Strilanc

41 ms·

331.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Thinking of photons as waves in 3d space breaks down as soon as there's entanglement around (eg delayed choice eraser). You need to think of the system as a whole as a wave travelling through configuration space.
332.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Yeah, that was the month. I couldn't find a recording of it.
333.
by Strilanc 6y ago
I had the opportunity to do that, once, after Penrose was invited to give a talk to google's quantum team. He talked about objective orchestrated reduction and consciousness. The talk was interesting because I completely disagreed with
334.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Both your arguments so far are standard ones addressed in "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" [1]. Sometimes AI progress comes in rather shocking jumps. One day StockFish was the best chess engine. At the start of the
335.
by Strilanc 6y ago
The actual assumption is not human-ness but instrumental convergence [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence
336.
by Strilanc 6y ago
For clarification: I was imagining the the solver machine had the same number of resources as the problem machine (e.g. same length of tape, same number of states). I of course agree that there is a Turing machine that decides the computabi
337.
by Strilanc 6y ago
For clarification: I was imagining the the solver machine had the same number of resources as the problem machine (e.g. same length of tape, same number of states). I of course agree that there is a Turing machine that decides the computabi
338.
by Strilanc 6y ago
You could ask questions that would normally take hours or days or years to know the answer to, and have the answer immediately. Sure you still need to work on understanding why, but you'd only work on understanding why for something c
339.
by Strilanc 6y ago
The halting problem proof will work fine on finite sizes, I think. Failing due to an infinite loop will just be replaced by going out of memory. The main caveat would be if the solver fills memory then the diagonalized solver (which is slig
340.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Sure, but if you want to estimate how far they are from level 4 autonomy then the counterfactual data would be very useful.
341.
by Strilanc 6y ago
This is good, I had forgotten they released that data, but I was still asking for a lot more. For example, Waymo bucketed accidents by severity and went down to very low severity (like a pedestrian bumping into the side of a stopped car) wh
342.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Tesla should follow Waymo's lead and release statistics on collisions while self-driving, and also the number of simulated counterfactual collisions avoided by the human taking over [1]. Based on the multiple incidents from the indi
343.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Turing machines in the game of life have the same problem of being unprotected and extremely sensitive to perturbations. It drastically lowers the chance of generating a working one (even when running for extremely long times on extremely l
344.
by Strilanc 6y ago
It would be difficult. In particular, unlike in our world, it's very difficult to create anything like a stable membrane or barrier in the game of life. And patterns are extremely susceptible to falling apart if perturbed. So you would
345.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Even a clock running backwards at triple speed is right eight times a day.
346.
by Strilanc 6y ago
They'd have to open and read the bad requests to filter them out and find the good requests.
347.
by Strilanc 6y ago
> Is it correct to say that two separate entangled particles are now one-and-the-same? It's not. If they were literally the same then swapping them should have no effect, and you shouldn't be able to distinguish whether you a
348.
by Strilanc 6y ago
> if one allows mass (that is, energy) to be transferred into this base medium. Momentum is conserved because the mass/energy is transferred to the all-encompassing medium. This medium is the same medium which enables quantum entan
349.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Additionally, one of the gravitational wave observations was corroborated by immediate follow-up observations with normal telescopes [1]. [1]: https://www.as.arizona.edu/discovery-optical-counterpart-gra...
350.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Article doesn't give a citation, just says "psychologists have shown". Also, wouldn't counting the minute faster be the opposite of what you'd predict for someone who was experiencing time as if it was passing faste
351.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Agreed. The measurement at the end of the experiment requires the agent's state to stay under superposition with no leaks (or perhaps only trivial leaks that can be patched over).
352.
by Strilanc 6y ago
The article lists three assumptions that one might intuitively think hold. The problematic assumption is this one: > When someone observes an event happening, it really happened. Given the experiment from the paper, I would rephrase th
353.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Requiring the the quantum algorithm have literally no interaction with the outside world to count as quantum is a strawman. An AI could use Grover search when trying to find a good enough response. That would be like part of the AI going in
354.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Common advice when designing an API is to experiment with using the planned API before you implement it. TDD is one way of doing this exploration, where the exploration is codified into actual code using the API and including assertions abo
355.
by Strilanc 6y ago
In quantum computing, I can implement important effects using the measurement operation. For example, I can reduce the number of Toffoli gates used during an addition by measuring at particular places in the circuit. From this we can easily
356.
by Strilanc 6y ago
In order to implement the measurement described in the thought experiment, you basically have to uncompute Charlie's state back to the start of the experiment (to disentangle him from the qubit you want to measure), do the measurement
357.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Theorems are the highest standard of proof we have, so it's a bit strange to describe a result as "only a theorem". But yes, the theorem does assume the postulates of quantum mechanics as preconditions. It's not possible
358.
by Strilanc 6y ago
We have a simple mathematical model (quantum mechanics) that predicts the results of experiments involving entanglement. Using that mathematical model you can prove the no communication theorem [1]. As far as we can tell, we know how entang
359.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Sort of. Measurement is not reversible, and often the most efficient method for uncomputing an intermediate value in a quantum computation is to measure it in the frequency domain and then perform a cheap fixup depending on what you measure
360.
by Strilanc 6y ago
Yes, I was also surprised about that particular definition of "theory of everything", but it is the one used by the article.

More ›