drdeca

The contrivance is the conspiracy that it requires.

A theory that says that unicorns exist but only go places where no one will discover them (even though they aren’t invisible), is dumb.

A scientific theory should be compatible with experimentation.

I think 100% code coverage usually means that for every branch, there is some test that results in it going down that branch? Like, there’s no line of code (outside of potential exception handling code?) that isn’t “tested” by any test (where “tested” means “it gets run during the test”).

No? Superdeterminism says that there’s no way to pick your experimental choices in a way that reveals things because any possible random number sources you could use have contrived correlations that prevent that? Why would one ever consider that as “the default”?

Do you think if an LLM-based-program produced the natural language spec, based on interacting with (and maybe decompiling etc.?) a program, and then a human took that natural language spec and implemented it without using any further LLM assistance, that this could count as clean room?

Clearly some people use it in this sort of “how to do this small step” way.

http://neverssl.com/online/ seems to work for me?

Are you perhaps on an untrusted network which is spoofing that url to make it redirect somewhere else?

1) the “room temperature” bit did cause me to initially misread it in the way you describe, so you may be right about that.

2) it is specifically saying it is a magnetic semiconductor. The Wikipedia article on the topic says “ To date, GaMnAs remains the only semiconductor material with robust coexistence of ferromagnetism persisting up to rather high Curie temperatures around 100–200 K.” , so this would be something new. (The silicon chips in your smartphone are not ferromagnetic.)

Did you see the account of some group getting a bounty payout of $6500 after using an exploit to get access to an employee’s github account and create a issue or PR (Idr which) on a private repository?

Seems like they could have potentially gotten access to the weights if they weren’t concerned about not doing crimes.

You said “advocated mass murder via nuclear weapons”, which is false. That’s the thing that is relevant here, not how much you hate them.

Also, “sadist”? What?

This is a lie, so you are either repeating a lie from someone else or lying yourself.

The people you are talking about have not advocated mass murder via nuclear weapons. The idea was precisely targeted non-nuclear strikes against only the servers themselves. (Which, would have plenty of forewarning to allow people to leave the building.)

The claim that they advocated for the use of nuclear weapons is a lie.

Here’s an easier criterion: “Do at least as good of a job at estimating what I probably want as an educated person would estimate, and do that, such that a reasonable human person who was aware of what I requested and of what you actually did, would conclude that as best as they can tell (without checking back with me), you did what I wanted.” .

This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable requirement to me. People do this all the time?

Sure, a request might not always be perfectly unambiguous. But people can generally estimate pretty well whether someone making a request is expecting the agent fulfilling the request to commit a crime in order to fulfill the request.

They presumably meant non-zero total momentum. If the total momentum were non-zero, then the center of mass will be moving in a straight line, and will not return to where it began, and therefore the orbit would not be periodic.

What if the bombs were designed to kill everyone, not just those in some region? Like, to release polonium in the upper atmosphere or something?

Huh? Why bring up suffering? I was responding to the question of “Why is it a problem if people don’t understand things?” .

I was saying that human pursuit of understanding of things provides value beyond survival and resources.

Joint pursuit of a common goal is a way for people to better be-in-relation-with one-another.

There ought to be more to life than sitting in a pod receiving sufficient nutrients from a tube, even if there was no doubt that humanity would in this way survive until the sun expands and makes the earth uninhabitable.

My experiences with the DMV have actually been pretty decent. I think a lot of their negative reputation is from how it used to be, but that they have improved substantially since then?

By "every particle" do you mean like, every type of particle?

If you mean individual particles, fundamental particles don't really have distinct individual identities (as shown by fermi and bose statistics).

As for types of particles: Well, photons surely move at the speed photons move at.

Special relativity is derived from the assumption/observation that light travels at the same speed in all inertial reference frames, and generally that the laws of physics work the same in any inertial reference frame.

What you are proposing sounds pretty vague and unclear to me, but, is what you are trying to say compatible with this?

If that’s true, then why is capitalism still around? Should it have died out in a previous generation in which many products did last a lifetime?

Most of the time someone uses a urinal, they didn’t purchase it. The customer is different from the user in this case.

If you want to use “ZFC” to refer to the axioms without any rules of inference, I guess you can do that, but when someone refers to “ZFC” when they are filling a slot that needs a (axioms + rules of inference), the obvious interpretation is that they are referring to the usual system of ZFC.

ZFC

No, it is the same inference system. They are just abbreviations.

Within a given inference system, one can define concepts. This doesn’t add any axioms. It is, in essence, just a way to abbreviate things.

ZFC has greater consistency strength than PA.

If we take ZFC (or some other set theory) as our meta theory, we can easily see that the axiom of infinity (of ZFC) gives a set of natural numbers (using the von Neumann encoding), which, when equipped with the successor function, is a model of the natural numbers.

Current models can do a variety of tasks that requires substantial expertise for people to do, yes.

But there are also many cognitive tasks that the typical educated person would do better at than these models.

Like, e.g. long-term managing what a vending machine gets stocked with and what prices the items should be sold for. Or, various things like that.

When there are essentially no more tasks like that, then we’ve reached AGI.

I think the distinction between these options probably doesn’t matter alll that much if the threshold you’re using is either “random person” or higher? Maybe bump it up to “random educated person”?

They are still different concepts of course, but I imagine that once one is achieved, the others aren’t far off.

All I’ve been able to do is mentally tag parts of a shape as being at different “depths” (possibly with two parts at the same 3D location but tagged as having different “depths”). Which, yeah, I agree isn’t really visualizing a 4D shape. I think someone better at it than me might be able to use this to leverage one’s visual spatial intuition in a way that is a bit closer to what 4D visualization might be like if it were possible.

But I don’t think it is possible for us. At least, for strict senses of visualization. I suspect that the architecture of our brains doesn’t support it. This is rather speculative because I don’t know basically any neuroscience, but I wonder if the whole “the brain is largely a very wrinkled surface (though with several layers to this surface), and the retinas are also surfaces” may have something to do with this. A retina in a eye-4-ball would have a 3D boundary (I.e. hypersurface), and I imagine that the amount of information that it would take in if it had an at all similar angular resolution, would be too great for our visual cortex to be able to represent all of it.

Of course, our vision only really has the high resolution it seems to everywhere in the narrow region we’re directly looking at, but still.

> while ai is micro level spice & heat that doesn't especially conscious to the ingredients, just that chemistry appears magical.

Huh? Do you mean “isn’t especially conscious of the ingredients”?

Though, that interpretation seems confusing, because it seems to be meant to be contrasting with “macro slicing dicing stacking them” which doesn’t sound more attentive to what the ingredients are than “micro level spice and heat”.

So, I’m having trouble understanding. (This might be a me problem.)

What? No, they were correct; the world ended in 2012.

Nothing in acknowledging those perverse incentives requires that one misleadingly use the word “correct” in place of “effective”.