staunton

6 ms·

31.
by staunton 1y ago
Again, sure. However, this is still looking at things at the timescale of millenia at best. In my original comment, I was claiming that biological evolution is not relevant for this: > as people and societies become wealthier and better
32.
by staunton 1y ago
Genetics isn't all that matters. Things like malnutrition (and a lot more things) very much also do.
33.
by staunton 1y ago
Sure, I never claimed otherwise. What I'm saying is that evolution matters across large timescales. By contrast, I believe the topics I was commenting on concern timescales where effects of biological evolution are negligible compared
34.
by staunton 1y ago
Humanity is changing so quickly nowadays, biological evolution most likely doesn't matter at all anymore, at least for the kind of questions and time scales you're discussing.
35.
by staunton 1y ago
A test of what?
36.
by staunton 1y ago
This is a lot of text, details and hair splitting just to say "modeling things like this is bullshit". It's engaging "seriously" and "on the merits" with something that from the very start was just marketi
37.
by staunton 1y ago
When you've read that passage in the math book twenty times, you eventually come to the conclusion that you understood it (even if in some rare cases you still didn't). When "struggling through" a philosophy book, that d
38.
by staunton 1y ago
It's always a question of what precision you want. For really any physical system, when describing it at ever greater precision, more and more effects become relevant until you can't calculate it anymore (or even your theory its
39.
by staunton 1y ago
> a whole subset of problems Like what? In my experience, 95% of the times I'm considering applying SAT/SMT to a problem, I should actually think about it for another day (perhaps while throwing a SAT solver at it, if that seem
40.
by staunton 1y ago
If it can be fixed, any civil engineer would clearly prefer to fix it rather than tearing it down and rebuilding it. This is still not a noce analogy because tearing down a bridge is just expensive (and maybe unnecessary). Tearing down a po
41.
by staunton 1y ago
Indeed. For offline use, a good inscribed rock can still go a long way: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/heuristics-that-almost-alwa...
42.
by staunton 1y ago
Havimg "democracy and rule of law" isn't a question of yes or no, it's a matter of degrees on several only partially aligned axes. Something like that can slowly shift. You make it sound like "our democracy was neve
43.
by staunton 1y ago
It doesn't have to be new to get worse and be important as a consequence of this stuff...
44.
by staunton 1y ago
"Being all about ideas" implies that whether someone has a Nobel prize should play a very small role when evaluating an idea. If the idea sounds implausible, it's OK to say so, no matter whose idea it is. Some people will sti
45.
by staunton 1y ago
It was about the phrase "the standard model", which doesn't specify what "extensions" are implied. You seem to think it means "no extensions" to a somewhat arbitrarily chosen step of the evolution, which
46.
by staunton 1y ago
> Could you help me with which variable we should focus on? I'm not sure what you mean... I'm not asking anyone to focus on anything?! The answers I linked suggest several different numbers, e.g. 19, 25, 26, I've heard peo
47.
by staunton 1y ago
See https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/172846/free-para... for the other options.
48.
by staunton 1y ago
I'm saying that the standard model is evolving and there's no authority or institution that gets to definine what "the standard model" means. All of this is completely reasonable. Maybe it can evolve forever to accommoda
49.
by staunton 1y ago
Ok, how many free parameters are in the standard model? Ask five random physics professors, insist on an answer while declining to answer questions for clarification. I guarantee you get at least two answers, maybe three (that's assumi
50.
by staunton 1y ago
At this point, "the standard model" basically means "state of the art particle physics without highly speculative stuff". People tell me that neutrino masses are part of the standard model now... So if the standard model
51.
by staunton 1y ago
How complex are the ideas held by a single neuron?
52.
by staunton 1y ago
The gamma burst probability is something we can quantify (it's tiny). (And it's something we can do absolutely nothing about, so it's not worth worrying about). Nobody can predict how soon a technology will plateau. People ma
53.
by staunton 1y ago
I'm not saying they can do it today. I'm saying there's no ruling out they might be able to do it soon.
54.
by staunton 1y ago
> people will continue to write “make the logo a square where every point is equidistant from the center” requirments. Why wouldn't the AI deal with that the same way human developers do? Follow up with questions, or iterate require
55.
by staunton 1y ago
You could go further and say that anything a computation could ever possibly do is a matter of using logic to arrive at a conclusion given just the right rules and axioms. That would mean anything going beyond that (potentially "sent
56.
by staunton 1y ago
4. We don't actually have a coherent concept of what "reasoning" means in general. Same for "hallucination"...
57.
by staunton 1y ago
> the Bourgeoisie[2], the people who own the means of productions > Within the bourgeoisie, you can distinguish: [...] Managerial class [...] non owners who control labor Contradiction?
58.
by staunton 1y ago
However, it might kill you and other people at any moment, so be ready for that intervention...
59.
by staunton 1y ago
If most people don't work (or most people's work contributes only a small fraction of the economy), where do they derive their political capital that gives them any social welfare at all? Why would the powerful AI overlords owned
60.
by staunton 1y ago
Is it? I thought the "neural differential equations" stuff sounded cool, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_differential_equation Don't know if it's been used for anything practical yet but mode

More ›