Sarah Walker

It's a little like, so, you know, we talked about the history of eyes before and like how eyes scaled up into technological forms. And language has also had a really interesting history and got much more interesting, I think, once we started writing it down. And then, you know, inventing books and things.

It's a little like, so, you know, we talked about the history of eyes before and like how eyes scaled up into technological forms. And language has also had a really interesting history and got much more interesting, I think, once we started writing it down. And then, you know, inventing books and things.

But like, you know, every time that we started storing language in a new way, you know, we were kind of existentially traumatized by it.

But like, you know, every time that we started storing language in a new way, you know, we were kind of existentially traumatized by it.

But like, you know, every time that we started storing language in a new way, you know, we were kind of existentially traumatized by it.

So like, you know, the idea of written language was traumatic because it seemed like the dead were speaking to us even though they were deceased and books were traumatic because, you know, like suddenly there were lots of copies of this information available to everyone and it was going to somehow dilute it. And large language models are kind of interesting because they don't feel as static.

So like, you know, the idea of written language was traumatic because it seemed like the dead were speaking to us even though they were deceased and books were traumatic because, you know, like suddenly there were lots of copies of this information available to everyone and it was going to somehow dilute it. And large language models are kind of interesting because they don't feel as static.

So like, you know, the idea of written language was traumatic because it seemed like the dead were speaking to us even though they were deceased and books were traumatic because, you know, like suddenly there were lots of copies of this information available to everyone and it was going to somehow dilute it. And large language models are kind of interesting because they don't feel as static.

They're very dynamic. But if you think about language in the way I was describing before as language is this very large in time structure. And before it had been something that was distributed over human brains as a dynamic structure. And occasionally we store components of that structure. very large dynamic structure in books or in written language.

They're very dynamic. But if you think about language in the way I was describing before as language is this very large in time structure. And before it had been something that was distributed over human brains as a dynamic structure. And occasionally we store components of that structure. very large dynamic structure in books or in written language.

They're very dynamic. But if you think about language in the way I was describing before as language is this very large in time structure. And before it had been something that was distributed over human brains as a dynamic structure. And occasionally we store components of that structure. very large dynamic structure in books or in written language.

Now we can actually store the dynamics of that structure in a physical artifact, which is a large language model. And so I think about it almost like the evolution of genomes in some sense where, you know, there might've been like really primitive genes in the first living things and they didn't store a lot of information or they were like really messy things.

Now we can actually store the dynamics of that structure in a physical artifact, which is a large language model. And so I think about it almost like the evolution of genomes in some sense where, you know, there might've been like really primitive genes in the first living things and they didn't store a lot of information or they were like really messy things.

Now we can actually store the dynamics of that structure in a physical artifact, which is a large language model. And so I think about it almost like the evolution of genomes in some sense where, you know, there might've been like really primitive genes in the first living things and they didn't store a lot of information or they were like really messy things.

And then by the time you get to the Eukarya Excel, you have this really dynamic genetic architecture that's rewritable and has all of these different properties. And I think large language models are kind of like the genetic system for language in some sense, where it's allowing a sort of archiving that's highly dynamic.

And then by the time you get to the Eukarya Excel, you have this really dynamic genetic architecture that's rewritable and has all of these different properties. And I think large language models are kind of like the genetic system for language in some sense, where it's allowing a sort of archiving that's highly dynamic.

And then by the time you get to the Eukarya Excel, you have this really dynamic genetic architecture that's rewritable and has all of these different properties. And I think large language models are kind of like the genetic system for language in some sense, where it's allowing a sort of archiving that's highly dynamic.

And I think it's very paradoxical to us because obviously in human history, we haven't been used to conversing with anything that's not human. But now we can converse basically with a crystallization of human language in a computer.

And I think it's very paradoxical to us because obviously in human history, we haven't been used to conversing with anything that's not human. But now we can converse basically with a crystallization of human language in a computer.

And I think it's very paradoxical to us because obviously in human history, we haven't been used to conversing with anything that's not human. But now we can converse basically with a crystallization of human language in a computer.