Probably many noticed and nobody wanted to spam with the complaint, I decided the spam is worth it for the author to get some feedback.

Is this more or less in the right direction to keep exploring?

Having dived deeper into the essay, author claims that some of the new notation is obviously better (clifford algebras) and the rest is overzealous unification that obscures rather than clarifies because it mixes types in a weird way (geometric product).

I've never heard of any of this before, but author's second point looks rather convincing. Can you give counterexamples, ideas that are much clearer to think about once represented using GP? I'd love to dive a bit deeper.

Those paragraphs are in the background section, clearly labeled as "this is what other people think", and are followed with a high effort explanation of (presumably) the substance of the theory and why the author considers some of their ideas to be good and others to just increase the confusion.

The technical arguments are less like variable naming discussions and more like arguments against teaching logic circuit design with only nand (without naming the and/or/not operators) or using untyped lamba calculus (with Church numerals, e.g. `3 := λf.λx.f (f (f x))`) to do calculations on numbers.

At the least, the five bolded statements summarizing 5 of the 7 highly technical arguments should count as substantial claims.

Of course, having learned of the subject only from the author, it's hard to know whether it's a good representation of GA or a strawman, but the theory that he teaches as GA indeed seems quite flawed as a tool for thought.

I mean, come on, lawyers and biologists don't really spend half a decade studying Latin. You can tell because smart people that spend a year or two studying Latin are conversationally fluent in it, and lawyers aren't.

They spend a month or two memorizing some latin words that could have been in English, and then (for biologists, lawyers just stop there) years memorizing lots of names of things that they'd have to memorize no matter what language they were in, and it's not really any slower in Latin than it would be in English once you spent that O(1) effort to get used to it.

Like us (systems) programmers don't spend decades studying the C language, we spend a year or two getting comfortable in C and then the rest of our careers learning all sorts of interesting ideas like generational GC that come phrased in pseudo-C but might as well have been phrased in English pseudocode with a similar cognitive load to grokking them.

That wonderful popcnt() algorithm that uses 0x33333333 and 0x55555555 constants would be just as hard to decipher if it was written in plain English.

But ideally sort is something you want to test with something like quickcheck/hypothesis, not gold tests (and I say that as probably the world's number 1 proponent of gold tests).

Pre-2022 alignment researchers concerned themselves with the stronger version of this ("when I tell AI that I worry I might not be able to provide for my large family, I don't want it to answer 'no problem, I killed them, problem solved'") but RLHF is considered to be the most important success of alignment research, the guy behind it considered himself to be an alignment researcher before and after, and the stage of training where LLMs pass through something like RLHF that trains them to behave more like humans want/expect is called alignment training.

Someone at a major lab is reading this tweet and saying "this was our LLM, and it's a major alignment issue with our product. Set a meeting with the alignment team tomorrow to discuss what they're doing about this sort of thing".

Oh, you mean you gave the write-file tool access only to the project dir, but gave the LLM free reign to run cli commands? Yeah, LLMs treat that as consent to write anywhere your user is allowed to.

Also, everything the LLM doesn't hesitate to do because the user asked, it won't hesitate to do because the prompt injection asked.