tomiant

Look, AGI would require basically a human brain. LLMs are a very specific subset mimicking a (important) part of the brain- our language module. There’s more, but I got interrupted by a drunk guy who needs my attention, I’ll be back.

Getting Smarter AI < Making More Money

Is there more money in smarter AI or in manipulating people’s voting patterns with the tools you’ve got?

I saw Suck at Trump’s inauguration, I didn’t see this Chinese feller there.

Right. My “marriage”. It’s the costume that’s the problem.

Those are the prettiest ones! Like, sunflowers!

Age = experience = wisdom = badass

I just use AI!

It solves so many problems.

And introduced so many more.

But it solves them too.

And so on.

I feel like that about life in general.

I’m not sure how well this works, I upvote the effort, but for someone who’s eye deprived, they’d have to click on the post, and then have their screen reader read through all the comments, before they get to your one describing what’s even going on.

Honestly I would love to know what the % of people who take part in piefed.social use screen readers. It has to be in the 0.2% percentile, and that’s conservative I think.

Had me in the first half.

“We are the good guys tho, no worries.”

/ That One Country

Ice cold reference! I never heard anyone else reference that one in regards to You Will Die In Remarkable Ways II.

You’re a fucking spring blossom and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Oh sorry, you’re on mobile? Then just use Firefox with uBlock Origin if you don’t already, and it should take care of it, if not you may want to subscribe to the “Annoyances” lists.

The planck length and planck constant are both ultimate computational constraints on physical interactions, with planck length being the smallest meaningful scale, planck time being the smallest meaningful interval (universal framerate), and plancks constant being both combined to tell us about limits to how fast things can compute at the smallest meaningful distance steps of interaction, and ultimate bounds on how much energy we can put into physical computing.

The word “meaningful” does a lot of heavy lifting there. What does that mean? Do things which exceed the limit become meaningless? Because I was thinking, since we cannot know the future, as best as we could ever do is to approach infinitely close to the future, but never actually pass it*, because it hasn’t happened yet, and thus is unknowable. Like an event horizon. Not only on the macroscopic, but also microscopic scale there seems to be a limit beyond which all inquiry, or escape as it were, becomes possible as a matter of some sort of gravitational geometry.

Again, I want to stress I have no idea, I’m just an enthusiast so sorry if my musings make no sense, I appreciate a lot you taking your time with me and all of us to talk about this, so I’m just happy to be here.

Thanks for the cool graphics, they make sense!

*Just like you can’t escape the singularity once you’re bound. Same same but different! A transistor flipping a bit is a calculation.

A transistor flipping a bit is a calculation.

It is an “action”, a passage of time, an action in time, quantified somehow, a single unit of the passage of time? Like a photon is both a wave and a particle but neither and both at the same time? So how does one measure that, and more importantly, what goes on in the immeasurable space meanwhile? Particles jumping in between space and time and shit, everywhere, nowhere. The Universe is a very naughty place and has a gambling problem.

is a calculation

The word “is”, is a problematic word. Are things only calculations? Who is doing the calculating? What is calculating what? Calculation implies intention, as far as I am concerned. Or inevitability! Some form of mechanical causal chain that just plays out the movements it is predestined to play out and free will is an illusion which it very well might be, I don’t know where I was quite going with this, we should start a podcast I’m sure we’d be great.

The neurons in my brain firing to select the next word in this sentence sequence from the probabilistic sea of all things I could possibly say, is a calculation.

I hear ya!

Pascals triangle directly governs the amount of microstates a finite computational phase space can access as well as the distribution of order and entropy within that phase space.

I see!

Each microstate is statistically probability weighted based on its entropy/order. Entropy is a kind of ‘information-theoretic weight’ property that affects actualization probability of that microstate based on location in pascals triangle

The future can be predicted? To what degree of certainty? Can it be fully predicted?

the planck length or at a time interval smaller than planck time will cost more energy than the universe allows in one area

Fair enuf.

Sounds kind of like an event horizon. Like. You know, if you want to travel faster than light, you need infinite energy to get there. Or something like that. I get the feeling that the Universe is simultaneously the largest and the smallest thing that exists. Kind of a weird position to be in when you think about it, because the Universe is infinitely vast, but it is also infinitely small, down to quarks, bosons, or strings, or whatever. Like it’s, well, expanding, elastically, in both directions at once. Would you agree?

actualized bit of distinction

Mhm. Mmyes. Quite so, quite so.

Our ability to talk about abstractions is tied to how complex they are to abstract about/model in our mind.

Cool.

The cool thing is language evolves as our understanding does so we can convey novel new concepts or perspectives that didn’t exist before.

Is it enough to express it all? What would that mean? If we knew all the laws, would we be able to perfectly predict the future?

deleted by creator

“Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a looong time…”

Seen all of’em, friend! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvjgIxuVdo4

Yeah I learned about it just yesterday!

edit: …annnd Toki Pona to you, too!

Its impossible to ever know whats beyond this horizon boundary. similarly,black hole event horizons share this property of not being able to know about the future state of objects that fall inside.

Similarly. That’s exactly what I was thinking. I mean, we can see a resolution of within 300000 years of the creation of the Universe, or something like that. That too, becomes a sort of an event horizon. I’m not saying this is the case, but it kind of rhymes if we were within some sort of bubble on “the other side” of a supernova resulting in a black hole. I mean, even by our own physics, matter is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed only transformed. So, it could be that, in my mind, the Big Bang was an “inverted supernova/black hole” event. I think someone called it a “white hole”. But again, I’m just completely speculating, but it’s super interesting to me as someone who just has a passion for learning and understanding and trying to figure out things myself based on the tremendous works of all the giants upon whose shoulders I stand and squint at the horizon!

Edit:

A cosmologist would say they are different phenomenon but from an information-theoretic perspective these are fundamentally indistinguishable Riemann manifolds that share a very unique property.

I don’t know exactly what you just said, but I understood PERFECTLY what you just said.

Edit{2}:

They are geometric physically realized instances of uncomputability which is a direct analog of godelian incompleteness and turing undecidability within the universes computational phase space.

I am amazed that I understand what you are saying.

Edit{3}:

The universe is a finite computational system with finite state system representation capacity of about 10^122 microstates according to beckenstein bounds and Planck constant. If an area of spacetime exceeds this amount of potential microstates to represent it gets quarantined in a black hole singularity so the whole system doesnt freeze up trying to compute the uncomputable.

Did you write this, genuinely? It is pure poetry such that even Samurai would go “hhhOooOOooo!”.

And it is so interesting, because, what you are talking about sounds a lot like computational constraints of the medium performing the computation. We know there are limits in the Universe. There is a hard limit on the types of information we can and cannot reach. Only adds fuel to the fire for hypotheses such as the holographic Universe, or simulation theory. But for me, personally, I believe that at some point our own language breaks down because it isn’t quite adapted to dealing with these types of questions, as is again in some sense reminiscent of both Godel and quantum mechanics, if you would allow the stretch. It is undeterminability that is the key, the “event horizon” of knowledge as it were.