Activity Feed
Another way to approach AGI? (Very early, preliminary thoughts.)
Say you write an evolutionary algorithm, like the ones that have been written before. Then DD would argue it’ll get stuck because all it can do is explore a given landscape for its best features. Whereas real evolution creates new landscapes.
To address this issue, you subject your algorithm itself to variation and selection, by wrapping it in another evolutionary algorithm. But this approach just kicks the can down the road because now it’s the space of programs that’s limited.
How do you break out of this limitation?
You can’t just keep wrapping your programs in evolutionary algorithms like that because that only keeps kicking the can down the road. It’s like adding more and more entries to a multiplication table. It’s not the same as a multiplication algorithm. But for evolution, the problem is harder, in a way, because not even recursion solves the issue, and the starting point wasn’t as ‘flat’ as a multiplication table. The starting point is already an algorithm, not just a list.
What’s needed, in DD’s lingo, is a jump to universality. But a jump to what kind of universality, exactly?
cc @tyler-mills
#4974·Tyler Mills, 5 months agoI've been thinking about the principle that principles should not or do not admit of exceptions, else they are not principles. Yet, I've thought, we seem to not abide by this, even with something as fundamental as freedom of speech. We make exceptions for calls to violence, doxing, etc.
But I've (somehow only) just realized that those are not what we might call "standalone exceptions" -- they are overlaps with other principles, those of non-initiation of force and privacy, in this case.
So we can say: principles do not admit of exceptions, but if there is more than one principle in the system, one's exception can be another's enforcement. Which is not an inconsistency. Then the question is, which one is the higher priority? Maybe this is where the court system comes in. (I don't know much about politics).
One answer could be that the more fundamental principle wins.
#4977·Tyler Mills, 5 months agoAre pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
I think you may be giving these stances too much credit.
There’s something to be said about people who have a high time preference also often being pacifists or socialists. But that may have more to do with the constellation of ideas in that particular memeplex than logical sense.
For example, compromise increases disappointment right away since nobody involved gets what they want, and they realize this immediately when the compromise is made.
Are pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
Not if personhood requires literal explanatory universality, in the sense of: can create any explanation, since there are explanations which can only be created by a Turing complete system..., surely.
I've been thinking about the principle that principles should not or do not admit of exceptions, else they are not principles. Yet, I've thought, we seem to not abide by this, even with something as fundamental as freedom of speech. We make exceptions for calls to violence, doxing, etc.
But I've (somehow only) just realized that those are not what we might call "standalone exceptions" -- they are overlaps with other principles, those of non-initiation of force and privacy, in this case.
So we can say: principles do not admit of exceptions, but if there is more than one principle in the system, one's exception can be another's enforcement. Which is not an inconsistency. Then the question is, which one is the higher priority? Maybe this is where the court system comes in. (I don't know much about politics).
Welcome to Veritula, Brad.
Feel free to chime in on one of the existing discussions to get started: https://veritula.com/discussions
We also have a Telegram channel you’re welcome to join. I can send an invite.
What brings you to V? What are your main interests?
Interesting insight from TheBentist on Instagram. He’s a dentist making a new toothpaste.
He says cavities are caused by a bacterium called strep mutans. A popular misconception says cavities are caused by sugar. That’s not exactly right: strep mutans feeds on sugar and then ‘poops’ out an acid that corrodes your teeth. But sugar itself does not cause cavities – it only feeds strep mutans that’s already there.
The thing is, people aren’t born with strep mutans in their mouths. And they don’t get it from food. They get it from other people who already have it. Like when parents kiss their kids or share food. I’m guessing things like ‘double dipping’, sharing utensils, or drinking from the same bottle are especially problematic.
TheBentist made a toothpase called ‘Zero Pro’ that supposedly kills strep mutans. Conventional toothpastes just scrub it off your teeth. Zero Pro is said to actually kill it. So my understanding is that you could never get cavities again as long as the strep mutans is dead.
That would also eliminate the need for mouthwash, which he calls a ‘scorched-earth approach’ that kills a lot of good bacteria.
Fact-check me on this stuff. I’m not a dentist myself. I’m not giving any medical advice. But this toothpaste sounds interesting and promising to me. Somebody is actually thinking about the root cause of oral disease, and trying to fix it rather than find ways to live with it.
How to tell you’re ahead, objectively:
This comprehensive playlist of Karl Popper videos is sure to have some videos of his you haven’t seen: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIQtm033Fi_N1ZCu2ElpqrJ_pXNWLk3WW
Simple Refutation of David Deutsch’s ‘Hard to Vary’:
Beating procrastination is simpler than you think:
Rereading some of BoI and I noticed some passages missing citations.
For example, chapter 12:
… [P]hysicist Ernst Mach (father of Ludwig Mach of the Mach–Zehnder interferometer), who was also a positivist philosopher, influenced Einstein, spurring him to eliminate untested assumptions from physics – including Newton’s assumption that time flows at the same rate for all observers.
Citation needed. Where and when and how did Mach influence Einstein? How does Deutsch know this?
That happened to be an excellent idea. But Mach’s positivism also caused him to oppose the resulting theory of relativity, essentially because it claimed that spacetime really exists even though it cannot be ‘directly’ observed.
Need to quote Mach opposing Einstein. It would have to be something to the effect of: ‘I disagree with Einstein about spacetime because it can’t be directly observed.’
Mach also resolutely denied the existence of atoms, because they were too small to observe.
Where did Mach say that? Specifically, how does DD know Mach denied atoms “resolutely”? If there are no primary sources, maybe there are some secondary ones? Skipping some:
… [W]hen the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann used atomic theory to unify thermodynamics and mechanics, he was so vilified by Mach and other positivists that he was driven to despair, which may have contributed to his suicide…
Need a quote by Mach showing how he vilified Boltzmann, and another showing that Boltzmann was indeed driven to despair.
We could just take DD’s word for it and assume he’s right on all of these counts. But we can’t know for a fact. Without citations, it’s harder for us as readers to verify these claims. Maybe DD used citations and just didn’t specify them. Or maybe he didn’t use any in the first place and just went off memory, which is error prone.
A contradiction in The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch? 🤔
Steve Jobs was a good writer.
He wrote clearly and simply.
Anyone can understand him.
From https://x.com/WebDesignMuseum/status/2049544240213196807
You probably missed this in The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gTvuzxY-SXg
Follow me on Instagram for more fitness tips: https://www.instagram.com/lets.recomp/
#4900·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 months ago‘Are all our ideas false? 🤔’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrQ9lrYGObc
#4891·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 months agoOur ideas can be 100% true in the sense of absolute truth. It’s possible to come up with true ideas. There’s no criterion of truth to tell that they’re true, but they can still be true.
#4863·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoNice work on #4856. Sounds like you’re one of the few who get DD’s stance re creativity.
I don’t think you’re in the Veritula Telegram channel yet. Email me if you want to be: dh@dennishackethal.com
Thanks! Creativity is one of the most interesting ideas in DD's philosophy. If you come across any articles or resources on it that you've found helpful, I'd love for you to send them over.
I'm actually in the channel, just haven't been very active.
Nice work on #4856. Sounds like you’re one of the few who get DD’s stance re creativity.
I don’t think you’re in the Veritula Telegram channel yet. Email me if you want to be: dh@dennishackethal.com
#4856·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 6 months agoI think the core of universal creativity isn't about efficiency, it's the open-ended capacity to restructure what counts as a problem, a solution, and relevant data. Creativity is (at least partially) the ability to reformulate the problem space itself, not by ironing out implications of existing theories. An AI and computational systems is already good at ironing out the implications in our language and existing knowledge systems. But that's search within a given space, not the creation of a new one. Creativity seems to work on a higher level. It's operating at the level of problem framing, which requires things like relevance. An AI can't create new relevance, because its weights are a statistical compression of what humans have already found relevant. It inherits a frame; it doesn't generate one.
I think this shows that tractability can't do the work the bounty asks. Tractability is defined relative to a fixed problem space. But universal creativity is (at least partially) the capacity to restructure the space, to change what counts as a problem, a solution, and relevant data.
Hi Mike, welcome to Veritula. I’m Dennis, the founder.
Take a look at the discussions for any topics that might interest you.
You can also participate in bounties.
What brings you to V?
#4771·Dennis Hackethal revised 7 months agoSome people think if they’re hungry that means they’re losing fat. I think that’s wrong.
You can eat a single meal at Cheesecake Factory for 2500kcals and be hungry again an hour later.
Or you can eat low-calorie foods throughout the day and not get very hungry until it’s actually time to eat again.
Some people might have trouble reaching their maintenance calories if they ate nothing but chicken breast, boiled potatoes, and broccoli for a day. They’d feel very full throughout the day.
I don’t expect much correlation, if any, between how satiating and how calorically dense some food is.
The good news for people who enjoy volume eating is that you can eat a lot while losing fat as long as you do it right. That means foods high in fiber and/or water (again, potatoes) and lean proteins. Vegetables generally work well.
The most important thing for fat loss is a calorie deficit, not hunger. Hunger is not a reliable indicator that you’re losing fat. You could be losing fat without being hungry, or you could be gaining weight while being hungry often.
Don’t go off of feelings. Count calories, macronutrients, and fiber, and weigh yourself to track progress.