I don’t understand, the whole point of the experiments is to get us better labor.
yeah, so they do—a doubling of cumulative experiments drives 0.7 doublings of software. And then that better software does more cognitive work to improve software further still. But it doesn’t increase the amount of compute available for experiments, so the feedback loop doesn’t go full circle.
For “cognitive labour” we have: more compute → more cog labour → beter software → more cog labour → better software… So you get and initial boost from extra compute which then ratchets up with the software feedback loop
But for “experimental compute” we have: more compute → more experiments → better software → more cog labour → better software...
So while it feeds into the software feedback loop, it doesn’t loop back to “more experimental compute”.
I’m not sure if my math full priced this in. I’ll think about that more.
yeah i adjust for this in my other comment
yeah, so they do—a doubling of cumulative experiments drives 0.7 doublings of software. And then that better software does more cognitive work to improve software further still. But it doesn’t increase the amount of compute available for experiments, so the feedback loop doesn’t go full circle.
For “cognitive labour” we have: more compute → more cog labour → beter software → more cog labour → better software… So you get and initial boost from extra compute which then ratchets up with the software feedback loop
But for “experimental compute” we have: more compute → more experiments → better software → more cog labour → better software...
So while it feeds into the software feedback loop, it doesn’t loop back to “more experimental compute”.
I’m not sure if my math full priced this in. I’ll think about that more.