As far as I understand, it's due to RLHF. The reviewers the AI companies use don't necessarily know what kind of question is a good one, so when the LLM answers "That's a good question!", they tend to rate the answer higher because they like being flattered. Proxy models that are themselves trained on RLHF inherit this pattern. Similar effects contribute to sycophancy.[1]

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13548

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.359.6382.1317

At least I read it more as that you can't just declare 'there be no hierarchy here' and be done. Unless you carefully engineer the system, the implicit hierarchy will reclaim the void and, all else equal, an implicit hierarchy is harder to undo because it isn't supposed to exist.

In political terms: if all you do is kick the ruler out, you may get a corrupt patronage network instead of democracy. Actual equality doesn't come from just the absence of strong explicit hierarchy; it requires proper institutional design.

Not that it would be easy.

The third option is that the oligarchy fully internalizes its pursuit of ruthless concentration of power. But in that case, someone will probably create an AI that's better at playing the power game, and at that point, it's over for the oligarchs.

On topic, I would myself recommend Coloratura - https://ifdb.org/viewgame?id=g0fl99ovcrq2sqzk - for the sense of wonder/unusual protagonist.

But perhaps plain stable diffusion wouldn't work - you might need different neural networks trained on each "zoom level" because the structure would vary: music generally isn't like fractals and doesn't have exact self-similarity.

The existence of adversarial attacks shows that most neural networks have pretty bad worst-case performance. Thus sticking GPT-3 into alpha-beta or MCTS could just as easily give you an ungeneralizable optimum, because optimizers are by nature intended to find extreme responses. Call it a Campbell's law for neural nets.

The actual AlphaZero nets are probably more robust because they were themselves trained by MCTS, although they still don't generalize very well out-of-sample: IIRC AlphaZero is not a very strong Fischer Random player.

From the article you referenced:

> ITER will not produce enough heat to produce net electricity and therefore is not equipped with turbines to generate electricity. Instead, the heat produced by the fusion reactions will be vented.

So in a fusion plant, the particle energy would turn into heat (by the particles interacting with matter), this would heat up water (or some other carrying fluid), turning a turbine that produces electricity. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant which contains some diagrams showing just how that would be done.

More exotic reactions (e.g. p-B11) have been proposed, where almost no energy is in the form of neutrons. Theoretically, you could then use electrostatic devices to capture the energy directly without any of the mess with Carnot efficiency. However, getting p-B11 fusion going is much harder than d-t.

What about BitTorrent or its various file-sharing predecessors? It has no cash, they had no cash. Or Tor? Exit nodes don't demand money as compensation from attracting the attention of people in authority.

E.g. the AI is given a fixed amount of hardware and told to produce an algorithm that solves some NP-complete problem (say integer programming) in expected time as close to polytime as possible, as well as a mathematical proof that the algorithm satisfies the claimed close-to-polytime complexity bound. Then humanity can just solve the NP-complete problems separately once they have the algorithm.

This objective function doesn't care about the physical world -- it doesn't even know that a physical world exist -- and so it's about as likely to directly affect the physical world as MCTS or AlphaGo.

The "AI is going to run out of control" is a very compelling narrative (as everybody who has read the Sorcerer's Apprentice understands). But that doesn't make it true. Beware the availability heuristic.

(Incidentally, I think AI destroying mankind because it's too smart is an unlikely outcome. It's much easier for the AI to subvert the human-designed sensors linked to its objective function; and if the AI is sufficiently smart and the sensors aren't perfect, then it can always do so.)

To patch the "digital hole", it would be necessary to make the camera tamperproof, or force GIMP to run under a trusted enclave that won't do transformations without a live internet connection, or create an untamperable watermark system to place the transform metadata in the picture itself.

These are all attempted solutions to the DRM problem. And since DRM doesn't work, nor would this, I don't think.

If hypercomputation is possible, then anything based on Kolmogorov complexity would be SOL, but if not... is Solomonoff induction just too expensive in practice?

If I recall correctly, the tardigrades (and extremophiles like D. radiodurans) have evolved to handle damage brought on by desiccation. As a fortunate side-effect, this general robustness also protects against radiation.

It's simply the combinatorial explosion: it's easier to find a surprising and good program in ten lines with pointers limited to a max value of 800, than with hundred lines and a pointer max value of 8000.