breuleux

19 ms·

211.
by breuleux 3y ago
Maybe, but that's not interesting. It is possible that the physics inside are different from the physics outside, but that tells us absolutely nothing of value about whether we are in a simulation or not. If we do assume that an ob
212.
by breuleux 3y ago
The probabilistic simulation argument ("we are probably in a simulation") actually requires you to reject that assumption (edit: not reject outright, but you need the assumption that observers of the real and simulated universes
213.
by breuleux 3y ago
I think this is a much harder problem than you make it seem. A tree no one is looking at, sure, you can take shortcuts, but if I'm not looking at my computer, it still has to run my programs and you cannot approximate its answers. If
214.
by breuleux 3y ago
I suppose it could in theory, but it probably wouldn't do so very well. In general, you can't simulate physics on physics faster than physics, so non-approximate simulation of the universe would probably run several orders of magn
215.
by breuleux 3y ago
> if that waste would consist solely of heat that could be dissipated to the outside of the sphere (we're still discussing the Dyson Sphere structure) If we build a Dyson sphere, I very much doubt we would live inside of it. We&#x27
216.
by breuleux 3y ago
> The ability to suddenly boost the efficiency of our electrical grids by 8-15% would not solely solve the problems our species currently causes for itself, but it would help a ton. That's far from clear. If our grids are 8-15% more
217.
by breuleux 3y ago
> Imagine a power-grid that no longer loses power to electrical resistence in the wires. From what I can see the power loss is in the 8-15% range. It'd be awesome to save that, but it's not game changing, and you have to take i
218.
by breuleux 3y ago
Arrogant smartasses often put more effort into having their genius recognized than they do in being correct, and that often... works. Loud and aggressive people take as much credit as they can and they make sure everyone knows, so they gene
219.
by breuleux 3y ago
> Think how we can build construction equipment thousands times stronger than any animal's muscle. And yet the mantis shrimp can throw a punch faster than a bullet. Nature does not optimize for the same things we do. Animals did not
220.
by breuleux 3y ago
> On the other hand, an AI that in some sense ‘understands’ its own structure, which is to us almost entirely a black box, might be able to do much better. True... but is this a plausible capability? I don't mean in practice. I mean
221.
by breuleux 3y ago
I think it's an important unanswered question whether intelligence really is the bottleneck for many of the things that require it. Is the production of better and better computer chips really bottlenecked by the intellect of the desig
222.
by breuleux 3y ago
I do think that there is also a "bitter lesson" in optimization: simple optimizations are usually more effective, robust and powerful than complicated ones. Also, optimization becomes progressively harder as the system trends to o
223.
by breuleux 3y ago
It seems to me that the bitter lesson is a counter-argument of sorts to intelligence explosion: the idea that stacking more layers is more effective than trying to be really clever about it may well persist through all levels of intelligenc
224.
by breuleux 3y ago
Past a certain reach, of course they do. Besides, sensationalism is how you get eyeballs, all outlets are subject to this pressure and it has nothing to do with funding. There is generally no reason to trust small outlets more than large ou
225.
by breuleux 3y ago
Or nearly every small outlet, YouTuber, podcast and independent blog. They, too, are trying to be profitable, after all.
226.
by breuleux 3y ago
I'm not going to judge you, or anyone else, for doing what works best for yourself. I'm going to say one thing, though: I would appreciate it if car owners were a bit more conscious of the externalities of their way of life. When
227.
by breuleux 3y ago
Well, can't we at least acknowledge that this is a problem? I don't believe I've said anything beyond that: I think it's a problem that people don't have available daycares that they can walk to and I think we shoul
228.
by breuleux 3y ago
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The fact that so many parents live so far from available daycares that they need to drive to them is not ideal. It is a problem worth solving and there is no fundamental impossibility in
229.
by breuleux 3y ago
I don't see what this has to do with capitalism. There are a dozen daycares at a walking distance from where I live, it's hardly a big ask.
230.
by breuleux 3y ago
> Why do people insist on lowering the standard of living? As someone who lives in a dense city, other people's cars are lowering MY standard of living. Can't cross in the middle of the street. Can't enjoy that nice terrac
231.
by breuleux 3y ago
A car is progress for the car's driver, but it is a regression for everybody else: cars are loud, dangerous and they take insane amounts of space. In sparsely populated regions, sure, that is not a big deal compared to the upsides, but
232.
by breuleux 3y ago
I would argue that the root problem here is: why are there no daycares within walking distance of you? In an ideal world you would neither drive nor bike to it, you would just walk. Surely the large distances that parents have to go to get
233.
by breuleux 3y ago
My statement still stands. If you ask me to do hard drugs with you, I will say no. Does that mean I value my physical and mental integrity over our friendship? YES! I absolutely do. It is perfectly fine to value certain things over friendsh
234.
by breuleux 3y ago
Someone does not have to understand your idiosyncrasies to be your friend. Most people will not, in fact, understand why you are so picky about the chat platforms you are willing to use, and they will think (correctly, I would say) that you
235.
by breuleux 3y ago
My understanding is that the profits are accumulated in a cash/low-risk investment reserve, which serves several purposes: hedging against the ~100B of debt they apparently hold, ensuring smooth operation in a downturn, and also enabli
236.
by breuleux 3y ago
The Apple hardware tax is arguably what funds the development of these suckers.
237.
by breuleux 3y ago
> People just have to learn that media is dead and they can’t trust anything anymore. That is easy enough. What is difficult is to teach people they cannot just trust the people who tell them what they want to hear. > Hopefully honest
238.
by breuleux 3y ago
The "basic functionality" may just be more complicated than intelligence. Intelligence and language are relatively new capabilities built on top of older, better honed ones, so it shouldn't necessarily come at a surprise that
239.
by breuleux 4y ago
Sometimes. But it's not magic. You still have to determine what the added value is. First, most jobs are not creative. If you have a job where you are told what to do (that is most jobs) and an AI could do it for cheaper, it is a net w
240.
by breuleux 4y ago
> With code and art generation, a single individual has never had more capability to make something by themselves. That is nice and all, but let me put it this way: if it costs you three cents in computing power to have AI write the nece

More ›