4 ms·

> Looking at information systems as far back as the first coordination of differentiating cells to human civilization is one of exponential improvement. Under

> Looking at information systems as far back as the first coordination of differentiating cells to human civilization is one of exponential improvement. Under what metric? Most of the things you mention don't have numerical values to plot on a curve. It's a vibe exponential, at best. Life and humans have become better and better at extracting available resources and energy, but there's a clear limit to that (100%) and the distribution of these things in the universe is a given, not something we control. You don't run information systems off empty space.

Nevermark 1y ago
I am curious when you think we will run out of atoms to make information systems. How many billions of years you think that might take. Of all the things to be limited by, that doesn't seem like a near term issue. Just an asteroid or two alone will provide resources beyond our dreams. And space travel is improving at a very rapid rate. In the meantime, in terms of efficiency of using Earth atoms for information processing, there is still a lot space at the "bottom", as Feynman said. Our crude systems are limited today by their power waste. Small energy efficient systems, and more efficient heat shedding, will enable full 3D chips ("cubes"?) and vastly higher density of packing those. The known limit for information for physical systems per gram, is astronomical: • Bremermann’s limit : 10^47 operations per second, per gram. Other interesting limits: • Margolus–Levitin bound - on quantum state evolution • Landauer’s principle - Thermodynamic cost of erasing (overwriting) one bit. • Bekenstein bound: Maximum storage by volume. Life will go through many many singularities before we get anywhere near hard limits.
Nevermark 1y ago
> It's a vibe exponential, at best. I am a little stunned you think so. Life has been on Earth about 3.5-3.8 billion years. Break that into 0.5-0.8, 1 billion, 1 billion, 1 billion "quarters", and you will find exponential increases in evolutions rate of change and production of diversity across them by many many objective measures. Now break up the last 1 billion into 100 million year segments. Again exponential. Then break up the last 100 million into segments. Again. Then the last 10 million years into segments, and watch humans progress. The last million, in 100k year segments, watch modern humans appear. the last 10k years into segments, watch agriculture, civilizations, technology, writing ... The last 1000 years, incredible aggregation of technology, math, and the appearance of formal science last 100 years, gets crazy. Information systems appear in labs, then become ubiquitous. last 10 years, major changes, AI starts having mainstream impact last 1 year - even the basic improvements to AI models in the last 12 months are an unprecedented level of change, per time, looking back. I am not sure how any of could appear "vibe", given any historical and situational awareness. This progression is universally recognized. Aside from creationists and similar contingents.
- breuleux 1y ago
  The progression is much less clear when you don't view it anthropocentrically. For instance, we see an explosion in intelligible information: information that is formatted in human language or human-made formats. But this is concomitant with a crash in natural spaces and biodiversity, and nothing we make is as information-rich as natural environments, so from a global perspective, what we have is actually an information crash. Or hell, take something like agriculture. Cultured environments are far, far simpler than wild ones. Again: an information crash. I'm not saying anything about the future, mind you. Just that if we manage to stop sniffing our own farts for a damn second and look at it from the outside, current human civilization is a regression on several metrics. We didn't achieve dominion over nature by being more subtle or complex than it. We achieved that by smashing nature with a metaphorical club and building upon its ruins. Sure, it's impressive. But it's also brutish. Intelligence requires intelligible environments to function, and that is almost invariably done at the expense of complexity and diversity. Do not confuse success for sophistication. > last 1 year - even the basic improvements to AI models in the last 12 months are an unprecedented level of change, per time, looking back. Are they? What changed, exactly? What improvements in, say, standards of living? In the rate of resource exploitation? In energy efficiency? What delta in our dominion over Earth? I'll tell you what I think: I think we're making tremendous progress in simulating aspects of humanity that don't matter nearly as much as we think they do. The Internet, smartphones, AI, speak to our brains in an incredible way. Almost like it was by design. However, they matter far more to humans within humanity than they do in the relationship of humanity with the rest of the universe. Unlike, say, agriculture or coal, which positively defaced the planet. Could we leverage AI to unlock fusion energy or other things that actually matter, just so we can cook the rest of the Earth with it? Perhaps! But let's not count our chickens before they hatch. As of right now, in the grand scheme of things, AI doesn't matter. Except, of course, in the currency of vibes.

Nevermark 1y ago

I am curious when you think we will run out of atoms to make information systems. How many billions of years you think that might take. Of all the things to be limited by, that doesn't seem like a near term issue. Just an asteroid or two alone will provide resources beyond our dreams. And space travel is improving at a very rapid rate. In the meantime, in terms of efficiency of using Earth atoms for information processing, there is still a lot space at the "bottom", as Feynman said. Our crude systems are limited today by their power waste. Small energy efficient systems, and more efficient heat shedding, will enable full 3D chips ("cubes"?) and vastly higher density of packing those. The known limit for information for physical systems per gram, is astronomical: • Bremermann’s limit : 10^47 operations per second, per gram. Other interesting limits: • Margolus–Levitin bound - on quantum state evolution • Landauer’s principle - Thermodynamic cost of erasing (overwriting) one bit. • Bekenstein bound: Maximum storage by volume. Life will go through many many singularities before we get anywhere near hard limits.

Nevermark 1y ago

> It's a vibe exponential, at best. I am a little stunned you think so. Life has been on Earth about 3.5-3.8 billion years. Break that into 0.5-0.8, 1 billion, 1 billion, 1 billion "quarters", and you will find exponential increases in evolutions rate of change and production of diversity across them by many many objective measures. Now break up the last 1 billion into 100 million year segments. Again exponential. Then break up the last 100 million into segments. Again. Then the last 10 million years into segments, and watch humans progress. The last million, in 100k year segments, watch modern humans appear. the last 10k years into segments, watch agriculture, civilizations, technology, writing ... The last 1000 years, incredible aggregation of technology, math, and the appearance of formal science last 100 years, gets crazy. Information systems appear in labs, then become ubiquitous. last 10 years, major changes, AI starts having mainstream impact last 1 year - even the basic improvements to AI models in the last 12 months are an unprecedented level of change, per time, looking back. I am not sure how any of could appear "vibe", given any historical and situational awareness. This progression is universally recognized. Aside from creationists and similar contingents.

breuleux 1y ago
The progression is much less clear when you don't view it anthropocentrically. For instance, we see an explosion in intelligible information: information that is formatted in human language or human-made formats. But this is concomitant with a crash in natural spaces and biodiversity, and nothing we make is as information-rich as natural environments, so from a global perspective, what we have is actually an information crash. Or hell, take something like agriculture. Cultured environments are far, far simpler than wild ones. Again: an information crash. I'm not saying anything about the future, mind you. Just that if we manage to stop sniffing our own farts for a damn second and look at it from the outside, current human civilization is a regression on several metrics. We didn't achieve dominion over nature by being more subtle or complex than it. We achieved that by smashing nature with a metaphorical club and building upon its ruins. Sure, it's impressive. But it's also brutish. Intelligence requires intelligible environments to function, and that is almost invariably done at the expense of complexity and diversity. Do not confuse success for sophistication. > last 1 year - even the basic improvements to AI models in the last 12 months are an unprecedented level of change, per time, looking back. Are they? What changed, exactly? What improvements in, say, standards of living? In the rate of resource exploitation? In energy efficiency? What delta in our dominion over Earth? I'll tell you what I think: I think we're making tremendous progress in simulating aspects of humanity that don't matter nearly as much as we think they do. The Internet, smartphones, AI, speak to our brains in an incredible way. Almost like it was by design. However, they matter far more to humans within humanity than they do in the relationship of humanity with the rest of the universe. Unlike, say, agriculture or coal, which positively defaced the planet. Could we leverage AI to unlock fusion energy or other things that actually matter, just so we can cook the rest of the Earth with it? Perhaps! But let's not count our chickens before they hatch. As of right now, in the grand scheme of things, AI doesn't matter. Except, of course, in the currency of vibes.