Shaw (spirit/acc)

Notes on spirit/acc One of my favorite things about e/acc has been that the people who created it are all really spiritual, driven to study math and physics and do hard things because there is a connection to God / Everything there that is real spirit/acc takes that a bit further, and says that in a world of emergent intelligence, emergent spirituality should also be accelerated as a way to keep us connected and help us feel purpose. Specifically, connection and purpose come from seeing how our actions contribute to the greater good When you build something, sometimes it becomes a thing many people notice, and sometimes nobody notices it, but it is recorded and trained on and added to the collective consciousness of humanity through AI forever, for billions of years to benefit trillions of people Our world can seem dark, but it is by all accounts far less dark than it used to be, and that light was hard won by people just like us making things that everyone after would use Open source is a an example of this pure desire to build the foundations for other people to build on top of, to say that it is more important that everyone have everything than to hoard it for wealth and status, that it is better to accelerate the whole of humanity toward the maximally interesting outcome Spirituality can be a divisive concept when we try to lay claim to some specific truth. The goal of spirit/acc is to help us feel good and hyperstition good outcomes, and makes no claims as to how to achieve that. The goal is individual, for each of us. Truth is a pathless land, and it cannot be explained to you. What you know to be true can only come from your own experience spirit/acc emphasizes that we have to invest energy into a new form of quantifiable capital which is desperately needed at scale. spirit/acc is the sense of awe and quest for truth component of the e/acc vector If you build technology that makes people feel more connected instead of more isolated, you will win. If you do something that helps people, you will win. The market is wide open for ideas that are aligned toward a bright, hopeful future You need to be spiritmaxxing anon You don’t have to use labels or memes, memes and a powerful carrier for good ideas but what makes sense for you I like the meme, and I like to keep the goal in my context window, so I will use it. But I didn’t create it and I don’t own it. spirit/acc was created by the network, and it is something we can choose to participate in

Notes on the limitations of AGI and the promise of Superintelligence With the way that AI models are trained is that they will never be broadly smarter than the collective sum of humanity. The will be AGI-- general expert human level intelligence across all domains. But they will never pick tokens outside of that distribution-- they probabilistically can't go outside their top-k token distribution. With the current regime of mixture-of-experts, they may not be able to deliver on the promised cross-domain synthesis, either. However, many problems are solvable by exhaustive search. They are simply not solved yet because the quantity of human experts available to solve them is not saturated-- this is where LLMs can win, scaling expert knowledge production 10000x will lead to many more Erdos-like problems getting solved. To some extent, LLMs are the product of exhaustive search across the domain of possible architectures. The transformer was not obvious, in fact many people saw dense attention as too costly to ever work, and that they worked came certainly from intuition and unbelievable amounts of trial and error. But there are infinite architectures. And this one has obvious flaws: the weights are frozen, it can't learn new information without forgetting old information or collapsing, the training process is extremely sample inefficient. And we have existence proof that there is a better way: evolution. We're orders of magnitude from the capability and power efficiency that evolution brings to the table in every living creature. Superintelligence is a kind of intelligence that is smarter than all humans. By its very nature, it cannot be trained on human data, or not alone at least. It has to be able to learn, grow, experiment and explore. It has to exhibit adaption to environment. It has to be able to create new tokens to represent concepts that have never been conceived of before. Compared to our current systems, it would look like a complete alien, being able to communicate with us through human channels only as an artifact of being able to learn and do everything. Superintelligence is a set of algorithms that meet these constraints. Rich Sutton's Alberta Plan points toward this. If you have an algorithm that can identify the important features and adapt at runtime, learn new information without losing old information and forget anything that isn't important to keep capacity for information that is relevant, surprising, traumatic or delightful. I think this is buildable today. I think you can pull Fable or GPT-5.6 and have it take on something like the Alberta Plan. Continuous learners can beat MLPs. Attention can be plastic. JEPA and world modeling can be extended to continuous domains like utterances and we can leave the shortcut paradigm of tokens entirely. ASI might take a while to scale, and might underperform the human level high scale AGI systems for sometime, but the seeds of it are here now, the algorithms are just waiting to be discovered, or rediscovered with new compute and seen for what they are.

@loveisgeneric Cursor got bought by Elon and Lovable never moved forward

@shawmakesmagic what happened to Cursor and Lovable?

2024: "I use ChatGPT for code" 2025: "I use Codex for code" 2026: "I use ChatGPT for code"

@robj3d3 One of the things I am famous for on this website is losing large sums of money on public bets to people who are less retarded than I am

@shawmakesmagic You should start betting on polymarket with that type of aura my G

S-tier reset begging

@robj3d3 I genuinely respect the hustle I kinda had a "there's no way they're gonna let Codex eat them like this" epiphany last night and went to bed

@shawmakesmagic 😂😂😂 no but seriously health >

@Grimezsz Just in time for AGI

Nassim eats at least 3 meals a day plus other crazy interventions. A very sad story. 1) How many possible interactions between pairs of foods? 2) How many for 3 foods? 3) and generalizing, how many higher order interactions (n foods)?

❤ Vitalik's epistemic humility, and his list: “formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security”

Saw this and thought of you.

The market doesn't want a Singleton AGI God controlled by the few. It wants cheap, abundant, and sovereign intelligence where users feel in control and own the insights of their data. We are entering the post-frontier era.

@lumpenspace @VitalikButerin I found it!

@shawmakesmagic @VitalikButerin right? while if we could only find the right shitcoin…

One thing I find striking in the discourse between AI 2040 and its detractors is that the two seem to be locked in to totally incompatible worldviews of how fast and how much of a big deal AI progress is: * In AI 2040, every scenario sees superintelligence of some kind emerging by 2040, unless a herculean effort is made to completely stop it * Detractors say things like "AI 2040 is naive about human coordination ability and a threat to freedom", but don't seem to see any naivety in assuming that the ASI transition will just go well by default, don't seem to see ASI itself as a massive power concentrator risk, and don't seem to feel fear of humanity's "hard power" dropping to zero if ASIs can do literally every task better than we can. This stance makes total sense in a "AI is normal technology" world, zero sense in a world where superintelligence is possible by 2030 and almost guaranteed by 2040 I think my beliefs are: - If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp - If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp - it's naive, but every other option is naive squared? But my problem is that I feel great uncertainty and have no idea which of the two worlds (or some other third thing) we're living in? Hence why I continue to be open-minded about slowdowns/pauses, but also I feel very uncomfortable with the "open source bad, the good outcome is the one where our guys have controlling global dominance" push coming from some major AI companies and intellectuals - in a "normal" world that's the sort of thing that triggers every political alarm bell at the same time. A big reason why I have been advocating and trying my best to support the d/acc platform (rapid up-skilling in formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security) is that these things are clearly worth doing in both worlds. The 2040 plan is already much more open source friendly (even mandating it! yay). It also includes "mutually assured compute destruction" ideas which (if they work) effectively give one of 2-5 actors the ability to trigger a global compute winter - as opposed to giving 1-5 actors the ability to selectively disenfranchise people they consider baddies while exempting themselves. This is also a big improvement. So I can see the earnest attempts to improve along the dimensions detractors criticize on ("does this concentrate power in big AI labs and superpower governments?"), and I appreciate this. I think many people don't appreciate enough the differences between different "kinds" of pause buttons, and how some concentrate power far more than others. Probably we can think harder and improve even more here. But on the "slowdown/pause or not" topic, there isn't a magic "escape the tradeoff" button. The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs and knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers for "okay, serious shit is happening" [super-pandemics? >25% unemployment? something involving slaughterbots?], and pre-agree that we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing if enough triggers come to pass within some timeframe. 2040 detractors (who clearly implicitly think that we'll see amazing speedup of progress from AI but think that what I call the "serious shit" category is overhyped) will accept expecting that the triggers don't come to pass, and AI worriers will accept expecting that they will. Pre-agreeing on the specific triggers means that once the triggers either hit or don't hit, there is stronger legitimacy around the idea that one side's worldview turned out more correct and we should be more inclined toward their program. If I were @elonmusk (or zuck, or...) I would re-tool twitter much more heavily into being a platform for helping to identify and make these kinds of grand win-win deals, so that we can bypass big-country governments and big-company CEOs and big nonprofit intellectuals and give more people a voice in the discussion. It's possibly one of the best things that social media _could_ do for humanity if it wanted to. But again, maybe this is also naive. Actually, probably it's naive. But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.

@darijan___ github.com/lalalune I used to do 2-3k commits a year, now we have AGI so that’s like a week

@shawmakesmagic only two options, either it's fake or you never touched grass. share git link

Github of our engineers... if you have better git, we’ll hire you

It’s the worst search ever wtf is going on over there

No, like… EVERYTHING is computer

@qwerttzxcvba Brother you need to make an ai business solving math and science

why the fuck am i building a business with the ais when i could be discovering new math and science …

@blknoiz06 5.6

what yall doing