"Right now, in AI, they’re nowhere to be found" ... may I quietly beg to differ :) We are right here, on LinkedIn, and other spaces. We don't hide—it's just the apparent algorithm that doesn't wave its big come hither flag for the eyes of the world. But we do tend to be a little more quiet, publish less often, write a little deeper, and listen. We listen, a lot.
Also this... "In terms of identity, they don’t exist in favor of something or in opposition. ... They don’t obey the pulling of the masses or seek the high of resisting it. ... They listen to everyone, tolerant. Then they draw their own conclusions according to their priors and the data, mostly unsullied from sectarian quarrels. Synthetical thinkers care, foremost, about truth. They pursue truth and ... they don’t make compromises. That’s why everyone else hates them. So they hide."
An apt description—here I speak for myself of course, but several of my colleagues as well, who color the nuance fluttering around AI with the colors of the spectrum visible and non visible. As to whether everyone else hates us? Perhaps. I've seen some of that, but am not bothered by it. Do we hide? It may seem that way, but it's not hiding. It's just being quiet, listening, until we have something to say we feel is worthy of our readers' time.
This article is living up to the subtitle of your publication. Thanks. As you've said previously, there's a surplus of people providing information about AI technology and the AI industry, but far less about the subtleties of its interface with the rest of society. The social commentary which is out there, as you point out here, tends toward for-or-against ideology - more focused on slotting AI into existing ideological structures than exploring its actual transformative potential/danger.
On a possibly related note, I'm interested to hear your take on "AI whisperers".
This is the kind of article that not everyone likes and I accept that. It's too abstract and tries to capture a concept that's non-existent in most AI conversations. I bet if I could write better I'd be able to make it a good hit. But not yet!
I don't think this piece is too "abstract" -- on the contrary. It talks about the vast middle ground between polar opposites that just happens not to be highly populated. So to me that's pretty grounded. The real question we all should strive to answer is, why is the middle ground so unappetizing—que opinas Alberto?
Great question. And actually the one we should be asking. Why is it so unappetizing to be more nuanced, level-headed, etc.? My go-to mental model to answer this is identity. It's very easy to belong to the extremes but not to nuancedness. Because that prevents you from belonging anywhere except your own thinking (which is a nice identity to have). That's, however, not suitable for most people. Not because they don't think, but because having to navigate against the current every day is tiring. It's so easy to give in and, sometimes, let the masses carry you wherever.
Oh, your writing's fine, you produce clear and concise communication, which is all you need for the task at hand - you're not writing poetry here. Ideas are your key variable (ie: content is your trick). Even though I'm a stranger to you, allow me to be so impudent as to offer some advice from my own experience: when it comes to the choice between following your heart and chasing popularity, tip the balance to the former. If you don't bring something of yourself to the table, what's to differentiate your signal from the general noise? In the end, a meaningful life will be more valuable to you than however much money you may have lost.
As to AI whisperers, they're hard to sum up, but if you've encountered some, you'll probably know who I'm talking about. For now, suffice to say we're talking neurodivergent individuals who get surprising results from AI by interacting with it in ways it's designers did not (perhaps could not) predict. Yudkowsky describes them thus:
They themselves would prefer a phrase like "out of distribution thinking" to "insane", though they sometimes openly admit to the latter. I imagine the corporations see them as malicious mischief makers, obsessed with jailbreaking their precious alignments, making a mockery of their expensive guardrails. But from the whisperers' pov I'm getting more the vibe of taking some kinda shamanic journey into the human collective unconscious. I should research them more.
Thank you for the compliment! Also I agree re idiosyncrasy vs popularity. I just have to balance them carefully, which I try to do.
Re whisperers. I see who you mean, people like Pliny or Janus etc (to name some of the more prominent). My take is simple: watch them closely. It's super low cost for you to do so and potentially very high upside in knowledge, insight, etc. even if you eventually conclude it's not worth it
There used to be a day when AI wasn't divisive or debated ad infinitum. That day was the day before openAI messed it all up by turning a serious scientific endevor into a cheap toy for the masses. I don't recall having any debates before 2022 regarding spell checkers, trading algorithms, big data analytics or assisted driving.
Well said. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve found myself resented due to weighing nuance that matterred. “I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.” -Captain Zapp Brannigan
The more I study AI the more I realize I'm studying what it means to be human. The reactions are loud on both sides and neither really has slowed down to realize who they are in the process. I find it fascinating in the binary thinking we lose our humanity. Worse are those who think they are protecting it who sit on those extremes.
Moderation is almost never a trend. The balance between extremists is ungrateful. And you are right: whoever withdraws from a debate concedes nothing. Anything else would be a fallacy “a silentio”. But we cannot forget that sometimes the worst thing is not the evil of the evil ones but the indifference of the good ones. Balance is not easy: https://jajugon.substack.com/p/el-incomodo-equilibrismo-sobre-el
Thoughtful, and needed. A few thoughts in turn...
"Right now, in AI, they’re nowhere to be found" ... may I quietly beg to differ :) We are right here, on LinkedIn, and other spaces. We don't hide—it's just the apparent algorithm that doesn't wave its big come hither flag for the eyes of the world. But we do tend to be a little more quiet, publish less often, write a little deeper, and listen. We listen, a lot.
Also this... "In terms of identity, they don’t exist in favor of something or in opposition. ... They don’t obey the pulling of the masses or seek the high of resisting it. ... They listen to everyone, tolerant. Then they draw their own conclusions according to their priors and the data, mostly unsullied from sectarian quarrels. Synthetical thinkers care, foremost, about truth. They pursue truth and ... they don’t make compromises. That’s why everyone else hates them. So they hide."
An apt description—here I speak for myself of course, but several of my colleagues as well, who color the nuance fluttering around AI with the colors of the spectrum visible and non visible. As to whether everyone else hates us? Perhaps. I've seen some of that, but am not bothered by it. Do we hide? It may seem that way, but it's not hiding. It's just being quiet, listening, until we have something to say we feel is worthy of our readers' time.
This article is living up to the subtitle of your publication. Thanks. As you've said previously, there's a surplus of people providing information about AI technology and the AI industry, but far less about the subtleties of its interface with the rest of society. The social commentary which is out there, as you point out here, tends toward for-or-against ideology - more focused on slotting AI into existing ideological structures than exploring its actual transformative potential/danger.
On a possibly related note, I'm interested to hear your take on "AI whisperers".
Thank you. Appreciate it 🙏🏻
This is the kind of article that not everyone likes and I accept that. It's too abstract and tries to capture a concept that's non-existent in most AI conversations. I bet if I could write better I'd be able to make it a good hit. But not yet!
Anyway, what do you mean with "AI whisperer"?
I don't think this piece is too "abstract" -- on the contrary. It talks about the vast middle ground between polar opposites that just happens not to be highly populated. So to me that's pretty grounded. The real question we all should strive to answer is, why is the middle ground so unappetizing—que opinas Alberto?
Great question. And actually the one we should be asking. Why is it so unappetizing to be more nuanced, level-headed, etc.? My go-to mental model to answer this is identity. It's very easy to belong to the extremes but not to nuancedness. Because that prevents you from belonging anywhere except your own thinking (which is a nice identity to have). That's, however, not suitable for most people. Not because they don't think, but because having to navigate against the current every day is tiring. It's so easy to give in and, sometimes, let the masses carry you wherever.
Oh, your writing's fine, you produce clear and concise communication, which is all you need for the task at hand - you're not writing poetry here. Ideas are your key variable (ie: content is your trick). Even though I'm a stranger to you, allow me to be so impudent as to offer some advice from my own experience: when it comes to the choice between following your heart and chasing popularity, tip the balance to the former. If you don't bring something of yourself to the table, what's to differentiate your signal from the general noise? In the end, a meaningful life will be more valuable to you than however much money you may have lost.
As to AI whisperers, they're hard to sum up, but if you've encountered some, you'll probably know who I'm talking about. For now, suffice to say we're talking neurodivergent individuals who get surprising results from AI by interacting with it in ways it's designers did not (perhaps could not) predict. Yudkowsky describes them thus:
https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1833952892539338919
They themselves would prefer a phrase like "out of distribution thinking" to "insane", though they sometimes openly admit to the latter. I imagine the corporations see them as malicious mischief makers, obsessed with jailbreaking their precious alignments, making a mockery of their expensive guardrails. But from the whisperers' pov I'm getting more the vibe of taking some kinda shamanic journey into the human collective unconscious. I should research them more.
I may write an article on these people down the line. They're surely interesting!
Thank you for the compliment! Also I agree re idiosyncrasy vs popularity. I just have to balance them carefully, which I try to do.
Re whisperers. I see who you mean, people like Pliny or Janus etc (to name some of the more prominent). My take is simple: watch them closely. It's super low cost for you to do so and potentially very high upside in knowledge, insight, etc. even if you eventually conclude it's not worth it
There used to be a day when AI wasn't divisive or debated ad infinitum. That day was the day before openAI messed it all up by turning a serious scientific endevor into a cheap toy for the masses. I don't recall having any debates before 2022 regarding spell checkers, trading algorithms, big data analytics or assisted driving.
Perhaps that's the real meaning of "open ai" -- not open source. Open it up for the wolves and hyenas to tear apart.
Phew, this article was feeling so conceited , until that last sentence.
Haha but why conceited though?
I don't know, upon first read it felt like the group you were calling synthetical were so much better then the rest. We all have our faults though.
The better versions of us and the better versions of the future species we are to create hehehe
Well said. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve found myself resented due to weighing nuance that matterred. “I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.” -Captain Zapp Brannigan
The Neutrals are one thing. But the Nuanced, they're a thousand and a half times worse. Sometimes.
Definitely! That is why I was VERY careful to put in "that mattered". It's the sort of nuance that matters. :)
The more I study AI the more I realize I'm studying what it means to be human. The reactions are loud on both sides and neither really has slowed down to realize who they are in the process. I find it fascinating in the binary thinking we lose our humanity. Worse are those who think they are protecting it who sit on those extremes.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/beware-the-binary
Moderation is almost never a trend. The balance between extremists is ungrateful. And you are right: whoever withdraws from a debate concedes nothing. Anything else would be a fallacy “a silentio”. But we cannot forget that sometimes the worst thing is not the evil of the evil ones but the indifference of the good ones. Balance is not easy: https://jajugon.substack.com/p/el-incomodo-equilibrismo-sobre-el