There are two differences, it seems, between "sea monsters" and "sea creatures". The first is that sea monsters are named in Greek, where sea creatures are named in Latin. The second is that sea monsters don't exist. - Existential Comics
The comic and commentary is quite interesting as well.
White pyramids, assaulted by floods.
Age 10.
Seems more likely this was a vision...
https://akiane.com/product/the-pyramids/
The backstory of the artist is fascinating as well - https://youtu.be/yYIU0eNZg2U?t=596
近排食得清淡咗
娃娃菜切粒，然後擺埋落電飯煲同啲飯一齊煮 （飯要加少啲水，因為菜會出水），效果唔錯。
可以加少少椰子油、少量鹽吊味。
飯菜煮好之後，可以煎兩隻蛋（太陽蛋），撈埋入啲菜飯度。再加少少豉油調味。
最後成品會同炒飯差唔多 （只要水份控制得好）
---
變化
- 娃娃菜可以用椰菜代替。都係要切細 （短幼條）。
- 可以加入啲煮好調好味嘅碎熟肉 （尋日煮咗成隻羊腿變咗肉鬆咁款，效果非常好 - 但如果擺啲生肉入去會麻麻哋）
- 加醃蘿蔔、黑木耳、蕃茄、等等都得 (不過個菜底都係白菜同椰菜之類會比較好）
At this point the connection between compression and intelligence is well known. A New Yorker article even boldly states in its title that "ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web".
But God is not a badly compressed JPEG.
This is why traditional wisdom cautions against "learning" as opposed to experiencing things in the raw.
The "real thing" is the crisp, unpixelated experience. It is the the original image of "reality"; whereas "learning" simply introduces "models" of the world, which gives rise to distortions like JPEG artifacts as a matter of course.
The more we "learn", the more we are able to reproduce imperfect impressions of the world. And we rejoice in that ability, perhaps, in a sense, delighted to realize that we have a mini-god within us.
But God is not a badly compressed JPEG.
If we learned anything about computational irreducibility, we know that there's is no "real" shortcut to truth. The truth is out there, as-is, for all to observe and experience.
If we are to create intelligence qualitatively superior to humans, i.e. not merely faster with more memory, we must ask ourselves what we are actually trying to do. The fact that humans have never been able to define "intelligence" is, in retrospect, a huge red flag. With the transformer language models, we have shown that run-of-the-mill "intelligence" is no more than lossily compressing common human knowledge into less than a terabyte and then telling it (sternly) to behave itself.
But that's obviously not enough. In theory, higher quality training data will help, but that is premised on the fact that we do have those data -- but obviously we don't have superhuman intelligence ourselves, so we can't create that superhuman training data. We don't even know what it might look like.
At some point we must realize that, without interpretation, data is just meaningless bits and bytes, and interpretation is just a preference. There is nothing inherently superior about arrangement of bits in one form over another. The data and interpreter are one, and the "limitations of the interpreter" imposes the same limits on what the data could do.
The only way to superhuman intelligence is to eliminate humans entirely from the loop.
Or.
We accept the world as it is. We see God in its original form, accept that we can only make badly compressed JPEGs of God's image, and be content.
Just a weird thought -
- In physics, event horizons are a barrier beyond which physicists generally claim that things inside don't matter (besides the mass and momentum) because we can't observe them. For some reason, they reject the idea of "god's eye view of objective reality" beyond the event horizon of a black hole, and settling on the idea that since it is impossible even in theory to get information out from the black hole, it's better to just treat it as an opaque thing.
But generally they don't (want to) extend this subjective view to either quantum physics, and they definitely don't posit the subjective notion that if you can't observe something, it might as well not exist until you look at it. It seems that the principle is the same. To me there is no qualitative difference between theoretical impossibility and practical impossibility. The difference is imaginary.
