Speaker unverified: belief

Transcript context

…Yeah. I think we're so close. I think the only slight disagreement is whether there could be such a thing as an invention circuit. It seems to me, just like that LLM biology paper and whatnot, that it would be very kind of patterned in the way. So it would be templated. It would be kind of specific to certain domains. And I feel that we can do it, but we would need to build a controller on the top. I also feel, by the way, that creativity is very domain specific. And what I mean by that is just with this Kenneth Stanley view that there's this big phylogeny of knowledge. And I've noted that when I hire creative professionals, they like an editor, for example, they can't edit my show. And even if they're really good at editing other people's shows, and it's because they simply don't know anything about machine learning. So, you know, like, I've I've just discovered the crazy degree to which creativity is domain specific. And I just wonder whether there is an algorithm for creativity. Because I've got this epistemic lens of creativity, which is that, you know, it's simply about, okay, well, I can access all of the ancestors in my tree and I can do some composition that's like building Lego and so on. And and if I wanna use something from the tree over here, this other branch, you know, maybe it's compatible, maybe I can bring it in, or maybe I just need to start a new branch, or maybe I need to jump over to the other branch. And I'm not sure whether I'm applying the same algorithm when I'm doing that. I think you I think you actually are, and that it's you it's not sufficient to just be creative in this case. You need to be creative, and you need to be knowledgeable. Otherwise, you're creative. Right? You you can't build the tree. I think your editors can't build the the tree because they don't have the deductive footing. That that would be my that would be my best guess, but that's an interesting perspective. I wanna think about that. I mean, fundamentally, right, creativity is knowing which axioms to include in the next branch of the tree. Right? So you're at level 5 of the tree. How do you get to level 6? It's knowing which assumptions to pile in to get to level 6. Right? It's it's so beautiful. We're writing an article about creativity at the moment. And I believe that in order to be creative, the the depth of understanding of the tree is very important. And, you know, just percholet, you know, intelligence is is the efficiency of how much of the history you can acquire. So like a university professor understands the tree very deeply. And that actually makes them unintelligible to a normal person. Like when Stephen Wolfram talks about the Rulliad all the time, people have got no idea what he's talking about. He's actually being very expressive. He's talking about things at a level of abstraction which, you know, can refer to anything, but it's beyond most people's cognitive horizon. But there is something to be said for that when when you can respect the history deep down into the epistemic tree, the creative stepping stones you take, because they respect the history, they actually have more evolvability. Right? Because you're you're you're you're still grounded to the real world. You're not becoming incoherent. So there's there's something there about really knowing things deeply that is important.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.