Search Ideas

“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”

What? You’re rambling.

Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else.

This stance is known as relativism. It’s bad. Popper, Deutsch, and several others philosophers have already refuted it. You’re advocating an outdated idea.

There’s an objective way to form a rational preference for one idea over another. Veritula explains that in the idea you criticize.

What's bad in being irrational?

Irrationality leads to stasis, unhappiness, and ultimately death.

“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”

What? You’re rambling.

irrational

What's bad in being irrational? Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense. How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing? And what if you can't? In general: why not considering each judgement, as a true one? Let's talk about that: each person has it's own experience, which you will never live thru, and from their personal perception of this reality, their point absolutely have right to make sense. Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else. Could you prove that that person actually live in the same world you do? How you can be sure that everything you know make sense, and next moment you will not wake up, saying: what a weird dream I saw! How you would measure a truenesslessnessless, how can you expect that successful strategy will not fail next day? Let's touch the ground for a moment: what we ACTUALLY know about us, and the place where we are? If you like me, you know about this world only two things:
1. the World is such so it's existence, essence, the law, a form of being -- inevitable leads to appearing there of you;
2. and you, wonderfully, has an ability -- to perceive an experience, live thru time and flow of entropy, learn, learn something about your own existence, beingnesslessnessless, learn about limit of own ability to learn -- marvelously comprehend something despite all of that, something, or maybe, at least, one -- for sure -- the World is such the place you know about for sure exactly one thing -- whereinit thisnesslessnesslesssness of is allows to exist in it the you one, who able to perceive and comprehend it. And that's it. Everything behind that -- our imagination. But you are here, and I respect it, and welcoming you. So I'm totally open to trust any story of your own perspective on this journey, because: who I am to judge, what is true. And it's okay for me if you are not or notn't.
3. Because things here always falls into two items: the ones which lands in first or second.
4. And the rest ones.

irrational

What's bad in being irrational? Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense. How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing? And what if you can't? In general: why not considering each judgement, as a true one? Let's talk about that: each person has it's own experience, which you will never live thru, and from their personal perception of this reality, their point absolutely have right to make sense. Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else. Could you prove that that person actually live in the same world you do? How you can be sure that everything you know make sense, and next moment you will not wake up, saying: what a weird dream I saw! How you would measure a truenesslessnessless, how can you expect that successful strategy will not fail next day? Let's touch the ground for a moment: what we ACTUALLY know about us, and the place where we are? If you like me, you know about this world only two things:
1. the World is such so it's existence, essence, the law, a form of being -- inevitable leads to appearing there of you;
2. and you, wonderfully, has an ability -- perceive an experience, live thru time and flow of entropy, learn, learn something about your own existence, beingnesslessnessless, learn about limit of own ability to learn -- marvelously comprehend something despite all of that, something, or maybe, at least, one -- for sure -- the World is such the place you know about for sure exactly one thing -- whereinit thisnesslessnesslesssness of is allows to exist in it the you one, who able to perceive and comprehend it. And that's it. Everything behind that -- our imagination. But you are here, and I respect it, and welcoming you. So I'm totally open to trust any story of your own perspective on this journey, because: who I am to judge, what is true. And it's okay for me if you are not or notn't.
3. Because things here always falls into two items: the ones which lands in first or second.
4. And the rest ones.

irrational

What's bad in being irrational? Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense. How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing? And what if you can't? In general: why not considering each judgement, as a true one. Let's talk about that: each person has it's own experience, which you will never live thru, and from their personal perception of this reality, their point absolutely have right to make sense. Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else. Could you prove that that person actually live in the same world you do? How you can be sure that everything you know make sense, and next moment you will not wake up, saying: what a weird dream I saw! How you would measure a truenesslessnessless, how can you expect that successful strategy will not fail next day? Let's touch the ground for a moment: what we ACTUALLY know about us, and the place where we are? If you like me, you know about this world only two things:
1. the World is such so it's existence, essence, the law, a form of being -- inevitable leads to appearing there of you;
2. and you, wonderfully, has an ability -- perceive an experience, live thru time and flow of entropy, learn, learn something about your own existence, beingnesslessnessless, learn about limit of own ability to learn -- marvelously comprehend something despite all of that, something, or maybe, at least, one -- for sure -- the World is such the place you know about for sure exactly one thing -- whereinit thisnesslessnesslesssness of is allows to exist in it the you one, who able to perceive and comprehend it. And that's it. Everything behind that -- our imagination. But you are here, and I respect it, and welcoming you. So I'm totally open to trust any story of your own perspective on this journey, because: who I am to judge, what is true. And it's okay for me if you are not or notn't.
3. Because things here always falls into two items: the ones which lands in first or second.
4. And the rest ones.

Getting Bryan Caplan to write a blurb for Aaron’s book was the worst thing Aaron could have done to promote its values. Caplan is a clown who believes in freedom for children except when it comes to math, which he thinks children need to be forced to learn because it’s important. Real poison. See #1051.

What's awesome about LLM is how easy it became to do an interdisciplinary meta-analysis.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347205807031

What is awesome about LLM is how it it became easy to do an interdisciplinary meta-analysis.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347205807031

What is awesome about LLM is how it it became to do an interdisciplinary meta-analysis.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347205807031

Most ridiculous are takes about so-called Turing test, which, AFAIK, originally was just a bad misogynic joke. Some kind of evolutionary psychology experiments, which people already have set up to study limits of different animals cognitive abilities and abilities to make judgements (e.g. role-playing, like: what ones know about other know about them, and vice versa), or a development of infant children's abilities to interpret concepts like geometry of space, cause and consequence -- would be way better criteria for the AGI system metrics evaluation.

Since the carrier language is the fundament, I'm stuck significantly in attempts to elaborate this topic deeper. https://x.com/VictorTaelin did a huge progress in this direction, I believe, but I know no details. Disappointingly few people working on this around the world (though, it could change quickly with modern trends). The next small step -- not only representation of knowledge and reasoning about it, but compression and knowledge synthesis (which LLM in it's way doing not so bad, but not so consistently and effective), thru AIXI. Then -- epistemic framework, like NARS, to learn from real-world empiric experience. And only then -- complex game theory/goal setting/economics/interaction with, and interpretation of other's behavior. And only after that -- there's make sense to discuss consciousness, as an introspection of other's observation/interpretation/modeling.

The Beginning of Infinity

Heard about it, have not read though. I do not expect AGI from LLM. But it's an awesome tool that helps speed-up learning, research and prototyping. And also all this hype accelerate some money to this topic, which is good. Indeed, if natural intelligence possible, why artificial -- can not? According to the roadmap, I more trust in good old-fashioned symbolic AGI and formal methods. NARS + AIXI + elegant dependent modal or substructural (maybe homotopic) typed programming language with strong meta-theoretic properties, as a carrier of observations, knowledge and judgments + a bit of game theory and evolutionary psychology = this is the way, I believe.
And maybe some tricky computational non-von Neumann architecture to have a nice computational complexity for that (not sure about that, but plausible it make sense to utilize some sort of analogous computations in addition to digital ones).

The Beginning of Infinity

Heard about it, have not read though. I do not expect AGI from LLM. But it's an awesome tool that helps speed-up learning, research and prototyping. And also all this hype accelerate some money to this topic, which is good. Indeed, if natural intelligence possible, why artificial -- can not? According to the roadmap, I more trust in good old-fashioned symbolic AGI and formal methods. NARS + AIXI + elegant dependent modal or substructural (maybe homotopic) typed language with strong meta-theoretic properties + a bit of game theory and evolutionary psychology = this is the way, I believe.
And maybe some tricky computational non-von Neumann architecture to have a nice computational complexity for that (not sure about that, but plausible it make sense to utilize some sort of analogous computations in addition to digital ones).

The Beginning of Infinity

Heard about it, have not read though. I do not expect AGI from LLM. But it's an awesome tool that helps speed-up learning, research and prototyping. And also all this hype accelerate some money to this topic, which is good. Indeed, if natural intelligence possible, why artificial -- can not? According to the roadmap, I more trust in good old-fashioned symbolic AGI and formal methods. NURPL + AIXI + elegant dependent modal or substructural (maybe homotopic) typed language with strong meta-theoretic properties + a bit of game theory and evolutionary psychology = this is the way, I believe.
And maybe some tricky computational non-von Neumann architecture to have a nice computational complexity for that (not sure about that, but plausible it make sense to utilize some sort of analogous computations in addition to digital ones).

And with LLM came to our live -- the path from the vision to [AGI] -- become notable closer…

Have you read any David Deutsch, or listened to any interviews of him? The Beginning of Infinity is very good. You might enjoy chapter 7, where he explains why chatbots don’t bring us closer to AGI.

This article of his is also good.

Let me know what you think of his stance.

I have a new Services page where you can hire me for software engineering, philosophy consulting, and more: https://dennishackethal.com/services.html

Hello, and nice to meet you. Your twit https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2031465139401093501 bring me here.
It seemed relevant to my curiosity about AGI topic, so since I believe in synergy and want to be surrounded more by such context, signed up to the website, just in case.

If you interested to discuss and share some AGI-relevant thoughts, I'm in, just let me know. Not a professional at this topic (just an average software engineer), but investigated topic for quire a while, so, I believe, have something to put on the table. And with LLM came to our live -- the path from the vision to the result -- become notable closer, so, who know, maybe we can really bring something beautiful to life.

Hello, and nice to meet you. Your twit https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2031465139401093501 bring me here.
It seemed relevant to my curiosity about AGI topic, so since I believe in synergy and want to be surrounded more by such context, signet up to the website, just in case.

If you interested to discuss and share some AGI-relevant thoughts, I'm in, just let me know. Not a professional at this topic (just an average software engineer), but investigated topic for quire a while, so, I believe, have something to put on the table. And with LLM came to our live -- the path from the vision to the result -- become notable closer, so, who know, maybe we can really bring something beautiful to life.

Welcome to Veritula, Edgar. I recommend reading this guide to learn about Veritula and rationality.

Also, one of our many discussions could be a starting point for you to join our discourse.

What brings you to Veritula?

Welcome to Veritula, @netsu. Check out this guide to understand how Veritula works and learn more about rationality. You may also find one of our discussions interesting.

What brings you to Veritula?

Welcome to Veritula, Phillip. I recommend reading this guide to understand how Veritula works.

Nice article on Popper and Deutsch. You attribute to Popper “the idea that truth is difficult to attain, and that we can only ever get closer to it.” You imply that we cannot fully reach truth.

Do you have some quote/citation where Popper says something to that effect?

How to tell a serious epistemologist from a hobby epistemologist: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2031465139401093501

A ‘supersession’ isn’t some special flag in the system – it’s just another criticism that can be countercriticized. So I hesitate to implement special functionality for ‘special’ criticisms.