ajkjk

30 ms·

571.
by ajkjk 1y ago
If it was easy to have a target we'd have had the revolution by now. That's why it's taking so long: no one's quite sure what to do about it. My money's on "social revolution where we all destroy our TVs and un
572.
by ajkjk 1y ago
But the question we're asking is why the price of cars went up. "Inflation" isn't an answer. Inflation is what we call the price of cars going up. It still happens for a reason...
573.
by ajkjk 1y ago
No way. I mean, yes, but the magnitude changes. People are way less social today than they were even ten to twenty years ago.
574.
by ajkjk 1y ago
I hate that I live in a world where people get a dog because socialization is so broken and a nameless interaction at a park is among the barrel-scraping interactions people are doing to cope with it. Like if it's gotten that bad we sh
575.
by ajkjk 1y ago
sure, but it is still very hard to wrap one's head around how the value of a function can be independent of ZFC, and how it could not be for (e.g.) 642 but then be true for 643. That was the point of my post. It seems like you could
576.
by ajkjk 1y ago
I'm saying that if you want to understand why Gödel's theorem is true, look at the one-paragraph proof based on the halting problem, not the like 20-page one with Gödel numbers.
577.
by ajkjk 1y ago
no it's not, that's a bureaucratic hoop-jump
578.
by ajkjk 1y ago
Yeah, but the vexing part is "how can that be true for e.g. N=643 but not N=642"? What happens at whatever number it starts true at? Incidentally, Gödel's theorem eventually comes down to a halting-like argument as well (we
579.
by ajkjk 1y ago
That is the standard argument for why BB is uncomputable for general n, but it's not the same as why BB(n) would be independent of ZFC for fixed n.
580.
by ajkjk 1y ago
I am aware it's an infinite tape and finite state (maybe I misspoke somewhere), as well as the halting machines using finite tape (because of course they do). But the overall 'complexity' (at a timestep, say) is going to be d
581.
by ajkjk 1y ago
Not an expert, but I've read about this a bit because it bothered me also and I think this is the answer: Most of these 'uncomputable' problems are uncomputable in the sense of the halting problem: you can write down an algor
582.
by ajkjk 1y ago
... Because of the shoving
583.
by ajkjk 1y ago
dunno if this will ever be for me, but it was a great read.
584.
by ajkjk 1y ago
yes
585.
by ajkjk 1y ago
"why was it" and "was it" both, though...
586.
by ajkjk 1y ago
you've latched on to some academic sense of the term but I understood exactly what the person you're replying to meant. They mean: are these people you would respect and trust to be in charge of things? What would they do? And a l
587.
by ajkjk 1y ago
Well, you won't find anyone who disagrees with you here. No such morality is being discussed. The job of a system of morality is to synthesize all the things we want to happen / want to prevent happening into a way of making decis
588.
by ajkjk 1y ago
heh. It would not be an overstatement to say I've been working on better putting the issue with the rationalists into words for ten years. glad it's resonating with some people.
589.
by ajkjk 1y ago
the correct answer is probably that it could contain infinite of any of these things, but you don't know which one it's going to be a priori, and you get one shot to be right.
590.
by ajkjk 1y ago
I see it as moral action with a skill issue, which is how I see a lot of bad things in the world. People are very good at missing the forest for the trees. In their defense they do try to do the calculations: is a high-paying job okay on
591.
by ajkjk 1y ago
> If $100 can save 1 life 10 blocks away from me or 5 lives in the next town over, what kind as asshole chooses to let 5 people die vs 1? The thing about strict-utilitarian-morality is that it can't comprehend any other kind of mora
592.
by ajkjk 1y ago
That's not a mistake I'm making. Assuming you're talking about bog-standard effective altruists---by (claiming to) value the suffering of people far away as the same as those nearby, they're discounting the people around
593.
by ajkjk 1y ago
yeah, my model of the "us before them" question is that it is almost always globally optimal to cooperate, once a certain level of economic productivity is present. The safety that people are worried about is guaranteed not by max
594.
by ajkjk 1y ago
um.... because I think it's true and relevant? I'm describing a pattern I have observed over many years. It is of course my opinion (and are not a universal statement, just what I believe to be a common phenomenon).
595.
by ajkjk 1y ago
(Thank you) I agree, although I do think that the rationalists and EAs are way better than most of the other narrowband groups, as you call them, out there, such as the Metaverse or Crypto people. The rationalists are at least mostly legi
596.
by ajkjk 1y ago
not to be too cynical here, but I would say that the most-apt description of the rationalists is that they are people who would say they are constantly looking for updates to their models. But that they are not necessarily doing it appre
597.
by ajkjk 1y ago
Here's a theory of what's happening, both with you here in this comment section and with the rationalists in general. Humans are generally better at perceiving threats than they are at putting those threats into words. When someth
598.
by ajkjk 1y ago
I mean... none of mine, that's for sure, nor am I expecting to get in trouble for anything I've said in the past. I don't customarily do things I wouldn't be okay with somebody finding out about, and if did find somethin
599.
by ajkjk 1y ago
What are you talking about? Entropy doesn't tell us that at all. Entropy tells us how much data is encodes between two ways of describing a value. It has nothing to do with time at all.
600.
by ajkjk 1y ago
normal English would be "Why does Claude Code feel like magic?" edit: or "Why Claude Code feels like magic" without the ?.

More ›