Ditto. My views changed after thinking ”wait, isn’t that what Mother Nature did?” Her solutions just took three billion years of pretraining, decades of individ

Ditto. My views changed after thinking ”wait, isn’t that what Mother Nature did?” Her solutions just took three billion years of pretraining, decades of individual fine tuning, and ungodly amounts of streaming data. Our solutions are faster due to a vastly more efficient learning algorithm and relevant digital compute. Now I’ve reached the opposite SWAG hypothesis: given a sufficiently general optimization problem, the more one scales training/inference compute, the more impossible it is to prevent intelligence. That seems disappointingly prosaic. Shouldn’t there be more to it? Human ego creates anthropocentric bias toward thinking we’re special. We aren’t. At best we’re lucky. And nature doesn’t care about our biases. She repeatedly disabuses us from our “special” places — at the center of the universe, the solar system, the tree of life, and now the spectrum of general intelligence. This changed my perspective on the LLM “statistical parrot”/“no True Scotsman” critics. Their conviction without evidence (i.e faith) that SotA models don’t “really” reason comes from insecurity. It’s a loud reaction to egos popping. That’s a trauma that I can sympathize with.