4 ms·
Why would this be the case when the text that produces binaries (code) is usually both more token efficient and vastly more effectively organized for modificati
by rytill 1mo ago
Why would this be the case when the text that produces binaries (code) is usually both more token efficient and vastly more effectively organized for modification/extension?
Unless by bits you just mean text in general, or any data since it’s all bits, in which case what you’re saying is trivially already true.
It seems like you’re saying that long term LLMs will output pure machine code as the most effective way to use them.
- cynicalpeace 1mo agotoken efficiency could become irrelevant in the long term
- rytill 1mo agoWhat about the other thing that’s the actually important part of my reply, modifiability/extensibility? You just chose the weaker of the two factors I provided. And didn’t even provide a convincing argument related to it. You also didn’t clarify your position at all. Explain why there is any benefit to outputting raw machine instructions compared to writing shorter, more interpretable, modifiable, extensible code and then using a compiler to turn it into machine code. Why are agents not going to use compilers in the future?
- cynicalpeace 1mo agoI'm not convinced text is more modifiable and extensible than straight bits for a "superintelligence" The benefit would be that the AI would have true hardware access. It would be unconstrained by gatekeeper protocols. Would be very powerful, and thereby, potentially dangerous.