logoalt Hacker News

Nevermarktoday at 6:34 AM1 replyview on HN

> an incentive to make their technology seem transformative and powerful

I have no frame of reference to process this.

Humans species perhaps 300,000 years, we are essentially the same. Transistor, 79 years, explosive growth in numbers and power. Integrated circuit, 68 years, explosive growth in numbers and power. "Attention is all you need", 9 years. ChatGPT, 4 years, explosive growth in instances and power. Humans species, not getting smarter. [0,1,2,3]

There is a syndrome where many people seem unable to perceive or reason about rates of change in technology.

We are going to spend the vast majority of our future lives without the intelligence crown.

In terms of verbally expressible knowledge, models are passing many people completely, and passing all of our individually respectively weak reasoning areas.

Other modalities are progressing very quickly.

There will be short periods where progress happens quickly, but the impact feels slow. There will be radical changes that feel slow too, because if something anticipated or important isn't instant, we tend to perceive it as slow.

But it won't be slow. And it won't be long. We are smart in a kind of pick the-best-of-us at the-best-of-times way. We are rarely consistently or broadly smart individually.

We are not in the same galaxy as "ready". What would that look like?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model


Replies

dbspintoday at 8:30 AM

Agree with most of this, it's well articulated and captures how we react to change.

However - 'Humans species perhaps 300,000 years, we are essentially the same' is an enormous misconception. That fact that we lack gross anatomical changes during this period, ignores everything we now know about punctuated equilibrium and rapid evolution. It's highly probably we've had an enormous number of evolved psychological changes during the last few hundred, and even tens of thousands of years. Changes that relate to our capacity to live in large groups, adapt to urban environments, resist disease and so on. We know that's the case simply because acute pandemics become epidemics through herd immunity, and through the acquisition of lactose tolerance etc.

It seems highly unlikely that adaptations stop there. Altering the environment (in the last 10K years that means the built environment) alters the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness. It seems likely that we've essentially domesticated out much of our propensity for violence and increased our capacity for mood regulation.

Obviously it's incredibly tricky to pair these specific behavioural changes to genetic changes -> protein synthesis -> behaviour. Bearing in mind though we're only 20 years out from the first study to link allele variant to behaviour (the COMT Val/Met polymorphism), and the potential controversy around such research, this shouldn't be surprising.