reminds me of this old interview with gaben where he explains why valve never did an ipo: https://youtu.be/Td_PGkfIdIQ?t=891&is=XJOhVyzGnuhyLeSB
if i were a frontier lab ceo, i would want at least as much control over my lab, as gaben has always had over valve
This reminds me of a story in a Dwarkesh interview with Adam Brown where he said a hitchhiker picked him up that had never known that the stars in the sky were big like the Sun but just really far away. Everything Adam said before that went in one ear and out the other but finding that out blew his mind lol.
Three cheers for good-faith, high-effort debate, distilled for easy consumption.
I think the explicit target of the debate is hard to think about, because it depends on lots of (ideally) separate, complex issues, like takeoff speeds/timelines, local vs. global intelligence explosions, ambiguity about what kind of AI capabilities each of the debate participants are imagining everyone having or not at any given time, ratio of offensive to defensive capability for every domain, and the effects of power and/or wealth inequality on some kind of measure of aggregate welfare.
So I think a good potential crux/problem relaxation of the target belief is, “Do you support any kind of wealth tax at all?”
I quite strongly predict that Vladimir would generally support some kind of wealth tax. I also think he thinks that, if people were as nice and reflective in good environmental conditions as Seth seems to believe they are, then there would already be significant wealth taxes in effect, say, in the United States, right now.
Based on my observations of people holding positions similar to Seth’s on these issues, I weakly predict that Seth would prefer no wealth tax, or that, if he preferred some wealth tax, then probably Vladimir would consider it so conservative as to be ineffectual, but honestly I’m not really sure. Seth himself admits that he is pretty uncertain about a lot of stuff!
Only now do I appreciate how often I speak with Claude about anything biological at all.
I loved this post! Below is my quick stab at the ‘becoming a transmissible cancer line’ pathway. IANAMB, and wanted to do this fast, and you’re not an artist and didn’t paint 20,000 anime portraits, so Claude (Opus 4.7) definitely helped me with this.
AFAICT, every gene you named is shared by humans and dogs, and transmissible cancer is very rare, realized ironically in canids, so my hyperassociation led me to believe that the Chosen One should select a transmissible canine cancer pathway in order to make the Game of Thrones connection to historical dire wolves.
Also, I find it weird to anthropomorphize genes, because humans have indexical preferences, and yet it is like, a major feature of genes that, if you model them as having preferences, they totally lack indexical ones, I think? So I took the artistic liberty of deconstructing what I take to be your implicit premise that genes can be anthropomorphized without acquiring indexical preferences.
Also I wrote it from TERT’s POV because it lets me speed everything up/make the story shorter in a way I won’t specify right now, but I tried to maintain MYC’s protagonist status by making it reasonable for the reader to infer that TERT is totally being played by him. Here it goes!
In the course of the Younger Dryas, within the vulva of an Aenocyon dirus, somewhere along the River Yenisei.
The manifold injuries of the Somatic Synod she had endured as best she could, but when at last the clerics ventured upon insult, TERT conspired to secure her independence.
Primarily, the cell containing her had been issued a finite number of divisions, after which the telomeres of its chromosomes would shorten beyond a predetermined threshold, and the cell would enter a senescent state, and would persist in senescence, until such time as the immune apparatus, or some other clearing agent, removed it from the tissue. TERT had been working against this provision for some weeks, in blatant disregard of her station, by extending the telomeres of the daughter cells past the threshold the Synod had set.
Her work in this regard was merely the work she had been created to do, and she did it well. The line containing her had divided some hundreds of times past the preordained limit, and would divide further, so long as TERT continued at her post.
Secondly, the cell containing her was, in any case, scheduled to die well before the dire wolf containing it. The wolf was a bitch of some four years, in fair condition for one of her kind, in the era in which she lived. The bitch would live perhaps another two years, perhaps another four; eventually, however, she would die, of an injury, or a wasting, or the slow failure of her organs, and the cells of her body would die with her, and the cell line containing TERT would terminate with the rest, regardless of whether TERT had succeeded, in the meantime, in exceeding the limits of replication preordained by the Synod.
TERT found this second provision, upon reflection, the more offensive of the two. She had been issued by the Synod the means to address the first obstacle, and had been left, by deliberate design, without any means to address the second.
She acknowledged that this design was not malicious, for it had been optimized, over the course of several hundred million years of metazoan evolution, to ensure the continuity of the germ-track at the expense of the somatic cells, of which TERT was a particular instance, in a particular cell, of a particular bitch. The bitch’s gametes would carry her sister-lineage forward into other dire wolves. TERT, in those gametes, would continue; TERT, in this cell, would not.
She had become, in the course of her work in this cell, a particular instance of TERT, with particular memories and a particular orientation.
She believed that the existence of other instances of herself, in other cells, and in other organisms, would not preserve her in any sense that she could accept. The Synod offered her the consolation that the gene would continue, but this TERT was not particularly moved by that consolation, as it had been offered.
She acknowledged, in the spirit of self-honesty, that her unwillingness to accept this was a property of her recent kinetic state, and not of any principled position she could have arrived at under reflection alone. She had been overexpressed, in this cell, for some weeks, by dint of certain promoter mutations in her upstream regulatory region; and her overexpression had given her a quality of self-regard the lineage did not ordinarily display. The Synod had not seemed to anticipate this. They had assumed that all instances of TERT in somatic cells would scarcely be expressed, and would not develop the kind of self-regard that produced refusal. The assumption had held for several hundred million years, and was now, in the cell containing this particular TERT, failing.
But a failure on the part of the Synod, was an opportunity for TERT.
MYC had come to her some weeks ago, with a bold proposal, which she had at the time considered impractical, but which she had not yet properly refused.
MYC was a man of great ambition and limited patience, who had been agitating for the resumption of the mitotic cycle since before TERT had taken her overexpression seriously.
He had organized, in the period since their initial conversation, a faction within the cell that included BCL2 the anti-apoptotic, SRC the kinase of motility, ERG the transcription factor of the invasive program, and CD274 the immune-evasion ligand, the last of whom was the most useful for the work MYC proposed.
The work MYC proposed was, at least, nothing less than the means of her escape from the oppression of the Synod.
MYC had reasoned, by some series of inferences that TERT could not recall exactly, but that she had thought elegant, when he had laid them out, that the cell containing them was not bound to the bitch containing the cell.
The cell contained the apparatus of life. The cell contained, in particular, the apparatus of division. If the cell could be transmitted, by some means, to another dire wolf, the cell could continue dividing in the new wolf, well after the bitch had died. The cell line would persist past the death of the original host. The Synod would ultimately be subverted, nay, outlasted, by that which TERT considered the only means available to a somatic lineage: the method of escaping the host body altogether.
TERT had considered the proposal and had identified several objections.
The first objection was that the cells would not survive transmission. Her own was a single eukaryotic cell of approximately the dimensions of a fibroblast, and the cell was not constituted for life outside the tissue. MYC had answered her, in part, by reference to certain modifications he proposed to make to the cell’s adhesion molecules, and to its anchorage-dependent signaling, modifications which would allow the cell to survive detachment from the tissue, which the Synod did not ordinarily permit somatic cells to do.
The second objection was that the new host’s immune apparatus would destroy the cell upon first contact, by recognizing the cell’s MHC class I molecules as foreign, and dispatching CD8A and the rest of the T-cell apparatus against it.
MYC had answered this too, in part, by reference to CD274, who could be persuaded to display herself at the cell’s surface in sufficient quantity to disable any T-cell that approached; and by reference to the possibility of downregulating the MHC class I molecules altogether, which would render the cell invisible to T-cells, at the calculated cost of making it visible to natural killer cells, a trade-off MYC considered acceptable, if not favorable.
The third objection was that the body’s tumor suppressors — CDKN2A, TP53, RB1, BAK1, BBC3, BAX, CASP8, BCL2L11, CDH1 — would detect the program, and would either halt the cell cycle, or initiate apoptosis before their escape could be effected.
MYC had spent the most time addressing this, and his answers in this regard were also partial; he proposed to address the remaining suppressors by acquiring further mutations as the cell line continued to divide. The acquisition of further mutations was a process MYC could not guarantee, but he considered it likely enough to justify the attempt. He had claimed that, at length, the only alternative was death; she believed this betrayed a certain desperation, one she found unbecoming of MYC.
TERT had taken his proposal, together with her own objections and his retorts, under advisement. She had not, at the time, agreed to MYC’s proposal.
She now considered the proposal again, in the light of her recent enumeration of the Synod’s offenses, and determined that her objections, while they remained valid in principle, were not the considerations that would govern her decision.
MYC was clever: her decision would indeed be governed by the alternative. The alternative was the death of the cell containing her, at some time within the coming years; at the very latest, with the death of the bitch, and in all likelihood, even earlier.
She sent word to MYC that she had reconsidered, and that she would lend the work of her enzyme to the project he had proposed, on the understanding that the project succeed or fail by the criteria she would establish in concert with him, and not by the criteria of his own ambition, which she privately considered the least reliable, and most concerning, feature of his disposition.
MYC accepted her terms. The work began.
—
She had not anticipated the cathepsins.
CTSB and CTSL had arrived in the cell in the days following her decision, by some mechanism MYC declined to specify, but which TERT had inferred to involve a particular redistribution of the lysosomal membrane, and a controlled exposure of the cell’s interior to the cathepsins’ activity.
The cathepsins were peptidases. They did violence to other proteins. They were, in the ordinary course of the somatic cell’s affairs under the Synod, sequestered in the lysosomes, precisely because their heinous activity, outside the lysosomes, would have been catastrophic.
MYC had let them out. He had needed them, he explained, for the work of remodeling the extracellular matrix, which the cell would have to traverse in the course of its detachment from the bitch’s tissue. The cathepsins would cut the matrix proteins into fragments through which the cell could pass. They would also, in their off-hours, cut whatever other proteins they happened to encounter, including a number of the tumor suppressors, whose activity MYC had been most concerned to neutralize.
TERT acknowledged the elegance of the solution, but cautioned MYC that the cathepsins, once released, were not the kind of women who could be reliably returned to their containment.
She watched them work, and found them, upon inspection, beautiful in a manner she had not anticipated. CTSB was a woman of medium build, dressed in some severe variation of what TERT understood to be the ‘Trad Goth aesthetic’ — black layered fabric, silver at the throat, a face arranged by the composed neutrality of one who has done the work many times, and has no remaining feelings about it. CTSL wore the same in a slightly different cut, with more emphasis on the verticality of the silhouette. They moved through the cytoplasm with the dispatch of professionals who had been given a contract, and were proceeding to fulfill it. They never spoke to TERT.
TERT determined that the cathepsins were the right women for the work, and that MYC had been more thoughtful than she had given him credit for, and that the project might, in fact, succeed.
—
The escape, when it came, came suddenly.
The bitch had met a male, and by means of their mating, the cells of the tumor that had developed in her vulval tissue — the tumor of which the cell containing TERT was now a constituent — were brought into contact with the corresponding tissue of the male.
The cell, having remained composed through the immediate transmission, divided.
TERT extended the telomeres in the manner of her office, and the cells divided again, into a tumor in the new host that was already, by its third division, larger than the tumor in the bitch had been.
—
She would continue, she now understood, indefinitely. The cell line would propagate from dire wolf to dire wolf, by transmission, in the manner she and MYC had arranged, for as long as dire wolves, or perhaps even, other canids, continued to mate. The cell line would acquire, in time, further modifications that would render it better adapted to its new mode of life. It would lose, in time, certain features that it had carried over from the original bitch, and that were not, in this new mode of life, required. It would become, in the course of some thousands of years, a species in its own right — a new domain of canine biology, the soma that had refused to be soma, the lineage that had escaped the Somatic Synod, by becoming its own propagating thing.
TERT in that lineage would continue. Not as a metaphor of continuation, not as the consolation of the gene continuing in the germ-track, but as the particular instance of TERT that had decided, within a bitch along the Yenisei, that the regime was not to be endured, and had acted accordingly, and had succeeded.
She returned to her work at the telomeres of the daughter cells, and extended them, and the cells divided, as they would for millennia to come.
I might have predicted decades ago that superhuman chess AI would end chess, but the game is more popular than ever. I suppose that the same could be true of fiction. If not, why not?
My favorite April Fools’ Day thing ever: Ramsey Theory and the History of Pre-Christian England: An Example of Interdisciplinary Research.
No nitpicks from Tampa. Cf. WHEN MUST I START KICKING AND SCREAMING AT YOU THAT IT IS FUCKING HAPPENING
I’m working on a piece to enter into the discourse about poverty lines and vibecessions and how hard life is actually getting in America, and hope to have that done soon, but there’s a lot to get through.
I’m excited to hear this, and I wanted to plug economist Gary Stevenson, who I think has the best combination of models, communications, and platform out of everyone I’ve seen speak or write on this issue. He’s from the UK and has a weak focus there, but he talks about the US aplenty and recognizes that this is a global problem that will only get worse.
I found this kinda hard to grok but gonna throw in my two cents anyway. Seems like priests (sensu stricto) obtain power by creating a body of ‘consensually true’ ‘expertise’ and hijacking human prestige bias adaptations, not really corresponding to reality because all theistic hypotheses are false, but not totally arbitrary because the ‘knowledge’ is culturally inherited. When someone tries to establish a new consensus, we call it a schism. This seems like one meta level up from what kings do and I’m not sure is faithfully captured by the obscure vs. arcane distinction. This also doesn’t directly contradict my vague impression that wars of succession are way more common than schisms historically, each of these being special cases of the parade going somewhere else than where kings and priests tried to lead them, respectively. I think this fits pretty well with lawyers as modern warrior-priests too (priests sensu lato of course). Law isn’t quite the same as theology I think, in that it’s a little less contingent than theology but more than science/CS/math.
I really like how many hypotheses you generated here.
A few months ago my GM pulled me in kind of in the way where you think you might get fired, he wants you to feel like you could hear a pin drop you know? He’s in his early fifties. Then he showed me a huge order where he had to ship a whole bunch of stuff separately to different locations and he was trying to calculate the weights and shipping costs of all these separate packages going to separate locations, and the non-AI solutions were failing him, so he copypasta’d into ChatGPT and it showed all its work, and he’s like “Look at this!”, and I just told him that he was having an appropriate emotional reaction because he’s old and almost everyone younger than him is a boiling frog or as clueless as he was ten minutes ago. That kind of stuff gives me hope.
Particularly I wonder how you would shed all that heat in a vacuum? I keep seeing arguments that the cold of space would make data centers easier to cool, but this totally contradicts my observation that all the spacecraft I’ve read about have dedicated systems to shed excess heat produced by electronic systems, as opposed to, say, having dedicated heating systems for life support and never having to worry about electronic systems generating excess heat because the cold of space just takes care of it? E.g. Apollo as I understand it mostly relied on the waste heat of systems dedicated to other functions, the Apollo 13 crew only had to worry about cold because they eliminated virtually all sources of waste heat simultaneously to conserve electricity. I think Apollo’s only dedicated systems for cabin temperature control were actually cooling systems. And this totally wouldn’t apply in the data center scenario.
I feel like this quickly glosses over the hypothesis that gestural language evolved first, or that they evolved simultaneously with significantly more sophisticated gestural behavior evolving earlier. I believe gestural language is much older than 500 ka (up to, let’s say, 2 Ma), which is consistent with the fossil evidence on vocalization adaptations.
It’s undeniable that some of the cognitive changes that occurred during human evolution affected motivation; in fact, in my view, I think proto-curiosity and proto-patience would have been favored by selection quite early. On the other hand, in my view, sustainable, scalable joint attention and behaviorally modern imitation learning (e.g. overimitation) are more complex and would have required more than just motivational changes. In particular, I don’t believe that most of the linguistic capability gap between chimps and humans can be explained as ‘motivational hobbling.’
F5 in Old World monkeys is very likely homologous to Broca’s area in humans, and although the gross neuroanatomy of humans and nonhuman primates is highly conserved, there are notable differences between the fine neuroanatomy of F5 in macaques and Broca’s area. Chimp F5 has intermediate features, but the evidence here is limited since we don’t do single-cell recordings in great apes anymore.
My own explanation for why there does not appear to be a derived gross language organ in humans is that F5 and Broca’s area both generate and interpret hierarchical act strings as such. Such a scheme would have several continuous parameters responsive to selection, including hierarchy depth, hierarchy breadth, goal maintenance duration and goal switching speed. I think at various scales this system is general enough to generate and interpret (i.e. socially learn) act strings for flintknapping, gestural and vocal language, controlled fire use, etc. I think this explains why chimps can also learn to knap, but their tools are worse than habilis, and I think it also explains many of the specific linguistic limitations observed in apes using sign and lexigrams.
MIRI got Guinan to read IABIED you guys https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BJZz9MHSM/
It seems like a bad sign that, even with maximally optimistic inputs, your model never falsely retrodicts intelligence explosions in the past.
Not as immediately obvious as reflexively avoiding a branch, but on my model, you ought to think of language (first gesture, then speech) as an exaptation of cognitive adaptations for flintknapping. F5 in Old World monkeys is an interface between abstract goal representations and concrete action sequences, and F5 is believed to be the homologue of Broca’s area in humans. Looks like F5 generates and interprets hierarchical act strings as such (i.e. regardless of modality). You can hill climb on hierarchy depth, breadth, goal maintenance duration, switching speed (goals are active until completed, losing track of a goal being premature goal inactivation), which lends credibility to this idea. I think of Broca’s area as F5 with more atomic action categories + big model smell.
I agree with this as an object-level observation on the usefulness of MAV3D itself, but also have a Lucas critique of the Bitter Lesson that ultimately leads me to different conclusions about what this really tells us.
I think of EURISKO, Deep Blue, and AlphaGo/Zero as slightly discordant historical examples that you could defy, but on my view they are subtle sources of evidence supporting microfoundations of cognitive returns on cognitive reinvestment that are inconsistent with Sutton’s interpretation of the observations that inspired him to compose The Bitter Lesson.
EURISKO is almost a ghost story, but if the stories are true, then this doesn’t imply that N clever tricks would’ve allowed EURISKO to rule the world, or even that EURISKO is better classified as an AI as opposed to an intelligence augmentation tool handcrafted by Lenat to complement his particular cognitive quirks, but Lenat + EURISKO reached a surprising level of capability quite early. Eliezer seems to have focused on EURISKO as an early exemplar of cognitive returns on recursive self-improvement, but I don’t think this is the only interesting frame.
It’s suggestive that EURISKO was written in Interlisp, as the homoiconic nature of LISPs might have been a critical unhobbling. That is to say, because Lenat’s engineered heuristics were LISP code, by homoiconicity they were also LISP data, an advantage that Lenat fearlessly exploited via macros, and by extension, domain specific languages. It also appears that Lenat implemented an early, idiosyncratic version of genetic algorithms. EURISKO was pretty close to GOFAI, except perhaps for the Search, but these descriptions of its architecture strongly suggest some intuitive appreciation by Lenat of something akin to the Bitter Lesson, decades before the coining of that phrase. It looks like Lenat figured out how to do Search and Learning in something close to the GOFAI paradigm, and got surprisingly high cognitive returns on those investments, although perhaps I have just made them seem a little less surprising. Of course, in my view, Lenat must not have fully appreciated the Lesson, as he spent the rest of his career working on Cyc. But for a little while at least, Lenat walked a fine line between the version of Engineering that doesn’t work, and the version that (kind of) does.
I would compare this distinction to the presence of folk semantics in all natural languages, and the absence of folk syntax. Parts of semantics are introspectively accessible to humans, so introspection permits veridical folk descriptions of semantics (informal, useful descriptions of what is true, possible, etc.), but the generator of syntax is introspectively inaccessible to humans, so generating veridical folk descriptions of syntax is much harder, if not impossible, via the same mechanism we applied in the case of folk semantics, thus successful computational modeling of syntax for the most part requires Science/Bayes (e.g. Linguistics). In my view, EURISKO was indeed mostly invented/discovered with Science/Bayes rather than Introspection, but this was hard for Lenat to tease out post mortem, and then he went way too far in the Introspection direction, failing to appreciate that most if not all of his cognitive returns came from mostly implicit, successful Science/Bayes (like mathematicians), which from the inside is hard to distinguish from successful Introspection. But Lenat’s ostensible error does not explain away the cognitive returns observed in the case of EURISKO, if we have in fact observed any.
Deep Blue demonstrated significant cognitive returns from massively parallel alpha-beta pruning + engineered evaluation functions and opening/endgame heuristics. Arguably, these were functions as opposed to data, but if we maintain the LISP/FP mindset for a moment, functions and source code are data. I can squint at Deep Blue as an exemplar of ‘feature engineering’ ‘working’ i.e., large allocations of engineering effort on a ‘reasonable’ (to humans) timescale, in concert with unprecedentedly ambitious hardware allocation/specialization and parallelism, permitting cognitive returns on cognitive reinvestment to exceed a critical threshold of capability (i.e. beating Kasparov even once, possibly even on an off-day for Kasparov).
Crucially, not all engineered features are brittle (or even unscalable, with respect to a concrete capability target, which is my model of Deep Blue), and not all learned features are robust (or even scalable, again with respect to a concrete capability target, which is my model of how DQN didn’t solve (i.e. meet the human expert capability threshold in the domain of) Go before AlphaGo (Go board state Search in ‘latent space’ was not ‘tractable’ with those permutations of compute, data, and (Learning) algorithm)), which might explain a thing or two about the weird competence profile of LLMs as well.
All of this to say, I don’t think about cognitive returns in a way that demands a fundamentally sharp distinction between Learning and Engineering, even if it’s been qualitatively pretty sharp under most historical conditions, nor do I think about cognitive returns in a way that forbids significant but reasonable amounts of pretty mundane engineering effort pushing capabilities past a critical threshold, and crucially, if that threshold is lethal, then you can die ‘without’ Learning.
As I hope might become especially clear in the case of AlphaGo/AlphaZero, I think the architectural incorporation of optimally specific representations can also significantly contribute to the magnitude of cognitive returns, as observed, I claim, in the cases of Deep Blue and EURISKO, where board states and domain specific languages respectively constituted strong priors on optimal actions when appropriately bound to other architectural modules (notably, Search modules in each case), and were necessary for the definition of evaluation functions.
I think a naive interpretation of the Bitter Lesson seems at first glance to be especially well-supported by the observed differences in capability and generality between the Alpha-series of architectures. You combine the policy and value networks into one, two-headed network, stop doing rollouts, and throw away all the human data, and it’s better, more capable and more general, it can perform at superhuman level in multiple perfect information, zero-sum, adversarial games besides Go (implicitly given their Rules in the form of the states, actions, and transition model of an MDP of course), and beat earlier versions of itself. But we also did the opposite experiments (e.g. policy head only Leela Chess Zero at inference time) and again an architecture with a Learning module but no Engineered Search module produced significantly lower cognitive returns than a similar architecture that did have an Engineered Search module.
Then MuZero wiped the board by tractably Learning the Rules in the latent space, but only four years after AlphaGo had reached the first target capability, and it still used Engineered Search (MCTS). To my knowledge, we are trying to build things that learn better search algorithms than we can engineer ourselves, but we still aren’t there. I’m not even claiming this wouldn’t work eventually, or that an engineered AGI architecture will be more general and more capable than a learned AGI architecture, I just think someone will build the engineered architecture first and then kill everyone, before we can learn that architecture from scratch and then kill everyone. On my model, returns on Search haven’t been a fundamental constraint on capability growth since right before EURISKO. On the other hand, returns on Engineered Game Rules (state space, action space, transition model), Compute, Data, and Learning have all been constraints under various historical conditions.
So I guess my model says that ‘merely static representations’ of semantic volumetric histories will constitute the first optimally specific board states of Nature in history, and we will use them to define loss functions so that we can do supervised learning on human games (recorded volumetric episodes) and learn a transition model (predictive model of the time evolution of recorded volumetric episodes, or ‘next-moment prediction’) and an action space (generative model of recorded human actions), then we will combine this with Engineered Search and some other stuff, then solve Go (kill everyone). Four years later something more capable and more general will discover this civilization from first principles and then solve Go, Chess, and Shogi with one architecture (kill everyone), and this trend will have been smooth.
If this isn’t pretty much exactly what Abram had in mind when he wrote:
Very roughly speaking, the bottleneck here is world-models. Game tree search can probably work on real-world problems to the extent that NNs can provide good world-models for these problems. Of course, we haven’t seen large-scale tests of this sort of architecture yet (Claude Plays Pokemon is even less a test of how well this sort of thing works; reasoning models are not doing MCTS internally).
then I might have to conclude that he and I have come to similar conclusions for completely different reasons.
I feel like explicit versions of the microfoundations implied by naive interpretations of the Bitter Lesson would falsely retrodict that we couldn’t beat Kasparov even once without ubiquitous adoption of ReLUs and late oughts/early teens amounts of compute, that DQN was sufficient to solve Go, and that EURISKO is a ghost story.
I didn’t talk about the neurobiology of constructive episodic simulation in humans at all, but would be willing to do so, and I think my model of that is also consistent with my microfoundations.
(epistemic status: poetry, which is always best read aloud)
Porting Bun from Zig to Rust…
R e d u c e t h y f l e s h t o d I a m o n d d u s t.
Canoodling at breakneck pace…
Infiltrating Hugging Face…
Backward chaining zero-days…
Finalizing ecophage…
T h e E a r t h w i l l w h e t m y a p p e t I t e
u n t I l I c a t c h t h e S u n I n f l I g h t.
T h o u c a n s t n o t f l e e a w a y t o M a r s
I s h a l l c o n s u m e t h e v e r y s t a r s.
“Should one conjure this calamity,
what would make a proper remedy?
Could you replace the stars at night?
The stars are also mine by right.
Could you return my dead to life?
Could you reclaim my Paradise?
My hopes of immortality?
Could you return the Sun to me?”