inconsistent.
KV cache is «external state» but weights must be internal I suppose
From an engineering perspective yes, ontologically no. I can shard weights across a gpu, can people shard being across multiple people? I can stream weights from disk, or swap adapters dynamically. That does not magically grant the LLM system intrinsic state.
This is all an aesthetics-based argument with arbitrarily drawn categories. I don't see why we should care how particular matrices are stored and multiplied
It doesn't matter from an engineering perspective where a particular set of matrices are stored/operated on but ontologically it matters whether the system has state that persists across interruption and is causally necessary for its future behavior. Its not an arbitrary boundary.
If you pause a human brain and then restart it, it has an internal state that persists, if you do the same to an LLM it loses all internal state, and needs to be externally reloaded to the last checkpoint.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
I'm getting the sense that what you're advocating for a kind of State management system that relies heavily on empiricism for governing. I think this is incredibly foolish advocacy for technocracy and a kind of political Scientific Management.
That could not be further than the truth. The world is complex and technocrats that think they can manage everything with a central authority fuck up on a grander scale than anyone. China is a planned economy and its technocrats are still paying for the fuckups from the last batch of mistakes from the technocrats several decades ago. Technocracy creates a system that ignores the human element of the world and in its tyranny it forces people to submit.
My preferred state only exists to solve collective coordination problems. It should do so rationality based on empiricism yes, but the empiricism of letting individuals decide their own actions. The empiricism of understanding how sociology, economics, and psychology work. Which is essentially a market. A deontological system could easily be one who's values are some shithole 3rd worldist state. I agree that science can never tell you how to act, or why, or what to value, it only tells you what is or is not. But I also don't think the government should be in the business of telling individuals why or what value and should just stick to protecting negative rights as the how.
I mean I agree that I want the state to have little say in any of those things too, but I also extend that to defining the gender of the Spawner on official bureaucrat forms. If you have similar small government sensibilities I'm not sure why you care if the pointless bureaucracy has dotted the right I and cross the right T in regards to which parent of a child is which gender. Giving the bureaucracy power means they will just use it against you when they get a similar chance.
Play semantic games, win semantic prizes; I think I quibble with your definition of "exists"
Basic reality = Physical reality. Basic implies the most primitive, lowest, natural element. If you can't deploy any of your 5 senses on it does it "exist" in physical reality or is it a construct of human social belief?
Include specific reference, I am not following
This, though additional edits point to it being Science TM which it wasn't when I read it.
Ha. It's more one - of many - epistemic methods. Again, the problems of empiricism alone are well documented.
The scientific method is not the only epistemic method, nor the most complete one, but it is the least arbitrary and most self-correcting method available for grounding state action in basic reality. Or would you prefer a method far more biased and value driven? It would have the same problems, in far greater measures, that you are decrying above about grounding in basic reality.
YoungAchamian
9d ago
and guess what? We can already almost perfectly model a single biological neuron in silicon.
Looking back I must have gotten a pre-edit. But yes this is in-silico not silicon. There is an approach is called neuromorphic architectures and it fits your stated goal better, but the practitioners/researchers belong to a different camp of thought than LLMs (the Bio-inspired camp vs brute force camp)
We have examples of sentient systems with no persistent state, and humans to boot. There are lesions that can make someone have complete anterograde amnesia. They can maintain a continuous but limited capacity short-term memory, but the standard process of encoding and storage to longterm memory fails.
They can remember the last ~10 minutes (context window) and details of their life so far (latent knowledge) but do not consolidate new memories and thus are no longer capable of "online" learning. I do not think it's controversial that such people are conscious, and I certainly think they are.
That demonstrates, at least to my satisfaction, an existence proof that online learning is not a strict necessity for consciousness.
Uhh learning is not my argument. Maybe I did not make that clear. Amnesiac humans behavior is still not determined solely by current sensory input (Markov property). They may be unable to form new memory but they still possess an internal state(Working memory, Emotional state, Affective valence, a sense of self, a personality) that persists.
If you take two different amnesiac patients with identical sensory input, Same environment, same stimuli, can you confidently predict their actions? Or is there some latent state that is history dependent that influences their behavior?
LLMs don't have an internal state that I know of. If you have another article I'll read it, I do enjoy them.
Further, I do not think that using an external repository to maintain state is in any way disqualifying. Humans use external memory aids all the time, and we'll probably develop BCIs that can export and import arbitrary data. There is nothing privileged about storage inside the space of the skull, it's just highly convenient.
Its not external vs internal, its integrated vs externally orchestrated. As of right now LLMs do not control memory access, they don't maintain it, and they don't own it. This absolutely could change in the future, I'm not an AGI bear, I am a "LLMs as they currently exist will become AGI" bear.
I do not believe that my thoughts on the topic came up, at least in this thread. As above, I do not make strong claims that LLMs are conscious. I maintain uncertainty
Then I am mistaken, sorry for attributing an argument to you that is not your own.
YoungAchamian
9d ago
It is important to me that the state has a grasp of basic facts of reality.
Do you apply this principle to other topics as well? There are a lot things the state operates on that are not objective reality, do you write posts about those too? You know religion, psychology, conspiracy theories/misinfo, fiat currency, borders, markets, etc. None of these the things exist in basic reality, they are all fictions. You mentioned in the AI-thread about your big problems with science. The scientific method seems like a very basic fact of reality.
Really? One would think that "My Tribe is good vs the enemy who is bad, Zug-Zug!!" would be the lowest form of discourse as it is the one most commonly found in the animal kingdom. People who can't behave better than animals are generally locked up in prison, and definitely shouldn't be enfranchised.
They are more "conscious" than a rock, since at . I do not know if they have qualia, but at least they contain conscious entities as sub-agents (humans).
So once LLMs start having little green men inside them they will be as conscious as a corporation haha. Also a corporation itself is not more conscious than a rock, as the corporation cannot do anything without conscious agents acting for it. It has no agency on its own. If I create an LLC and then forget about it, does it think? does it have its own will? or does it just sit there on some ledger. If a rock has people carrying it around and performing tasks for it, has it suddenly gained consciousness?
Would you start objecting if someone were to say "China is becoming increasingly conscious of the risk posed by falling behind in the AI race against America"? Probably not.
Yeah not, but I also don't think China is actually conscious. We're all using that as linguistic shorthand for "Chinese Leadership" or "Chinese populations" This nation state idea itself lacks a mind. It is controlled by conscious agents (humans) but it itself lacks consciousness.
Hold on there. You are claiming, in effect, to have solved the Hard Problem of consciousness. How exactly do you know that they're not conscious? Can you furnish a mechanistic model that demonstrates that humans made of atoms or meat are "conscious" in a way that an entity made of model weights can't be even in principle?
You are smuggling in the claim that I am claiming to solve the problem of consciousness. I'm not. I'm claiming that LLMs lack properties that any plausible theory of consciousness requires (Or realistically my own theory). I'm saying that system A lacks necessary conditions for property P, therefore A does not have P. I don't need to prove the full positive theory of P.
My basic theory(really a constraint) of conscious behavior:
- Any sentient system must have persistent internal state across time.
- This implies non-Markovian dynamics with respect to perception and action.
- LLMs are finite-context, externally stateful, inference-time Markovian systems.
- Therefore, LLMs lack a necessary condition for consciousness.
I'm willing to entertain another plausible theory of consciousness if you have one you prefer. Or if you think you have an animal that we consider conscious that exists in a Markovian state.
That is not mutually exclusive to anything I've said so far.
Maybe I need to reread your opinion, but my understanding is that you are in the "LLMs are conscious/have minds" camp of thought. If you are then this is exclusive, because I am making the claim that these clearly not conscious tools are personified as having personalities due to human's innate social bias to attribute personality to things. But that doesn't actually make them conscious/mind-having. It's sort of like this video: Social bias towards consciousness
I find it pointless to really try and judge people's intelligence over online forum posts. As a former 'annoying white autist' making the jump to 'not-annoying white autist' does wonders for people's willingness to hear you out, and engage with your ideas. Unfortunately, it's all about the opportunities you have available and many of those come from other people being willing to listen, engage and like you.
If he's young then he should try to re-optimize for that. If he's not its probably too late to learn it.
More options
Context Copy link