I'm curious about things in your life (things you do, objects owned, rituals observed) that may seem silly to outside observers (or even to you) but have objectively practical purposes or an internal logic that just needs a bit of explaining?

I was thinking about my Batman t-shirt that I'm wearing today, and my other graphic logo t-shirts that I know a man in his mid-40's isn't supposed to wear because it's childish. Now, granted I only wear these around the house and if I'm going out to run errands, and I'm sure I look a little foolish to most folks, but I've found that the graphic tees serve far more purpose than I ever imagined when I originally purchased them.

When I bought them, it was because:

1. I knew I'd be wearing them under a jacket all day as the office I worked in at the time kept the HVAC set in the high 60's (Farenheit) and they'd go unnoticed.
2. They cost a little less than high quality individual plain shirts as I happened to catch them all on a clearance in my size; extremely rare since I'm a tall dude who's half torso.
3. I had always wanted to wear super hero logos and stuff as a kid, but even into my 20's I could never justify the price even when working full time.

I've got around 10 shirts that I rotate through, along with a bunch of plain ones because when you buy them in packs of 6 they're still way cheaper. And I've found a few odd benefits I wasn't expecting.

• I often dress in dim light, without my glasses on. Having a logo means I rarely turn my graphic t-shirts inside out and I never put them on backwards.
• I'm a big dude, tall and broad and I take up a lot of space. I believe that people treat me as less imposing when I'm wearing a funny little t-shirt.
• They're surprisingly comfortable and well-made, and they've lasted me a decade at this point and will likely last longer than that.

So back to the main topic at hand: is there anything you have or do that's silly to yourself or others that actually has practical benefit or a logical reason that lets you suspend embarrassment?

My daughter (11) is doing a week long Python class, which is not using LLMs.

It got me thinking about how I learned to program in the pre-internet days (laboriously, from books), and then what a marvel it was when you could just search for information, especially for troubleshooting. But for her, the first answer in the Google search is going to be the AI summary, and most of her search tools are going to be AI tools.

I wonder if it would be possible to make an LLM that has a didactic/socratic mode. So if you said, "help me write a program to do madlibs" maybe it would give you a skeleton of a function, then prompt you to come to with a plan, then critique that plan. Or if you said, "I'm getting this error", it wouldn't just fix it, it would explain what the error means and nudge you towards the answer.

Thinking in a larger sense, it could have a rubric of important concepts, even tiers of understanding. It could be using the interactions to track the user's understanding, which could let it then tune how it answers future questions, or even be used to customize assignments.

I recognize that this is potentially replacing a teacher with a machine, which wouldn't be my goal. Good teachers are more holistic in their teaching than a machine is ever likely to be. But for people who don't have access to good teachers, or need more directed support than is available from a teacher, or just want to self study, it seems like it could be a valuable addition.

Until they solve the obsequiousness problem, it would be vulnerable to prompt hacking, so really more of a tool for someone who recognizes the value of learning over just being given the answer.

What do folks think about using such a tool? What would you want it to do, or not do?

Aside: I forgot until I reached the end of this post, but this is also (somewhat) the plot of The Diamond Age, or A Young Lady's Illustrates Primer by Neal Stephenson.

I was musing about this recently with the recent models becoming more capable. The core of gen AI is the model, which is trained on a massive dataset. To date, gen AI has improved because the models have become larger, more efficient, the data they are trained on has become better and the software/harnesses around them has improved to help query them.

As I see it, surely the bottleneck will soon become the data they are trained on? If we imagine a scenario where a models could consume an infinite amount of training data, and there is no limit to the training time or quality. The sum of human skill/knowledge is the limiting factor. Gen AI should (in theory) never be able to out preform or push the boundary of the sum of humanity at time of training.

Or, counterpoint, is there enough randomness and speed to iterate that gen AI can actually step change and improve if training times/cost were less prohibitive? Most companies/models today will save good output and feed it back into the next iteration, but right now that's taking months. What if that took minutes?

What do you think?

Is gen AI going to take us to general intelligence?
Will gen AI get to a place where it's "intelligence" and reasoning is actually better than the sum of Humanity?