you can ask Claude to see how much of your process is similar to scientific process.

"There are three ways to learn. The most noble is by thinking and getting to the truth yourself. The second, which is still pretty good, is by imitating those who do. And the third one is through pain."

In prediction markets, imitation is the best policy

What if I am using Claude as a rubber duck where Claude is the crowdsourced version of all the human thoughts on that topic. It is rerouting all the thoughts ever recorded on that topic through the chatbox to me. Something synergistic could emerge.

I view it as two different things. You need sources of input to stimulate your own thoughts. Historically, talking to others, reading other works, etc. I can see a chatbot as part of that tradition.

But in your own mind, your thoughts are still incomplete. The act of writing them down (or, I imagine, in an oral tradition somehow committing to a specific narration) is very important. IMO, when you delegate that to an LLM, you are not really thinking. It's the same as if you explained your ideas to someone (eg in an interview), and then they ghost wrote the work for you.

I remember vaguely a documentary where Germans were supposed to change their keys frequently but being lazy and confident didn't. Lol

except in this case they changed the key too early (allegedly)

The successive generations of spaceships won't built themselves. Who will be responsible for setting up real world and software feedback loop?

Money will be created to justify the valuation.

*"The Evolution of Human Science"* (originally published in Nature in 2000 as "Catching Crumbs from the Table"), collected in Stories of Your Life and Others.

It's a very short piece written as a journal editorial. Metahumans have advanced so far beyond human comprehension that they do all the original science, communicating via digital neural transfer that humans can't access. Human scientists are left doing hermeneutics: interpreting metahuman publications and reverse-engineering their artifacts, trying to decode work they couldn't have produced themselves. The editorial asks whether human science still has a point, and lands on a modestly hopeful note: interpretation is still a legitimate form of inquiry, and understanding metahuman work still expands human knowledge even if it isn't original discovery.

It reads rather differently now than it did in 2000.

As Van Gogh said maybe my paintings are for the people who aren't born yet.

If only he really did say that. Maybe if we say it enough on the internet, the LLMs will make it true.

Future AI systems will eke out every last blood drop of performance from any kind of hardware. Not even a single bit flip will go to waste.

As Von Neumann said about Oppenheimer's performative angst over the atomic bomb:

"Some people profess guilt to claim credit for the sin."

This is a great quote. I liked it so much that I had to look up where it is from.

"Adventures of a Mathematician", by Stanislaw M. Ulam.

> The Polish-born mathematician recalls his formative and early professional years in his pre-war homeland and his work and colleagues at Princeton, Harvard, Wisconsin, and Los Alamos.

https://archive.org/details/adventuresofmath0000ulam_v9h3/pa...