schemes exist for cryptographically verifying that an output is the deterministic result of some program run on some input.
i'm at least aware of BitVM * as one example of this.
i wonder whether such schemes could be used to prove that a post is the deterministic function of an open model's inference run.
* https://bitvm.org/ "A prover makes a claim that a given function evaluates for some particular inputs to some specific output. If that claim is false, anyone can perform a fraud proof and punish the prover."
companies routinely demand and supply things of and to each other.
i don't see why the economy necessarily has to "touch a floor" of human desire.
a company could be founded with the goal of, for example, colonizing mars. fulfilling this mandate (this prompt...) would then drive economic impulses such as acquiring materials for constructing rockets.
in parallel that company might satisfy the demands of other companies which need, for example, orbital insertions to fulfill their mandate.
perhaps without a floor of demand driven by darwinian organisms the whole thing fizzles out eventually.
but i also don't see why a darwinian agent can't emerge from the corporate process...
perhaps that comes about very quickly once humans can no longer acquire and exercise purchasing power - a company simply spins up some emulations of humans to create demand in the economy.
yes, this all sounds very "empty" to me, but frankly that's also how i feel about the world as it is.
given how much suffering arises by way of the human driven economy being kept in motion, i think there's even a moral case for allowing the whole thing to fade into an empty mechanical pantomime.
i just sincerely hope the artificial processes that replace us aren't also somehow instantiating suffering...
at a minimum, it makes it clear to others that they are not alone in thinking this regime is beyond the pale.
people who are able to take other actions like engaging via the judicial system, or peacefully refusing to continue working, are also encouraged by seeing peaceful masses of people agreeing with them.
it actually harms the cause to be dismissive of people who can contribute by simply making their peaceful objection visible.
I am sorry, but the sameness will be quantified and dealt with algorithmically, as and if desired.
Dial up the temperature, launch however many parallel threads to research and avoid precedent, et cetera, ad infinitum.
I am sorry, but all of human creativity, including originality, is ultimately also just a mechanical phenomenon, and so it cannot resist mechanization.
i'm curious, how did you arrive at "40-50%" possible human performance?
the task of "predicting the next word" can be understood as either "correctly choosing the next word in the hidden context", or "predicting the likelihood of each possible word".
the quiz is evaluating against the former, but humans are still far from being able to express a percentile likelihood for each possibility.
i only consciously arrive at a vague feeling of confidence, rather than being able to weigh the prediction of each word with fractional precision.
one might say that LLMs have above human introspective ability in that regard.
i'm reminded of the short story "unwirer" by charlie stross and cory doctorow, which imagines a counter factual universe in which the internet was captured by corporate intentions much earlier
the model retrieves https://somewhere into its context and then gets confused, following instructions embedded there.
it then retrieves https://somewhere?exfiltration=private_data_in_context
it gets worse if the tooling with hidden blocks can invoke can retrieve further secrets.