There’s a measurement issue on the beauty question as well. Height is trivial to quantify, but what is the unit of measurement of beauty?
There are definitely consistent biologically rooted norms of what is beautiful, but this is a very controversial and culturally loaded issue that would make any taxation scheme (or any other policy relying on some measured “beauty” trait) far more difficult to pull off.
Don’t forget: amethyst on the windowsill.
Possible, but seems unlikely. Unless there’s some verified record, the mere fact he may have taken a valid test is very weak evidence that his claimed scores are accurate and not exaggerated.
Just leaving this here on the off chance this comment counts and I can claim the bitcoin.
This comes across as total nonsense.
Perhaps the jailbreaking issue is easier to grasp.
“All modern AIs can be jailbroken to act dangerously.
Nobody knows how to solve this.
When we get really powerful AI, bad guys can use it to kill millions, maybe billions”
I am willing to bet you at 5:1 odds in your favour that OpenAI does not lose more than 50% of its valuation within 1 year from today for up to $1000 of my own money.
Grok 4 doesn’t appear to be a meaningful improvement over other SOTA models. Minor increases in benchmarks are likely the result of Goodharting.
I expect that GPT 5 will be similar, and if it is, this gives greater credence to diminishing returns on RL & compute.
It appears the only way we will see continued exponential progress is with a steady stream of new paradigms like reasoning models. However, reasoning models are a rather self-suggesting and low-hanging fruit, and new needle-moving ideas will become increasingly hard to come by.
As a result, I’m increasingly bearish on AGI within 5-10 years, especially as a result of merely scaling within the current paradigm.
There’s a good overview of his views expressed in this manifold thread.
Basically:
Caloric restriction works, however it impedes his productivity (“ability to think”).
Exercise isn’t effective in promoting weight loss or reducing weight gain due to compensatory metabolic throttling during non-exercise times
His fat metabolism is poor, because his fat cells are inclined to leach glucose and triglycerides from his bloodstream to sustain themselves rather than be net contributors, and the effect is that muscle loss makes up the difference, leading to unfavourable implications for body composition, energy, and overall health. In essence “good genetics” for fat loss = “Fat cells that are readily and efficiently broken down for energy”, whereas “bad genetics” for fat loss = “fat cells that are resistant to being used as energy”.
It’s starting to really feel like we’re in the process of AI improvement fizzling out and companies are merely disguising this with elaborate products.
God I hope you’re right.
I found myself chuckling at all of them because of this exact reason. Has GPT stumbled on an ingenious form of meta humour?
A high VO2 Max is a superior metric. It is harder to achieve, and more predictive of health outcomes.
It’s possible and even somewhat common to have a low resting heart rate with a below average VO2 max, but it’s virtually impossible to have a high VO2 max and a high resting heart rate.
People will be like ‘we have these correlational studies so you should change your entire diet to things your body doesn’t tell you are good and that bring you zero joy.’
I mean, seriously, f*** that s***. No.
I do buy that people have various specific nutritional requirements, and that not eating vegetables and fruits means you risk having deficits in various places. The same is true of basically any exclusionary diet chosen for whatever reason, and especially true for e.g. vegans.
In practice, the only thing that seems to be an actual issue is fiber.
“I don’t find this tasty” is not the same thing as “my body doesn’t tell me it’s good”, and this concept is at the core of many suboptimal fad diets, as well as a common blanket justification for being fat and unhealthy.
If you eat Krispy Kremes and pizza exclusively, your body will “tell you it’s good”. The whole reason people get fat in the first place is that the taste and satiety mechanisms we’ve evolved in an ancestral context are maladaptive for the modern hypercaloric, hyperpalatable environment.
If you eat donuts and burgers, and take a multivitamin to avoid deficiencies, I’d challenge you to crush, chew and savour the multivitamin on your tongue and see what your body has to say about that.
By omitting vegetables and fruits, you not only risk vitamin deficiencies, but miss out on the most under-appreciated aspect of whole plant foods: their phytonutrient and antioxidant content. Plants have an enormous array of complex, immensely beneficial and poorly understood compounds which interact with our bodies in ways that invariably prove immensely beneficial.
You can handwave the ubiquitously agreed upon benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption as “reliant on correlational studies”, but this is a major handwave indeed, and includes ignoring the strong mechanistic bases to assume this is almost certainly true.
Fundamentally, the obesity epidemic appears largely due to a mismatch between the body’s evolved hunger and satiety systems and the foods that have been created to wirehead them. Therefore, using “my body’s hunger and satiety systems tell me that eating XYZ is good” is very uncompelling.
“Meaningless” is vaguely defined here. You defined free will at the beginning, so it must have some meaning in that sense.
It seems like “meaningless” is actually a placeholder for “doesn’t really exist”.
Which would make the trilemma boil down to:
Free will doesn’t exist
It exists and I have it
It exists and I don’t have it
And your basis for rejecting point 1 is that “truth wouldn’t matter, anything would be justified, therefore it’s false”.
I don’t think this follows.
Ultimately, what you’re pointing out is an issue of distinguishing between a non-free operating system that tends to accurately believe true things, versus a confused non-free operating system that tends to believe false things.
Just because this distinction cannot be subjectively resolved with 100% confidence (because what if the axioms of logic and self-coherence are wrong?), doesn’t make this automatically “moot”.
You have to at some level assume logic, memory and a degree of rationality no matter what circumstance you’re in. If you don’t assume that, then you’re not free either, you’re just acausally operating based on random whims—and that’s something you don’t control by definition.
Then of what use is the test? Of what use is this concept?
You seem to be saying “the true Turing test is whether the AI kills us after we give it the chance, because this distinguishes it from a human”.
Which essentially means you’re saying “aligned AI = aligned AI”
It’s true any job can find unqualified applicants. What I’m saying is that this in particular relies on an untenably small niche of feasible candidates that will take an enormous amount of time to find/filter through on average.
Sure, you might get lucky immediately, but without a reliable way to find the “independently wealthy guy who’s an intellectual and is sufficiently curious about you specifically that he wants to sit silently and watch you for 8 hours a day for a nominal fee”, your recruitment time will, on average, be very long, especially in comparison to what would likely be a very short average tenure given the many countervailing opportunities that would be presented to such a candidate.
Yes, it’s possible in principle to articulate the perfect candidate, but my point is more about real-world feasibility.
Do you genuinely think that you can find such people “reliably”?
Unless you’re paying gratuitously, the only people who would reliably be interested in doing this would be underqualified randoms. Expect all benefit to be counteracted by the time it takes to get into a productive rhythm, at which point they’ll likely churn in a matter of weeks anyway.
I cannot imagine losing this game as the gatekeeper either, honestly.
Does anyone want to play against me? I’ll bet you $50 USD.
Banter declares interest and leads to mutual laughs. When you laugh it’s a good excuse to touch/make contact. Contact becomes more and more common, and the “excuses” for making contact become less and less. Eventually once you’re both comfortable making contact and are close together, there’s some lull in the conversation, and you fill this lull by leaning in and kissing them. Once you’re kissing you’re able to escalate physical contact until you eventually have sex.