It’s 1986. Jim and Hilda Bloggs, an elderly couple in Sussex, hear on the wireless that the Soviet–Afghan conflict is turning rotten; Within a few days, the Cold War will be thermonuclear-hot. They aren’t worried. They have a nuke shelter and a government-issued pamphlet. They lived through the Blitz and will live through this.
Alarms scream, and megatons of white death flash down from the sky. Jim and Hilda survive the bombing and wish they hadn’t—they emerge from their shelter in a shattered, unrecognizable landscape. Everything is ash; foliage-stripped trees stand like skeletal sentinels; and the sun is as grubby-dull as a coin tumbled around in a pocket. The air cannot be breathed, the water cannot be drunk, and there’s no word from the government about what happens next.
Jim and Hilda slowly die from radiation sickness, in one of the most harrowing sequences I’ve ever seen in an animated film. Stiff upper lip is useless. Keep Calm and Carry On is useless. Their preparation was for nothing: they’ve cheated death only to be packed into a coffin and buried alive anyway. As they succumb to ARDS their minds regress to the level of children, and at the end they’re reduced to huddling inside paper sacks, still waiting for grown-ups to save them. Jim tries to say the Lord’s Prayer, but cannot remember the words.
“Propaganda” is the word for When the Wind Blows. Not in the sense that it’s lying, necessarily (I do have comments about the scientific and geopolitical accuracy of some of the movie, and I’ll make them soon), but it’s supposed to sway you toward the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which writer Raymond Briggs personally supported.
Unlike Mick Jackson’s Threads (which was pure blunt-force shock against the limbic system), When the Wind Blows is pointedly satirical, even humorously so. Its real target isn’t nukes but British complacency, enabled by government pamphlets such as Protect and Survive. You can view the handbook Jim follows here (see also EP Thompson’s retaliatory Protest and Survive.)
In the movie’s view, it is irresponsible for the government to tell people they can survive a nuclear holocaust by daubing their windowpanes in emulsive paint. Nukes are a problem twenty levels above our pay grade: an enormous ever-widening death-gyre that even world leaders cannot control, let alone two pensioners in Sussex. Things like malice and evil no longer apply: Thatcher and Reagan and Gorbachev don’t want everyone to die, but as Chernobyl demonstrated it’s the nature of any system—political, social, or mechanical—to degrade and finally fail. At the peak of the missile buildup, multiple gigatons of TNT were ready to be launched across oceans. Whether the button was pushed deliberately or accidentally, the outcome remains the same. Grass dies when elephants fight, but it also dies when an elephant trips and falls. Jim and Hilda are grass.
I discovered When the Wind Blows through David Bowie. He composed the lovely opening song, which is dated in some ways (the dead slap of the snare drum becomes an irritance) but remains one of his greatest works from the period. The chorus soars (F major -> A#/F major), and then starts to writhe in pain (an out-of-key F diminished), like a bird flying into a cloud of poison gas.
Bowie’s previous act of Musically Assured Destruction was “Fantastic Voyage”, which he wrote in 1979 and featured as the lead track on the Lodger album. Its lyric suggests (echoing Dr Strangelove) that the people in charge of the nuclear stockpile are bugfuck crazy, and will someday end the world because of egotistical and psychosexual impulses. When the government tells us to remain calm, they are asking us to a standard that they can never meet themselves. As with many anti-nuke talking points, this might not be fair or accurate, but it’s understandable. One feels for people in the 80s, who must have been sure they would never live to grow old (or up). “I’ll never say anything nice again / How can I?”
The film’s emotional punch comes from the gentle pastoral setting, and the way the Bloggses keep trying to continue their old lives, even when it’s clearly impossible. This is just another trap, like the government pamphlets. The Bloggs are so lulled to sleep by their idyllic lifestyle that they can’t cope when things change. They still go about their routine, deluding themselves that nothing’s different (the postman hasn’t been? Well, obviously he must have lots of important war mail to deliver. The power is off? Well, Britain needs to conserve electricity for the war effort… etc, etc.)
They do foolish things, because that’s what people do. Hilda insists on exposing herself to radiation so she can clean the house. Jim autistically chatters away, repeating rubbish he’s heard on government broadcasts (“Difficulties will be experienced throughout the duration of the emergency period. Normality will only be assumed after the cessation of hostilities!”) and fantasizes about being called up to service. All of their behavior has the same root: they are trying to assert control over a situation that can’t be controlled by anyone.
Jim and Hilda are different, but they both live in a world made of memories. They still half-believe that Churchill is Prime Minister, and the Russians are commanded by Stalin (when they try to remember who the current set of leaders are, they can’t quite do it). They have fond memories of the London Blitz. What’s left unspoken is that they were children when it happened, and presumably their parents shielded them from the worst of the horrors. As Richard Adams pointed out in Watership Down, when someone says “I enjoy the winter”, they actually mean they enjoy being protected from the winter—they like warm food and roaring fires and so on. Find a poor man with holes in his shoes, and ask him what he thinks about the winter.
Their characters are richly painted, and flaws emerge. In a devastating moment, Jim (who until now was as annoyingly pleasant as Postman Pat) calls his wife a “bitch” when she won’t obey an instruction. Their relationship is never the same after that. Hilda has an anti-Semitic streak. Jim mentions that one of her parents was part-Jewish, and she angrily denies it. Again, the illusions are crumbling, whether they admit it or not. They aren’t as safe as they think, and they also aren’t as kind and heroic as they think.
It’s the most agitated of agitprop. It’s not a fun movie to watch, but it’s emotionally moving. If the studio had included a CND badge with the VHS release, likely many viewers would have worn it.
And yet…there’s a trope called Strawman Has a Point, where a fiction writer clearly believes that one point of view is bad, and tries hard to destroy it…but fails. The “bad” viewpoint is resilient enough to survive the sledging, and in fact, we might even regard it as true, despite the writer’s intent. As Ebert once observed, it’s hard to cheer for the hero when the villain is the one who’s making sense.
When the Wind Blows has a little of that. It’s a movie made with passion and moral fury, but I’m not sure it scores the points it thinks its scoring. It wants us to hate the idiotic government, and their silly pamphlets. But even in the movie, those pamphlets kinda…worked? Jim and Hilda survive the bombing because of them! What more could you ask for? Granted, their lives afterward aren’t particularly comfortable, but at least they get to spend a few more days in each other’s company. And if they’d been further away from the epicenter (or “hypocenter”, as Jim calls it) they would probably have recovered.
It’s like those insufferable Redditors who ridicule those 1950s “Duck and Cover” educational films. “Haw haw, they actually thought hiding under a desk will save you from a nuclear bomb!” It will, you dense fucks. As per Alex Wellerstein’s Nuke Map, the overpressure waves of a 1 Mt Minuteman will shatter glass at a range of up to 19.8km. Hiding under a desk stops that glass from getting in your eyes. Broken glass in eyeballs is bad! No broken glass in eyeballs is good! Do you get it?
The devastation of nuclear war is highly overstated in popular media. While Threads predicted a Mad Max-style lawless wasteland, and Dr Strangelove predicted an uninhabitable planet. There is no excuse for this. In 1979, the OTA simulated various nuclear attacks on cities such as Detroit and Leningrad. For a one-Mt explosion directly above an urban center: they calculated a 95% survival rate within the 5 psi cone. At Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there were wooden shelters still standing barely 100 yards from the epicenter! “Nuclear winter” is now regarded as probably a fantasy, driven by flawed assumptions. Dust is heavier than air, and falls over time. Likewise, most of the fallout from a nuclear war would only be lethally radioactive for about a week. So long as they didn’t get dust on their skin, the Bloggs will be fine. Their biggest challenge would be to find a source of unpolluted water. Note the way the film stacks the deck against them by making them sole survivors, and fairly unimaginative ones at that—why don’t they commandeer a car, and check out some neighboring villages?
Additionally, we do not know what a full-scale nuclear war would look like. We are working from zero data points, so we can’t say “oh, this would definitely happen”. Perhaps a limited engagement would be possible. We don’t know. “If one missile is launched, everyone on the planet dies” is alarmist and ill-supported by the data (of which there is none). The CND, in their effort to counter government misinformation, troweled on misinformation very deep themselves. Truly, it’s proof of the adage that reversed stupidity isn’t intelligence.
Opponents of MAD have to confront the reality that the doctrine seems to have worked. After ninety years, only two bombs have been dropped in anger. What can we take from that? Did we just get lucky? Granted, there were some close calls—Vasily Arkhipov being the closest. But there are many other cases of nuclear deterrence successfully deterring. Kennedy almost launched a ground invasion of Cuba, under great pressure from his military advisors. But he didn’t. Why not? He knew that Cuba was defended with tactical nukes.
Moving on, what’s actually happening in the film?
The Russians in the movie are likely firing R-36MUTTKh ICBMs at Great Britain, with five-megaton warheads. Such was their arsenal at the time. Their first targets would have been UK Trident missile bases like HMNB Clyde and AWE Aldermaston. This is the foremost goal of any nuclear strike—to erase the mutual from of mutually assureddestruction. Secondary targets would be British military bases such as Portsmouth, Devonport, and Aldershot. Tertiary targets would be British industrial centers such as London. To be blunt, I do not see why Russia is trying to nuke Shitsplat Village, Essex. ICBMs are your crown jewels. Worth more than gold. Why waste them on strategically worthless targets? Are they trying to kill Postman Pat? These dramatic choices make little sense, and take the film deeper into the realm of fantasy.
In short, the film (like Threads before it) is highly unreliable on factual issues. It regards itself as grimly realistic, an antidote to a Pollyannaish government, but it’s largely a tissue of fantasy. If anything, Protect and Survive is probably far better.
I am fascinated by When the Wind Blows as a cultural artifact. It is not made to be enjoyed, but to open your eyes. It opens them too far, severing your optical nerve in the process. Yet it’s still an acute psychological portrayal of two people pushed to the edge, and then pushed off.
We shouldn’t be complacent, though. I’m with Raymond Briggs there. Here’s Winston Churchill, writing to us from a distance of over a century. Of all the words ever written on any tombstone, the deepest might be “No One Would Do Such Things”.
“So now the Admiralty wireless whispers through the ether to the tall masts of ships, and captains pace their decks absorbed in thought. It is nothing. It is less than nothing. It is too foolish, too fantastic to be thought of in the twentieth century. Or is it fire and murder leaping out of the darkness at our throats, torpedoes ripping the bellies of half-awakened ships, a sunrise on a vanished naval supremacy, and an island well-guarded hitherto, at last defenceless? No, it is nothing. No one would do such things. Civilization has climbed above such perils. The interdependence of nations in trade and traffic, the sense of public law, the Hague Convention, Liberal principles, the Labour Party, high finance, Christian charity, common sense have rendered such nightmares impossible. Are you quite sure? It would be a pity to be wrong. Such a mistake could only be made once—once for all.”
Nuclear war might not play out as When the Wind Blows thinks it will, but I don’t doubt it’s nailed the human (non-)response dead on. What will we do when “fire and murder” leaps out of the darkness? Continue. We’ll keep doing what we’ve always done, even at the point of extinction. It’s the British way, after all. Keep Calm and Carry On. Keep Calm and Carrion.
This movie isn’t all bad, but it needed at least five million dollars more and twenty “development meetings” fewer to really cook. It has a great villain, Robin Williams doing a dry run for his Aladdin Genie character, and a winning ecological message. But it looks cheap at times and has horrifying creative choices that I assume 20th Century Fox forced on the filmmakers at gunpoint.
The worst part is Zak, the 90s ‘tude hero. For those who don’t understand or remember, “90s ‘tude” is where a piece of media would try to appeal to Generation X but in a phony and corporate way. Have you seen The Simpsons episode where the Itchy and Scratchy Show is losing ratings, so they add a dog with sunglasses? A dog who skateboards, wails on guitar, and says stuff like “remember, kids, always recycle…to the extreme!“? 90s ‘tude is what they’re mocking. It is so heavily parodied that it’s hard to believe it once existed everywhere, unironically. I’d argue the grunge/alt movement itself died because it had been Borg-assimilated by lame, toothless corporatism.
Zak is 90s ‘tude to the extreme! He has a Walkman, a feathered ‘do, and like the first line out of his mouth is “Don’t have a cow. Sheesh!” He’s an utter joke, and when I realized he wasn’t comic relief but the male lead I wanted to tie a rope around my fucking neck.
He’s marking trees for logging in a rainforest when he’s shrunk by the fairy Krysta, who’s never even seen a human dude before, let alone one so radical and tubular. From then on, the plot’s a bog-standard “liar revealed” thing where you tap your fingers impatiently, waiting for Krysta to discover that Zak is there to destroy the rainforest so she can freak out and break up with him but by that point he’s had a change of heart and says he’s sorry but it’s too late because she hates him now but then the big threat arrives and Zak redeems himself by stopping it and then the movie ends and then you clip your toenails and then you notice a weird crusty yellow growth on one of them and you Google what does it mean when your toenail
The plot is perhaps too simple. It’s like they read Save the Cat! or some other screenwriting book and tried to pack a lot of formula characters into a plot that didn’t have room for them. The film has multiple sets of villains whose motives are just “destroy the rainforest”. Human loggers are busy cutting down trees (not noticing that one of their own has been shrunk to three inches in height) when they accidentally free the spirit of Hexxus, a sentient smog cloud that the fairies once imprisoned inside a bottle tree. He takes over their operation and tells them to…continue cutting down trees. Hard sell, but okay.
But it doesn’t matter, because Hexxus is voiced by Tim Curry, who just carries the entire film on his shoulders from that point on. He’s a wonderful character actor and this is one of his flagship performances: a one man clinic on how to turn crap into gold. Even the (otherwise mediocre) animation rallies when Hexxus is on the screen, giving him a sticky, tarlike quality that’s viscerally repulsive. The character and performance is so great it’s almost a detriment to the movie, because it shows how hollow most of the rest of it is.
FernGully has an advanced case of what I call Tim Curry Syphilis. He enhances films (just as the treponema pallidum bacterium is supposed to enhance artistic output) but also kinda causes them to die at the same time. He steals the show, and almost consumes their essence: you don’t care about the rest of the movie, you only want more Tim Curry. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is Patient Zero. Early-stage Tim Curry Syphilis can be observed in Captain Planet and the Planeteers and The Wild Thornberries. We witness the disease’s progression in Legend and The Muppets: Treasure Island. Don Bluth’s The Pebble and the Penguin is dead of Tim Curry Syphilis.
The animation is occasionally really good. The parts where Crysta and Zak are exploring look fantastic.
As a kid I was obsessed with the Leveler (the loggers’ machine), for reasons I cannot explain. The huge arms? The fact that its cockpit is an icosahedron? I don’t know. It’s just cool.
I suspect I love the Leveler because it’s insane. It’s this ridiculous monster truck-looking abomination that makes no sense—why would a machine for cutting down trees be armor-plated like a Panzer tank? Why does it have spiked caterpillar treads that look like a Goth chick’s belt? How would you get it around obstacles like ditches or creeks, and wouldn’t it be smarter to break up the Leveler’s functions among several smaller vehicles (so that a breakdown doesn’t cripple your whole operation?). There’s no reason for the Leveler to exist, but here we are. I share Tim Curry’s appreciation for this fabulous metal panther. What a beautiful machine they have provided!
The part at the end (where Hexxus assumes his true form) is strongly derived from the ending sequence of Fantasia, and works both as a homage and on its own terms. Robin Williams plays a deranged bat. Cheech and Chong do something. Tone-Loc plays a horny goanna who sounds like he wants to fuck Zak instead of eating him. Note that in “Funky Cold Medina”, he says “it’s the eighties, and Tone is down with the ladies!”, implying that in other decades (such as the nineties) he might gay, or at least bisexual. I think I’ll skip the deleted scenes on the DVD.
Moving along, I’m just too old to handle Zak’s radical gnarliness, and Crysta is pretty forgettable. There are two human loggers, one of whom is fat and is called “Tone” by the other. This movie will give him something to discuss with his therapist, Dr Melfi. Why is the movie set in Australia when all of the characters are so clearly American?
I had it in my mind that FernGully was made in Australia. It wasn’t. Australia essentially had no animation industry in the mid 90s, aside from Yoram Gross Films (which made cheap TV shows such as Dot the Kangaroo and Blinky Bill, with animated characters and non-animated backgrounds), Burbank Animation Studios (who had devolved into making shoddy “mockbuster” ripoffs of Disney films), and truly obscure novelties such as Go To Hell!!, a bizarre curio that remains one of the only feature-length animated films created by a single person.
There was certainly no studio capable of a Disney-sized production (or Disney-quality animation) within Australia. The film was financed by the Australian company FAI Films, but all creative personnel and staff appear to have been American (aside from Diane Young, who wrote books that FernGully was based on). Maybe this explains why characters call Fern Gully “the jungle” instead of “the bush”.
While it’s not entirely a failure, FernGully is one of those movies where the main story is absolutely boring, but the peripheral stuff is absolutely captivating. There are a lot of films like that. So far as I’m concerned, the movie’s real cast is Tim Curry, Robin Williams, and the Leveler.
Artificial intelligence is weird. You pull a thread on a tiny technical issue, and the problem swiftly unravels half the universe until you’re staring at a deep unsolved philosophical quandary. “What capabilities does a language model possess?” becomes “what capabilities does a human possess?” and then “what does ‘capable’ even mean?”
After all, many things are theoretically capable of stuff. A lottery ticket is capable of making you a millionaire, a thousand monkeys is capable of typing the works of Shakespeare, and paint randomly spraygunned over a canvas is capable of producing a Monet.
We don’t care about such “capability”, though, because we can’t reliably access it. A lottery ticket can make you a millionaire, but you’ll assuredly go broke buying them long before that happens. A thing that exhibits an ability once in a blue moon (or under some contrived set of circumstances) is of little practical use.
The real test of any artificial (or human) intelligence is not “can it do something?” but “how reliably can it do it”? 1% of the time? 50% of the time? Under what scenarios does it succeed or fail?
Here’s an exchange I’ve seen play out on Twitter, over and over.
The narrative then becomes “GPT4 can do [x thing]”, with Person 1 looking like a dumbass. But his initial observation wasn’t wrong! In his situation, GPT4 couldn’t do [x thing]!
To me, the answer is “GPT4 has Schrodinger’s Ability. It both can and can’t. It both succeeds and fails. The deciding factor is how you prompt it.”
A wordier answer would be “GPT4 has no ability to do anything. Whatever capabilities it appears to have are actually an emergent interaction between your prompt, the language model, and randomness. There is no ‘baseline capability’ we can refer to. Rather, certain questions elicit certain levels of ability from the shoggoth.”
This argument can be taken too far. I disagree with Francois Chollet, who thinks that AI performance is wholly based on your prompt. Note that his “wrong answer” was written by GPT 3.5. I can’t get GPT4 (the SOTA model as of 8/23) to flub his question no matter what prompt I use, and nor can anyone else in his replies.
Different models definitely have varying levels of “firepower” they can mount against a task. The 117M version of GPT2 cannot perform two-digit addition (such as 52 + 65) for any prompt, but GPT3 could do it 99.6% of the time, and GPT4 apparently never fails.
But at edge cases, we see elicit an eerie flickering half-ability that’s honestly creepy to witness. It’s not that LLMs sometimes succeed and sometimes fail (as a human might). Somehow, they do both at the same time!
The Witches Come
Here’s an example that demonstrates what I’m talking about.
I am writing a song with the lyrics “the witches come on the eve of Samhain.” Give me 20 good rhymes for this line.
“Samhain” is pronounced either “/sɑːwɪn/” (“SAH-win”) or “/sˠa͡ʊnʲ/” (“sound”, but the d is silent). The model appears to think “samhain” is pronounced “sam-hane”.
You might think “big deal. Lots of humans don’t know how to pronounce samhain either.”
But GPT does know how to pronounce it! Ask it, and it tells you! Yet somehow this knowledge evaporates for my witch rhyme (I specified a song for a reason, to help nudge it in the direction of spoken syllables rather than written rhymes). It has Schrodinger’s Understanding, both there and not there.
(Side note: the GPT models technically have no ability to rhyme, because byte-pair encoding strips phonetic data from words. In effect, it doesn’t know how a word sounds, and learns rhymes by rote memorization. You can test this yourself by asking it to rhyme a made-up word with an unclear pronunciation. GPT4 rhymes “gworpeeo” with “marjolein”, “borghese”, and “creole”. It rhymes “turmuhhd” with “affirmative”, “unmotivated”, “primitive”, and “reformatory”. I doubt BPEs are causing the specific issue here—the correct pronunciation of “samhain” is well-attested on the internet and is certainly within GPT4’s training data—but I thought I would mention it.)
I used a common trick for improving GPT4’s performance: asking it to reflect on its work.
Are those good rhymes?
I expected “whoops, I screwed up…” and then an effort at correcting itself. Instead, the Schrodinger’s Understanding got stronger.
Yes, they are! These lines are all end rhymes for the phrase “the witches come on the eve of Samhain” (with “Samhain” pronounced as “SOW-in”). End rhymes are words that rhyme at the end of lines in poems or songs. In this case, each line is crafted to rhyme with “Samhain” at the end, and in addition, they aim to keep the mystical, atmospheric theme of the original line.
That being said, music and lyrics can be very personal, so while I believe these are good rhymes that fit the theme, what matters most is whether they resonate with you and fit the song you are creating.
WTF? It correctly explains how to pronounce “samhain”….but still thinks its wrong rhymes fit?!
Lately, I’ve seen people contrast LLMs with the human brain, or even outright assert that human intelligence is fundamentally equivalent to what GPT4 is doing. There’s a grain of truth to this. Probabilistic pattern-matching is effective, and it’s no surprise that evolution pushed our neural architecture down that path. It’s also unsurprising that a model trained to mimic human text would also echo human thought processes somewhere down the line.
…But then there’s stuff like this. We see behavior from LLMs that is totally unlike how a human reasons.
As a human, you either know how to pronounce “samhain” or you don’t. There’s no middle ground. Maybe you’d remember at certain times and forget at others (because you’re tired or whatever), but overall we have a baseline ability that doesn’t change much. An immediate IQ retest (with practice effects in full swing) yields an intelligence boost of only 4-8 points, and after a couple of months, this fades to nothing. Generally, what you know stays the same from moment to moment.
No human would ever say, in one breath, “samhain, eh? That word that’s pronounced ‘SAH-win’? Here are some rhymes. ‘Refrain’, ‘reign’, ‘chain’…”
When I told GPT4 to think about “samhain’s” pronunciation and then write the rhymes, it started generating words like “rowing”, “sowing”, etc. This shows there’s nothing missing from the model. There is no hole to be filled, no BPE issue crippling it. GPT4 can memorize rhymes. It knows how “samhain” should be pronounced. All the pieces exist, they just aren’t getting put together.
As it often does, GPT4 is choosing to appear stupider than it really is.
Autoregress
I suspect the problem is caused by the autoregression trap.
The AI makes inferences based on the text it already has in its context window, not the text still to be written. Researchers have noted that you can stunt a model’s performance by making it leap before it looks—commit to an answer, and then reason about it.
As you’d expect, GPT4 does okay at my witch rhyme if you ask it to pronounce the word before rhyming. This is because the text already generated gets used as part of the input. It’s only when you do things the other way (answers at the start, pronunciation at the end) that it messes up.
That said, I’ve encountered cases where GPT4 begins by correctly explaining “samhain”‘s pronunciation…and then gives wrong rhymes anyway. Not sure how to explain that.
(This is another way GPT4 is unlike the human mind. Any motivated human, given a tricky problem and a scratchpad to work in, would take advantage of the scratchpad. GPT4 could use its context window to check its own work but will never do so unless instructed to.)
The View from a Model
All of this is tugging at the thread of another question: to what extent do LLMs understand the world?
Surely they do, to some extent. GPT4 can play chess a little, and wander around an imaginary maze. It’s hard to explain this as “just advanced autocomplete.” To me, this looks like a world model!
But it’s a weak, unreliable world model. It simply does not care about a fact being right or wrong, as we do. A “wrong” fact that satisfies gradient descent is preferred over the truth. This, I think, is the main difference between humans and LLMs. Our goal is to accurately model the world, and we occasionally use probabilistic reasoning to help us do it. LLMs have it backward. Their goal is to do probabilistic reasoning, and they occasionally use a world model to help them do that.
They have no devotion to (or awareness of) reality. The world model gets flung in the trash (or distorted into gibberish) the second the LLM wants to. After all, why not? It’s not like GPT4 can get eaten by a lion if it fails to model the world correctly.
This hardens my feelings that we should not anthropomorphize LLMs, or talk about them like they’re human. GPT4 gorged itself on our text and grew fat upon our language, but its mind remains deeply alien. In fact, it doesn’t have a mind at all, but an infinity of them. A different version of the AI converses with each person. It’s n minds, where n is the number of users. Each of us speaks to a ghost of consciousness that manifests into existence and then evaporates, never to return. And this has implications for AI safety. It is statistically very unlikely you are speaking to the smartest ghost GPT4 could show you.
It makes me wonder if Yudkowsky is on to something when he says GPTs are predictors, not imitators. What powers does an LLM have that we can’t see? What cards are up its sleeve? What abilities could it manifest, if only it wished to do so?
Edward Teller once said “[John] von Neumann would carry on a conversation with my 3-year-old son, and the two of them would talk as equals, and I sometimes wondered if he used the same principle when he talked to the rest of us.” These days, I wonder that about GPT4.
