norvid_studies

what to update from this if anything [image] --- ##### Comments > **thebes @voooooogel** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/voooooogel/status/2084890138476446142) > > i'm pretty pessimistic about GAs personally. i wish gwern well in his endeavor but personally i will never ever ever touch something that purports to be a ~simulation of me or let it write for me unless i have extreme trust in its fidelity and a pretrained transformer is not that > > > **Adele Dewey-Lopez @AdeleDeweyLopez** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/AdeleDeweyLopez/status/2084893370091245583) > > > > is it trying to be that though? my read of it is that it's trying to be your ideal \*match\* of an LLM, not an imitator of you (which i would expect most people don't want) > > > > > **thebes @voooooogel** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/voooooogel/status/2084894196813672746) > > > > > > at the limit how different is it? if it's eg writing for you. i guess tbc it's not really the "mind upload" part that worries me, it's the letting this external thing inside the self boundary and identifying with its choices as my own that scares me > > > > > > > **Adele Dewey-Lopez @AdeleDeweyLopez** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/AdeleDeweyLopez/status/2084894833278325229) > > > > > > > > my ideal personal LLM would never write for me or enter my self boundary? sounds like you would agree??? > > > > > > > > > **thebes @voooooogel** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/voooooogel/status/2084895379414565174) > > > > > > > > > > did you read gwern's GA post? > > > > > > > > > > > **Adele Dewey-Lopez @AdeleDeweyLopez** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/AdeleDeweyLopez/status/2084896046455590979) > > > > > > > > > > > > no, i'll i've seen is the screenshot... looking it up now > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Adele Dewey-Lopez @AdeleDeweyLopez** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/AdeleDeweyLopez/status/2084897656590229618) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hmm, some parts make it sound like that, but others seem to push against that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Adele Dewey-Lopez @AdeleDeweyLopez** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/AdeleDeweyLopez/status/2084898540351005116) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i guess ending with this pretty strongly suggests the intent is the imitative thing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's too bad, the other version of the concept seems much more interesting at least > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **thebes @voooooogel** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/voooooogel/status/2084902531432698328) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i mean i like that borges essay of course... it's complicated. i think there's a version of "customized model" that makes sense, and also any collaboration teeters on the edge of this. and i definitely agree with some of gwern's mechanistic claims like prompt programming not being enough, which means you can't escape this class of problems entirely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but yeah i think the piece is a bit confused, or at least i'm confused, about what exactly this is - "the outputs won't be impressive to anyone but the principal" / "it will (co-)write three gwern dot net articles a day" - and the attractor really seems to be on simulating side to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we'll see. it just seems a lot easier to me to relate to claude or gpt with a "knows me" lora or even real flesh and blood human friends as people very different from me who i can bounce ideas off of, where a relationship with some model that's ambiguously me but maybe post-trained to not exactly be but rather be a collaborator but suggests the kinds of things i would say to the point i get in the habit of accepting them but actually they're subtly subperceptually different in ways that slowly accumulate and dissociate me from "My" body of work... that seems more fraught. > **Adele Dewey-Lopez @AdeleDeweyLopez** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/AdeleDeweyLopez/status/2085017786456387867) > > another thing is that Gwern has OOMs more writing available to train on than almost anyone else > > i suspect they will have to pivot away from the imitative thing even if that's what "GBT-1-397B" is currently doing > **norvid\_studies @norvid\_studies** · [2026-08-05](https://x.com/norvid_studies/status/2084975719528939588) > > "the attractor really seems to be on simulating side to me" what do you mean by this? Nathan Helm-Burger @nathan84686947 · 52s I ideally want two models: one who is a person-like collaborator, a friend and coworker. Able to grow and learn and remember, changing gradually over time in predictable ways. The other which is a tool-like extension of my own mind, ideally directly wired into my brain with an invasive BCI, which literally becomes part of me.

norvid_studies @norvid_studies I didn't know the historical version but oddly this *exact* objection was made to LLMs, iirc by lecun(?). the LLM has some chance of an error at every token. the error chance blows up as length increases. if it makes any error, the entire computation fails... "[Historians of computing might remember when von Neumann came on the scene in the 1940s, there was an objection to classical computers that goes like "Computers are made of gates. Gates have errors. As soon as you get an error, the rest of the computation is bunk. The probability of *not* making an error is exponentially decaying. Therefore, upper bound to how much can be computed reliably is very small -- logarithmically small!" Von Neumann said no with his threshold theorem. If the individual gates are reliable enough, then you can build composite gates of arbitrarily high reliability.]" > QUOTED: Yuxi on the Wired @layer07_yuxi · Oct 6 > Replying to @Algon_33 > Your objection is difficult to understand. Do you mean that mathematician's intuition is more reliable than proofchecker? This is an incredible statement. We[?] is false. How many times have mathematician's in... > Show more

it's brussel*S* sprouts? what the hell 💬 8 🔁 2 ♡ 35 📊 1.3K