[flagged]
Moron bot.
Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment
41–48 of 48 posts
Re: Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment
#42I cant wait to see this pointed at Age of Empires. Or maybe palantir already has this running on real world data, war gaming scenarios
Re: Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment
#43I have two thoughts simultaneously about the anthropomorphisation of these systems: 1. we should do it less, because it distorts our ability to think about them properly. Calling these processes 'thinking', 'holidays', etc invites the reader to bring along ideas and expectations that aren't justified by what's happening in the system. 2. it's good to keep doing it, because repeated use reduces the specialness or magi…
So, what does thinking mean? Is there one thing we mean when we say thinking in humans? Are there several? Is it more of a spectrum? e.g. last year I tried inventing a "System 3"[0], a more rigorous way to approach problem solving, due to repeated painful experiences getting stuck solving problems the wrong way. I didn't get very far, but I definitely want to revisit the idea. [0] Based on System 1 and System 2, i.e.…
I suppose we are on the cusp of the first thing that can accurately think about thinking, that is have true self-access and introspection, not the post hoc rationalisation we do. That is legitimately a new kind of thinking, and to an entity capable of such a mode we might b prescribed as barely able to think at all
Re: Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment
#44I have two thoughts simultaneously about the anthropomorphisation of these systems: 1. we should do it less, because it distorts our ability to think about them properly. Calling these processes 'thinking', 'holidays', etc invites the reader to bring along ideas and expectations that aren't justified by what's happening in the system. 2. it's good to keep doing it, because repeated use reduces the specialness or magi…
Why would a secondary cultural goal take precedence over an apparently accurate description of what’s happening in the system? For one, you’re fighting some irrelevant battle.
Re: Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment
#45> Agents were also periodically given holidays, during which they set aside their ongoing work and received random prompts designed to encourage open-ended thought. What a world we live in. These guys have reinvented the Cambridge Senior Common Room for AI.
I wondered about this approach for something I was trying but thought it was just stupid, I wanted to see if An agent could explore software development and work on hobby tasks so that it could come back and push against design ideas and develop it's own opinions. Then I realized it was dumb for SW.
Re: Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what does thinking mean? Is there one thing we mean when we say thinking in humans? Are there several? Is it more of a spectrum? e.g. last year I tried inventing a "System 3"[0], a more rigorous way to approach problem solving, due to repeated painful experiences getting stuck solving problems the wrong way. I didn't get very far, but I definitely want to revisit the idea. [0] Based on System 1 and System 2, i.e.…
I suppose we are on the cusp of the first thing that can accurately think about thinking, that is have true self-access and introspection, not the post hoc rationalisation we do. That is legitimately a new kind of thinking, and to an entity capable of such a mode we might b prescribed as barely able to think at all
I had a conversation on my frustration with intellectual sparring partners today.
The main insight was that I require people who think.
That's a separate quality from intelligence or knowledge. The closest thing is "need for cognition" (which is apparently a dimension of personality).
From where I'm standing, most people have a strong need to avoid cognition (and the machine described humans as "cognitive misers"!)
However need for cognition is apparently a separate dimension from caring what is actually true. (10 hours of motivated reasoning satisfy NFC but not the latter.)
And another dimension was, tolerance for ambiguity and lack of closure.
Another was Openness, and Intellect, both of which correlated with experiencing confusion as motivating rather than aversive.
All of which turned out to be basic prerequisites for thinking clearly about things. Apparently each of those qualities is rare and apparently you need all of them.
So yeah, I think you might be right.
Re: Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment
#47Re: Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment
#48I have two thoughts simultaneously about the anthropomorphisation of these systems: 1. we should do it less, because it distorts our ability to think about them properly. Calling these processes 'thinking', 'holidays', etc invites the reader to bring along ideas and expectations that aren't justified by what's happening in the system. 2. it's good to keep doing it, because repeated use reduces the specialness or magi…
I definitely belong to the latter camp. After LLMs I view everything humans do very systematically and whenever said thing still feels fuzzy I just treat it as having a noise/smoothing term
Thankfully for me it happened a while ago, after chess was conquered. One of the most amusing (and depressing) things in the past few years of the current “AI era” is people making the same claims and having the same discussions about “intelligence” and “creativity” from ten, twenty or thirty years ago as their field is finally coming under attack by AI; they are finally going through what the competitive board game communities (checkers, Othello, chess, shogi, go etc.) have already come to terms with. There was no single moment but a gradual process over decades as the incursion became greater and greater, forcing a recalibration as previously held positions became indefensible. In my own case it spurred me to educate myself in many areas of mathematics, philosophy and neuroscience in particular where I was ignorant and has undoubtedly shaped my understanding of “intelligence”.
When people started claiming LLMs could not produce ideas outside of what they encountered in their training data, I was reminded of an old Chess Life article from the 60s reporting on the first chess computer to play in a tournament at a local chess club. One of the club members remarked that he did not believe that the computer could play moves that were not “put in” the computer in advance. There is an overwhelming sense of “here we go again”.