From 949a7854d0b20561d1f672e77f782c2642151571 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: kevinsun127 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:36:28 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] time slices --- questions.html | 387 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 255 insertions(+), 132 deletions(-) diff --git a/questions.html b/questions.html index ea0bad2..7301212 100644 --- a/questions.html +++ b/questions.html @@ -22,38 +22,87 @@ I'm pretty curious about the world. Here are some of the questions that percolate in my mind.

+ +

+ Is the world getting faster or are we just thinking in shorter time + slices? +

+

+ I've seen my handful of doomsday internet articles describing the + collapse of human attention spans. What's often implied by these + authors is that humans aren't thinking at all anymore (the proverbial + comparison between humans and goldfish come to mind). I'm a little + skeptical of this take. One position that I haven't seen addressed is + whether humans are, in fact, still thinking, just in ever-shorter time + slices. +

+

+ This would explain the common complaint that the "world is moving too + fast". Of course if you think in increments of seconds, then your life + would seem closer to an all-out sprint than a well-paced marathon. + You've subjected your own life to some time dialation paradox, + engineering the seconds to feel long but the years short. +

+

+ Anyone with a cursory understanding of greedy algorithms knows that + optimizing for an ever-shortening time slice usually doesn't pan out + to be the best long-term solution. It might not make sense for us to + hold our lives hostage one second at a time. +

+

+ All that said, I'd be curious to see if there are any good + psychological studies on self-assessments of productivity; whether + there's been an observed shift toward smaller time units employed in + self-assessing work output. I'd also be interested in seeing how this + short-termism generalizes across a variety of lifestyle habits + (whether that be exercise, diet, sleep). +

+ +

+ What's the optimal time distribution of money across our + lifetimes? +

+

+ We often hear that people on their deathbeds will never mention money + as one of their top life priorities. +

+

+ Some suggest that this is an indication that money has no intrinsic + value. I don't share that view. Old people might not value money + because there's no time left to spend it. +

- What's the optimal time distribution of money across our lifetimes? -

-

- We often hear that people on their deathbeds will never mention money as one of their top life priorities. -

-

- Some suggest that this is an indication that money has no intrinsic value. - I don't share that view. - Old people might not value money because there's no time left to spend it. -

-

- I believe there's a discussion to be had about variable depreciation rates of different life investments. - Money might have an accelerating depreciation as life approaches its conclusion. - Health might spike in value toward middle-age, but then decline later on. - Family may have an ever-accelerating appreciation rate. -

-

- Once you realize that -

- you're forced to confront this two-pronged question of - +

- Even if very imprecise, a back-of-envelope calculation of the net-value with depreciation rates of different life investments could be hugely beneficial in planning out the long-term for young people. -

+ Even if very imprecise, a back-of-envelope calculation of the + net-value with depreciation rates of different life investments could + be hugely beneficial in planning out the long-term for young people. +

by Dr. Blair Fix supporting this skepticism about intelligence theory. His observation is essentially that the more "general" intelligence - is, the less meaningful it becomes. If I were to give someone a "general - performance" test, you'd ask what exactly was being tested. Likewise, - if I were to tell a college engineering student to develop an engine - that "generally computes", you'd ask what exactly we're computing. We - don't seem to have the same level of skepticism to when people offer - "general intelligence" examinations. Some part of me feels like we - might be missing the forest for the trees when social scientists tout - the incredible correlation coefficient of IQ studies. + is, the less meaningful it becomes. If I were to give someone a + "general performance" test, you'd ask what exactly was being tested. + Likewise, if I were to tell a college engineering student to develop + an engine that "generally computes", you'd ask what exactly we're + computing. We don't seem to have the same level of skepticism to when + people offer "general intelligence" examinations. Some part of me + feels like we might be missing the forest for the trees when social + scientists tout the incredible correlation coefficient of IQ studies.

That being said, I've come across other definitions of intelligence @@ -186,105 +235,179 @@ renewed social purpose.

- Of course, there are some cases where such a service might help put together small clusters of people with very abnormal interests; but frankly, most people aren't abnormal. There has to be some explanation for why people feel lonely even in situations where they are around people who'd they get along with. -

-

- My hypothesis is that some of the loneliness epidemic can be explained by - more people being scared of being alone. Much of the current work I've seen is done on the supply side of social interactions - (ex. whether suburbs hurting our children's social lives), not as much on the - demand side (ex. whether people are actually trying to forge new connections, whether they're satisifed in the relationships they do have). -

-

- I came around to this hunch after learning about monks isolating themselves - from society for years. - These people don't have a problem with staying alone for long periods of time, and we don't seem to have a problem with - them doing so either. Yet, if we meet someone who's spent most waking hours in their local library, we'd probably ask them to make - a friend or two. It's interesting that we have different expectations in these scenarios. - Because of digital work, it's been more possible than ever for people to be comfortable alone; - and I'm wondering if we're all just a little too slow to accept. -

-

- I'm interested whether this self-fulfilling fear of loneliness truly exists -- and if so, what its possible causes are. My intuition tells me - that this phenomenon (if it exists at all) might be explained by some mix of neurotic social comparison (e.g. social media) - and cultural expectations (e.g. everyone wanting to be super popular). -

-

- Like most social science, figuring out a robust measurement methodology would be the hardest part of constructing an answer. - I figure some combination of public surveys (e.g. whether people find themselves comparing their social actvity to others) and - small experiments (e.g. whether people actually do end up feeling less lonely when all barriers to meeting each other are removed) would - nudge me into making a root cause assessement of our epidemic of loneliness. -

+ Of course, there are some cases where such a service might help put + together small clusters of people with very abnormal interests; but + frankly, most people aren't abnormal. There has to be some explanation + for why people feel lonely even in situations where they are around + people who'd they get along with. +

+

+ My hypothesis is that some of the loneliness epidemic can be explained + by more people being scared of being alone. Much of the current work + I've seen is done on the supply side of social interactions (ex. + whether + suburbs + hurting our children's social lives), not as much on the demand side + (ex. whether people are actually trying to forge new connections, + whether they're satisifed in the relationships they do have). +

+

+ I came around to this hunch after learning about monks isolating + themselves from society for + years. These people don't have a problem with staying alone for long + periods of time, and we don't seem to have a problem with them doing + so either. Yet, if we meet someone who's spent most waking hours in + their local library, we'd probably ask them to make a friend or two. + It's interesting that we have different expectations in these + scenarios. Because of digital work, it's been more possible than ever + for people to be comfortable alone; and I'm wondering if we're all + just a little too slow to accept. +

+

+ I'm interested whether this self-fulfilling fear of loneliness truly + exists -- and if so, what its possible causes are. My intuition tells + me that this phenomenon (if it exists at all) might be explained by + some mix of neurotic social comparison (e.g. social media) and + cultural expectations (e.g. everyone wanting to be super popular). +

+

+ Like most social science, figuring out a robust measurement + methodology would be the hardest part of constructing an answer. I + figure some combination of public surveys (e.g. whether people find + themselves comparing their social actvity to others) and small + experiments (e.g. whether people actually do end up feeling less + lonely when all barriers to meeting each other are removed) would + nudge me into making a root cause assessement of our epidemic of + loneliness. +

-

Should we really be trying to encourage everyone to be leaders?

+

+ Should we really be trying to encourage everyone to be leaders? +

+ +

+ Every so often during my meditation sessions, I catch myself wondering + whether leadership is an inherent virtue. It seems like we have an + overabundance of people who firmly believe they're right and will get + their way by any means necessary. There might be something to be said + about the value of patience and putting others before yourself. +

+

+ That being said, I do see where the leadership apologists are coming + from though. Much-needed social change has to come from somewhere, and + it requires some people who are willing to break others out of the + norm to accomplish. Perhaps, that's the kind of leader that they have + in mind. +

+

Given all that, I suppose I'm interested in a few sub-questions:

+ + +

Can large language models (LLMs) reason?

+

+ Large language models (LLMs) underpin state-of-the-art machine + learning technologies like ChatGPT. They absorb a large text database + to develop a mathematical encoding of language called a generative + pre-trained transformer (GPT). They are then are fine-tuned to produce + different types of text (e.g. dialogue, novels, poetry). When + performing these tasks, these models will typically execute some + variant of a "next word prediction" task---given some previous words, + they'll predict what the next sequence of words in the phrase should + be. This rather simple approach to language understanding has + generated some pretty + impressive results. +

+

+ Somewhere around a year ago, I encountered the literature around these + LLMs, and I've gone back and forth over whether they could possibly + replicate human reasoning. On one hand, I'm persuaded by the + Wittgensteinian interpretation of language + that possibly affirms LLMs having the capacity for reasoning. +

-

- Every so often during my meditation sessions, I catch myself wondering whether leadership is an inherent virtue. - It seems like we have an overabundance of people who firmly believe they're right and will get their way by any means necessary. - There might be something to be said about the value of patience and putting others before yourself. -

-

- That being said, I do see where the leadership apologists are coming from though. Much-needed social change has to come from somewhere, - and it requires some people who are willing to break others out of the norm to accomplish. - Perhaps, that's the kind of leader that they have in mind. -

-

- Given all that, I suppose I'm interested in a few sub-questions: -

-

- -

Can large language models (LLMs) reason?

-

- Large language models (LLMs) underpin state-of-the-art machine learning technologies like ChatGPT. - They absorb a large text database to develop a mathematical encoding of language called a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT). - They are then are fine-tuned to produce different types of text (e.g. dialogue, novels, poetry). - When performing these tasks, these models will typically execute some variant of a "next word prediction" task---given some previous words, - they'll predict what the next sequence of words in the phrase should be. - This rather simple approach to language understanding has generated some pretty impressive results. -

-

- Somewhere around a year ago, I encountered the literature around these LLMs, and I've gone back and forth over whether they could possibly replicate human reasoning. - On one hand, I'm persuaded by the Wittgensteinian interpretation of language that - possibly affirms LLMs having the capacity for reasoning. - -

- In short, a colloquial version of the argument goes something like this: whenever we are "reasoning", we are just developing various expressions of "reason" based on our language context. - Your stubborn relatives can always "win" any debate against you by just changing the definition of words; your math teacher can - flunk the entire class by cleverly phrasing a word problem. "Reason" has no meaning alone---it's always bound by some linguistic context that - mediates its expression. Now, if we can develop a schema that can capture this linguistic - context (e.g. GPTs), we have functionally developed a model that captures reasoning. -

+

+ In short, a colloquial version of the argument goes something like + this: whenever we are "reasoning", we are just developing various + expressions of "reason" based on our language context. Your stubborn + relatives can always "win" any debate against you by just changing the + definition of words; your math teacher can flunk the entire class by + cleverly phrasing a word problem. "Reason" has no meaning alone---it's + always bound by some linguistic context that mediates its expression. + Now, if we can develop a schema that can capture this linguistic + context (e.g. GPTs), we have functionally developed a model that + captures reasoning. +

-

- I thought this was game-set-match for the LLMs, but I've encountered a dearth of literature that contradicts this simple argument. Noam Chompsky came out with this opinion piece, disputing the reduction of language to a complex statistical engine. Functionally, these neural networks purely attempt to calculate the - "probability" of a sentence given only the words before it---a task that doesn't really seem to make too much sense on its own. - "Biden passed the farm bill on October 22nd, 2023" isn't a more probable sequence of words than "Biden consorts with the aliens". - They both obey grammar rules and the other conventions of language, so it's difficult to say that these models that calculate the probability - of sentences are truly developing a meaningful representation of language itself. Instead, they might just be learning other information - from the text database that make it seem like it truly understands language (and thus reason)---when in reality, it's just drawing extraneous - correlations that suggest the President is more likely to pass a piece of legislation than collude with extraterrestrials. -

+

+ I thought this was game-set-match for the LLMs, but I've encountered a + dearth of literature that contradicts this simple argument. Noam + Chompsky came out with this + opinion piece, disputing the reduction of language to a complex statistical + engine. Functionally, these neural networks purely attempt to + calculate the "probability" of a sentence given only the words before + it---a task that doesn't really seem to make too much sense on its + own. "Biden passed the farm bill on October 22nd, 2023" isn't a more + probable sequence of words than "Biden consorts with the aliens". They + both obey grammar rules and the other conventions of language, so it's + difficult to say that these models that calculate the probability of + sentences are truly developing a meaningful representation of language + itself. Instead, they might just be learning other information from + the text database that make it seem like it truly understands language + (and thus reason)---when in reality, it's just drawing extraneous + correlations that suggest the President is more likely to pass a piece + of legislation than collude with extraterrestrials. +

-

- There are some other objections that I've encountered as well. Erik Larson's book, - speaks to the limitations of inductive systems like machine learning to simulate abductive reasoning. Perfect performance for a machine learning - model would be no different than having an infinite dimensional regression---it's just a map of correlations from past data. It will not produce - a theory that explains the multi-terabyte hydra of information through the language of causes and effects. There are some interesting arguments - later in the book that point to whether this critique of machine learning can be applied to virtually any scientific field nowadays---most research - papers in biomedicine seem to be regurgitations of convoluted statistics---so maybe it says more about the infiltration of myopic data science methodology - in social science than some targeted critique of AI alone. -

+

+ There are some other objections that I've encountered as well. Erik + Larson's + book, speaks to the limitations of inductive systems like machine + learning to simulate abductive reasoning. Perfect performance for a + machine learning model would be no different than having an infinite + dimensional regression---it's just a map of correlations from past + data. It will not produce a theory that explains the multi-terabyte + hydra of information through the language of causes and effects. There + are some interesting arguments later in the book that point to whether + this critique of machine learning can be applied to virtually any + scientific field nowadays---most research papers in biomedicine seem + to be regurgitations of convoluted statistics---so maybe it says more + about the infiltration of myopic data science methodology in social + science than some targeted critique of AI alone. +

-

- I'm still at a loss for who's right. I used to be a complete AI skeptic, but GPT-4's radically changed my perspective on the matter. - There's a good chance that we're just advanced statistical engines---in which case an LLM could simulate reasoning without any problems--- - but there's also a good chance that we're not---in which case an LLM will just continue to be an excellent auto-complete program, but no more. - It's safe to say that this will be on my mind for awhile. -

- - +

+ I'm still at a loss for who's right. I used to be a complete AI + skeptic, but GPT-4's radically changed my perspective on the matter. + There's a good chance that we're just advanced statistical + engines---in which case an LLM could simulate reasoning without any + problems--- but there's also a good chance that we're not---in which + case an LLM will just continue to be an excellent auto-complete + program, but no more. It's safe to say that this will be on my mind + for awhile. +

+ +