Ayy, how apt.

And he and I can egg yours.
Round and round it goes~…

I took an entire week off for Rebirth, and the whole time was like “Whee! :D”

Ah, but here we have to get pedantic a little bit: producing an AGI through current known methods is intractable.

I didn’t quite understand this at first. I think I was going to say something about the paper leaving the method ambiguous, thus implicating all methods yet unknown, etc, whatever. But yeah, this divide between solvable and “unsolvable” shifts if we ever break NP-hard and have to define some new NP-super-hard category. This does feel like the piece I was missing. Or a piece, anyway.

e.g. humans don’t fit the definition either.

I did think about this, and the only reason I reject it is that “human-like or -level” matches our complexity by definition, and we already have a behavior set for a fairly large n. This doesn’t have to mean that we aren’t still below some curve, of course, but I do struggle to imagine how our own complexity wouldn’t still be too large to solve, AGI or not.

Anyway, the main reason I’m replying again at all is just to make sure I thanked you for getting back to me, haha. This was definitely helpful.

Hey! Just asking you because I’m not sure where else to direct this energy at the moment.

I spent a while trying to understand the argument this paper was making, and for the most part I think I’ve got it. But there’s a kind of obvious, knee-jerk rebuttal to throw at it, seen elsewhere under this post, even:

If producing an AGI is intractable, why does the human meat-brain exist?

Evolution “may be thought of” as a process that samples a distribution of situation-behaviors, though that distribution is entirely abstract. And the decision process for whether the “AI” it produces matches this distribution of successful behaviors is yada yada darwinism. The answer we care about, because this is the inspiration I imagine AI engineers took from evolution in the first place, is whether evolution can (not inevitably, just can) produce an AGI (us) in reasonable time (it did).

The question is, where does this line of thinking fail?

Going by the proof, it should either be:

• That evolution is an intractable method. 60 million years is a long time, but it still feels quite short for this answer.
• Something about it doesn’t fit within this computational paradigm. That is, I’m stretching the definition.
• The language “no better than chance” for option 2 is actually more significant than I’m thinking. Evolution is all chance. But is our existence really just extreme luck? I know that it is, but this answer is really unsatisfying.

I’m not sure how to formalize any of this, though.

The thought that we could “encode all of biological evolution into a program of at most size K” did made me laugh.

but there’s no reason to think we can’t achieve it

They provide a reason.

Just because you create a model and prove something in it, doesn’t mean it has any relationship to the real world.

What are we science deniers now?

Oh, I’m well aware.

I wrote up a long reply to someone who essentially said “emojis don’t add meaning” about how this willful, and I do mean willful, ignorance about a medium of communication is kind of like rejecting the invention of technicolor film for being a frivolous gimmick. It’s a silly position to have, and I might even argue anti-intellectual.

Buuut I didn’t want to seem like I was picking on the poor guy, so I didn’t send, haha.

ohmygod ilovethis

I’m not gonna go looking for scans or anything, but KnowYourMeme lists the popularity of this one as starting between 2013 and 2015, and I definitely remember seeing this phrase in a textbook around 2010 or 2011. So honestly, I might blame Pearson or McGraw Hill.

Okay so, this is a rhetoric problem.

This phrase here:

I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique.

You lost the crowd immediately. The thrust of Walz’ position is that people should be more aware of the ubiquity of genocidal thinking, and in your first sentence, you put yourself in opposition to him.

Even though you agree with Walz later in spirit, the immediate impression is that you’re downplaying other genocides by over-fixating on the shock and horror of this one in particular, and it takes you way too long to clear up your position.

If you had phrased this as “added context” or “an additional fun fact” or “some ways in which the holocaust was unique,” it becomes much harder to disagree with you. Your audience isn’t primed immediately to be angry, and you beget much more charitability, at least from those who aren’t insane.

Now thar be a question for the mushrooms.

Cum is produced for the orgasm, so the trick to a big load is to have like seven simultaneous orgasms.

You could start by setting up different porn videos for each of your eyes.

During the third or fourth time I was mad that 3D hadn’t taken off like technicolor, I though “fine! I’ll just look at trees and hallways in real life then!” And yeah, it kinda works.

There’s a lot of beauty in the world if you just, you know, look at it.

Yeah, Trump was mid-speech “here’s how we’re going to deport every single just-minding-their-own-business brown family from our country” when he got shot, too.

Not that that was why he got shot, but it does make all the handwringing funnier.

I think it’s funny you talk about revenge porn like it’s just so tiresome and tedious to think about.

“Oh, a hurricane struck Florida again.”
“Oh, there’s revenge porn of my neighbor’s daughter again.”
“What a terrible saturday.”
“Anyway, I think my toast is done.”

Imaginary grenades.

Having porn made of you is imaginary?

At some point the “it’s just a game” also stops holding water…

The video game doesn’t produce anything.

AI is not the cause for generating deep fakes,

DUIs can be reduced with public transportation. What do you propose reduces… porn fakes?

Ain’t it interesting how coming up with a consistent framework, makes it applicable to different areas of life?

Fucking lol.

My problem with machine learning porn is that it’s artless generic template spam clogging up my feed of shit I actually want to see. But you know, to each their own.

Exactly! I’m always complaining about the illiterate. I like to write them letters because I know it makes them sad.

I will let myself bleed out in a Safeway parking lot before installing McDonald’s stupid fucking app to get a 1.99 boiling hot coffee to cauterize the wound with.

How do you feel about negotiating the price of a new car down?

Personally, I think it’s really cool that people without social skills are charged more. It’s like “take that! ya fuckin loser.”

I read the first bullet point and immediately had a prophetic, future-sight vision of the comments before even scrolling down. I’m so sorry, man, haha.