What most¹ people don't get when they say "just learn to deal with your emotions" is that some of us "feel" emotions way more strongly than others. For me personally emotions are pain, far more stronger than actual physical pain is. Both unpleasant ones and pleasant ones. While I've learned to "deal" with it as I grew older, it's not a walk in a park, cost me solid chunk of my mental energy and that's what I need to do every fucking day.

Most people would say "but hey, that's what makes life worth living!". Not for me, I would rather prefer not to feel anything at all than to be subjected to a constant never-ending roller-coaster I can't get off² from. If walking past sick stray animal would maybe cause you³ a slight discomfort, for me would be excruciating feeling in my chest which I can either suppress (and live with the choice for the rest of my life) or drop whatever I was doing to try to help (and to subject myself to more pain in the process). There is no win for me here.

And yes, I've tried many-many things under the Sun, the truth is that I was just born this way. And I'm not alone like that. So telling to "just deal" with emotions is not helpful.

___

¹⁾ I'm not saying you don't, just bear with me for a moment.

²⁾ In both senses.

³⁾ Not you specifically.

Creativity is taken from us at exponential rate. And I don't buy argument from people who are saying they are excited to live in this age. I can get that if that technology stopped at current state and remained to be just tools for our creative endeavours, but it doesn't seem to be an endgame here. Instead it aims to be a complete replacement.

Granted, you can say "you still can play musical instruments/paint pictures/etc for yourself", but I don't think there was ever a period of time where creative works were just created for sake of itself rather for sharing it with others at masse.

So what is final state here for us? Return to menial not-yet-automated work? And when this would be eventually automated, what's left? Plug our brains to personalized autogenerated worlds that are tailored to trigger related neuronal circuitry for producing ever increasing dopamine levels and finally burn our brains out (which is arguably already happening with tiktok-style leasure)? And how you are supposed to pay for that, if all work is automated? How economics of that is supposed to work?

Looks like a pretty decent explanation of Fermi paradox. No-one would know how technology works, there are no easily available resources left to make use of simpler tech and planet is littered to the point of no return.

How to even find the value in living given all of that?

2. Tickets are verified at entrance via time-sensitive QR code displayed in the app.

3. You can "resell"/transfer a ticket to another account (say, friend) via app for a small nominal fee with the cost of ticket refunded to you, but only if you provide ID (of any sort, which can be more or less reliably confirmed).

4. Ticket can be printed to obtain non-time-sensitive QR code, but only if you provide ID.

Like, say, `vim` is a complex and polished tool. I routinely use it to solve various problems. Even if I would give LLM full keyboard & screen access, would be able to solve those problems for me? I don't think so. There is something missing here. You can say, see, there are various `tools` API-level integrations and such, but is there any real demonstration of "intelligent" use of those tools by AI? No, because it would be the AGI. Look, I'm not saying that AI would never be able to do that or that "we" are somehow special.

You, even if given something as crude as `ed` from '73 and assembler, would be able to write an OS, given time. LLMs can't even figure out `diff` format properly using so much time and energy that none of us would ever have.

You can also say, that brains do some kind of biological level RL driven by utility function `survive_and_reproduce_score(state)`, and it might be true. However given that we as humankind at current stage do not needed to excert great effort to survive and reproduce, at least in Western world, some of us still invent and build new tools. So _something_ is missing here. Question is what.

Distinctive part is hidden in the task: you, being presented with, say, triple-encoded hex message, would easily decode it. Apparently, LLM would not. o1-pro, at least, failed spectacularly, on the author's hex-encoded example question, which I passed through `od` twice. After "thinking" for 10 minutes it produced the answer: "42 - That is the hidden text in your hex dump!". You may say that CoT should do the trick, but for whatever reason it's not working.

If someone has insight, can you explain please?

If you're using Firefox, try to disable Enhanced Tracking Protection. It did the trick for me.

I understand that text as a whole has no clear meaning. Nevertheless, my the mind unconsciously _tries_ to extract meaning by evaluating sentences not as direct statements but rather as metaphors with some more profound sense.

That triggers thought train that eventually leads to some new concept or idea which can be described by such a set of sentences.

It's like reading a book which you don't quite understand, yet trying hard to read sentences over and over again to get a better understanding of what the author is trying to describe to you.

With GPT-3 it is like reading reminiscence of your own dream, trying to grasp fleeting meaning, understand what it is about.

I feel that GPT-3 may be very helpful in getting the human mind unstuck from whatever problem on the hand. To get new thoughts, new ways. New discoveries.