Correct, GPT4 is not meant to accept videos as input. And probably not screencasts but explained step-by-step prompts. For example, look at page 18 table 6: it is LangChain-like prompt. First, they define actions and tools and then language model puts the output which is actually high-level API call in some form. Using RPA as API, you get mouse clicker based on HTML context. Another thing HTML pages are crafted manually, and system still does not understand the unseen pages.

Just like Generative Asversarial Networks operate: there is a creator layer and a critic layer that hope to reach a consensus at some point. As for "how does it know where to click": there is a huge statistics made by humans (look at page 10 paragraph 4.2.3). It is a specially trained model fine-tuned on action task demonstrations.

Melting Antarctica directly?

Slope of enlightenment. It took me a month to go through excitement/fear cycles and start actively refreshing my knowledge in NNs.

Interested!

> It remains to be seen who represents the majority

This. People are used to something, and highly adaptable. Adaptable because of intellect + all the genetic evolution nature made us for billions of years. Yet at the same time survival means minimizing the uncertainty or enthropy. That's why people are reactive to changes and can cope with worse living than it is possible.

We who want changes are small minority. And even among us changers there is .001% of people who can press the big red button for the utopic world. That's question of price and value, responsibility and power. And choice :)

Interesting question. It is not only a lack of job moved people to urban areas. People want "easier" and "more happening" life, i.e work less but have more new pleasant moments per lifetime. Cities offer a lot of this to satisfy: museums, cafes, sport grounds. At the same time, people get used to anything and sometimes want calmer and less intensive life.

I am thinking now what happens when we finally master the affordable quantum teleportation: people would have zero reason to stay in big cities and instead would form a mesh living everywhere. Because roads would not be needed, people could live even high in the mountains and deep underwater or underland. At the same time, the more expensive something is, the less people will use it. Same applies to current intelligent data processing: burning fossil fuels is finite process, economic demand is finite as well but new shiny features will require new professions that were not possible on previous levels of technology.

If a true AI emerges, interesting how many resources will it take. The rise of the machines is a possible scenario but before the AI becomes AI (sentient and agentic) it is just a tool built by humans and to satisfy some human needs. Just like horses :)

There have been tries, definitely. I can not find proper keywords though. Again the optimization task minimizing loss to the current prompt :)))

This phenomenon was discovered during WWII (language redundancy in command chain) and became one of the practical tasks that formed the information theory. All language statistic models that led to MIT ELIZA chatbot were funded to understand how to make cimmunication on the battlefield more effective. And it is true that a jargon covering the most used set of meanings and actions beats general languages in optimality. That's why programming languages exist as well.

Software is architecture defined in code. Minimal common sense reasoning is definitely not enough to write and maintain huge software codebases. And LLMs pass even these reasoning tests with "n-th order of understanding". Writing snippets is one thing, but forward-and reverse-engineering of complex problems is another because the number of possible ways to achieve the same result grows exponentially, but evaluating the optimality of each solution is another task different from what LLM does.

I agree with this point. Also there was early Christianity whose beliefs were very close to what you would like to achieve. The question is in the other thing: we can not get rid of competition and supremacy from human nature. Unless the totally new biology or robotic bodies is invented, let's assume we can't. So it is natural to fight, kill, extort, rape etc. It is ugly, it is irrational to some point but it exists. The ideal solution from my point of view would be the society of equal opportunities where everyone understands everyone other's motives. But the ruling class will never allow this, because of supremacy loss. In fact, they have no other source of feeling supreme other than keeping others low. What can we do about it? A provoking question, but answering to it will answer your question as well.

Perfect :) My dear friend (not a sarcasm!), you wrote before:

> No, the author mentions civilizations from thousands of years before our era, not pre-industrial times.

So the author of the book you recommended interprets some pieces of information about civilizations that lived thousands of years and thinks how they might have been operating. First of all, Minoans culture took 150 years of digging and analysis to decipher Type B writing, and Type A is still not decrypted. Are you 100% sure we can definitely state that we know how Minoan civilization lived? We make educated assumptions based on the newly-discovered facts. And they are only 5000 years from now.

And what's wrong with assumption about ET? It is part of unknown, so it can be possible. You should really be more open to new ideas because you have a curious mind. True scientist does not state "God is dead" or "extraterrestrials are fake" but tries to find proofs of them either existent or not.

EDIT: Your emotional reaction proves another point I had on my mind - our interpretation of the same facts reflects our training. Same as GPT - we interpret the facts to satisfy our goals, and not always this goal is to discover the absolute truth.

> The necessity to enslave people to get more "spare-time" for science is a fallacy

I never assumed that.

As for Mohenjo-Daro. I have read a report (maybe a fake but still) that MD kingdom was destroyed in the Viman War with something very close to modern nukes. So we have no clues where and how they started. Even if they were an egalitarian state in their late days, they might arise as an extraterrestrial settlement or use slaves for cheap labor.

Rome in their late times was also a leisure society and de-disciplined their legions and got eventually taken over by barbarians. Chinese emperors entombed 100.000+ bodies in Great Chinese Wall whose length is 22.000 kms according to newer research. And it is predictable - when bureaucracy as a system takes over individual powers-that-be, the state arises. And at the same time, the state usurps the monopoly on violence becoming the universal protector and extortionist at the same time.

Thanks, put on my reading list!

They shifted because the quantitative and qualitative progress (i.e growth of population and introduction of industry) changed the structure of manufacturing and consume. Science and spare time added a scale to this progression. But social revolutions came when masses felt absolutely hopeless and nothing to lose. That made the elites to introduce social guarantees, minimum wage etc. If the majority is sheeple, the rulers have no incentive to develop the country except the military power. Here is what we see in modern Russia, for example.

OK, change my mind! :)

Is it a ChadGPT writing? (pun intended)

Here I see total misunderstanding of social sciences and politics as well as history.

First generation of "nobility" is mostly always the warriors, bandits (call it ritters, raubritters - literally "ritter ganster" in German!) or traders. i.e in fact they are really those who dare to change the status-quo. But the devil is in details - if you are stronger, well equipped, you can extort resources from the weaker peasantry and build your power up. Then you engage in wars with your rivals, and eventually win (or lose and die). That's where the first misunderstanding resides.

Next. Opposing labor and leisure is a fallacy because the lack of need to work for someone is not the same as no will to do anything. The first was true but the more educated you are and the more resources you've got (including spare time!), the more interests may emerge from you. While the first-gen achievers are usually tough guys, the most intelligent of them survive the wars and raise their children as an elite. It does not mean that the son of a bandit will become a scientist, but it may be that the wealth created by father will make his son engaged to something not so cruel as his father did - including science.

Finally, the true nobility differs from pseudo-nobility by a clear vision of self-preservation by keeping their heritage dominant and the balls to achieve that. I.e plan and discipline to keep things up. True nobility would never allow "the generation joke" by Albert Einstein to happen with their children. That's key to the prolonged success of some families.

Look at Czinger Automobile and the vertical assembly line concept Kevin Czinger is propagandizing. If you have a car designed for 3d printing, and fiber tubes, you might produce some big portion of a car. However, I tried sesrching the videos of an assembly process of Czinger 21C and did not find any. So it is probably an overassumption (at least) at this point.