What an absolute mess. It's like some dystopian future where a man is laying in a casket, nearly dead, and on the casket's ceiling, inches from his face, is a screen with an ad blaring to drink more Diet Fanta.
It seems Buddhism has followed the same path as any other religion/practice of the same age.
I imagine that today's Christianity doesn't look much like it did in 500AD, just as I imagine Scientology in 1,000 years will have evolved.
Is this a bad thing? Does religion not represent our perception of the meaning of life, evolving with us as knowledge, wisdom and tolerance (or lack thereof) is passed through the generations?
> I imagine that today's Christianity doesn't look much like it did in 500AD
I would would say it does look pretty similar. The Council of Nicea nearly 200 years earlier had established a consensus/mainstream theology. The papacy existed, although it did not claim the same level of authority. Even churches were built in styles similar to modern ones.
> Is this a bad thing? Does religion not represent our perception of the meaning of life, evolving with us as knowledge, wisdom and tolerance (or lack thereof) is passed through the generations?
In principle it is not a bad thing, but it is a matter of opinion. Christianity and Buddhism are both revealed religions so losing the truths the founder of the religion taught is a bad thing, learning more is a good thing. Which is which is a matter of opinion.
It depends on the root of the evolution I would say.
Sure, if someone has gone through the process and achieved enlightenment like Buddha, they may be able to evolve the teachings to better fit the times.
However, my gut says that is often not the case, and much of the evolution is egoic in nature at the hands of a charismatic individual who wants to fulfil their desire or lust for power.
I'm far from an expert on Buddhism, but my own journey has taught me that ultimately we must kill our Buddhas and inner realization ultimately is a journey you must walk alone and discover for yourself. The teachers along the way may serve as wayfinding, but must ultimately be discarded.
If the evolved state of the religion seems like a big club, and isn't serving it's members to strike out on their own on their inward journey, to achieve independence and sovereignty, it should be questioned in my opinion.
The teachings of the Buddha explicitly encouraged it. Buddhism is the only religion I know of that instructs you to fully abandon it, as once you’ve fully grokked what it has to teach… you won’t need it any more.
IIRC the Buddha said it was like carrying the oar of a boat: once you have used it to get you to your destination (nibbhana), carrying it is needless.
The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap.
The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare.
Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?
It needs to pass the most basic concept of learning, which it can’t currently do. Probably wont ever do after listening to dario on his latest podcast run.
Where we are at today is ASI (artificial semi-intelligence). Maybe in 20 years artificial super intelligence can be achieved, but certainly not AGI.
Was just at the YC launch event for this. Haven't felt this much inspiration in a while. Incredible minds confronting on tech that will change our society.
I met a guy who, for fun, started working on ARC2, and as he got the number to go up in the eval, a novel way to more efficiently move a robotic arm emerged. All that to say: chasing evals per se can have tangible real world benefits.
Talking to the ARC folks tonight, it sounds like there will be an ARC-4,5,6,etc. I mean of course there will be.
But with them will be an increasing expectation that these models can eventually figure things out with zero context, and zero pretraining; you drop a brain into any problem and it'll figure out how to dig its way out.
If you read the charter of the eval (or any eval, really), this statement is pretty silly.
The whole point of each eval version is to identify a chunk of challenges that humans do well that AI can't. When AI gets to ~80, you move to the next chunk. When you run out of challenges, you have AGI.
Except you will never run out of challenges and my sense from Chollet has been that every challenge was hinted at being the final one where once beaten AGI would have been created and of course at the end of each one he comes out saying akshuallyyyy this isn't AGI and it wont be AGI until ARC Challenge+1 is beaten!
For me, I think it has more to do with length of exposure. Certainly my fault. Perhaps analogous to social media use and smart phones. To avoid temptation I try to limit then restrict my usage. It seems that some people “blame” side effects of social media usage on social media companies? Is that different for you? Sometimes, it can take some time to realize you’re dealing with a more potent form of a similar experience.
reply