<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Google Sans";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>This type of article I find tiring.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><br></span><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/11/ai-genesis-excerpt-kissinger-schmidt-mundie/680619/?gift=IwTom6kf_sPDx8WzuZ66abdQNn-XBOIBZBuHrK3fnB8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share">https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/11/ai-genesis-excerpt-kissinger-schmidt-mundie/680619/?gift=IwTom6kf_sPDx8WzuZ66abdQNn-XBOIBZBuHrK3fnB8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share</a><br><br>They write:<br><br>“For this and many other reasons, <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>we must not entrust digital agents with control over direct physical experiments</span></em>. So long as AIs remain flawed—and they are still very flawed—this is a necessary precaution.”<br><br>What are they talking about? This kind of thing is well underway:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-021-01348-4">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-021-01348-4</a><br><br>LLMs will just make it more sophisticated.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr@cas-group.net><br><b>Date: </b>Sunday, November 17, 2024 at 10:51 AM<br><b>To: </b>The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [FRIAM] deducing underlying realities from emergent realities<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>My 2 cents: particle collliders are used to unmask underlying realities behind emergent realities. Physicists use them to shatter matter into pieces and try to find the most elementary particles everything is made of. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>Mathematicians try to find elementary prime numbers. Psychologists examine the most basic elements of society - persons - and the most elementary mechanisms that control their behavior - emotions. Sociologists examine the elementary rules that govern society.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>In the opposite direction we can either just observe the world at different scales or run simulations of agent-based models to explore emergent realities. After doing this often enough it should be possible to predict the possible types of emergent levels from a given set rules of the underlying level.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>-J.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>-------- Original message --------<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>From: Roger Critchlow <rec@elf.org> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Date: 11/17/24 5:46 PM (GMT+01:00) <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam@redfish.com> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Subject: [FRIAM] deducing underlying realities from emergent realities <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Sabine is wondering about reported failures of the new generations of LLM's to scale the way the their developers expected.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <a href="https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/11/ai-scaling-hits-wall-rumours-say-how.html">https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/11/ai-scaling-hits-wall-rumours-say-how.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>On one slide she essentially draws the typical picture of an emergent level of organization arising from an underlying reality and asserts, as every physicist knows, that you cannot deduce the underlying reality from the emergent level. Ergo, if you try to deduce physical reality from language, pictures, and videos you will inevitably hit a wall, because it can not be done.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>So she's actually grinding two axes at once: one is AI enthusiasts who expect LLM's to discover physics, and the other is AI enthusiasts who foresee no end to the improvement of LLM's as they throw more data and compute effort at them.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>But, of course, the usual failure of deduction runs in the opposite direction, you can't predict the emergent level from the rules of the underlying level. Do LLM's believe in particle collliders? Or do they think we hallucinated them?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- rec --<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>