d4rkn0d3z

Put this together using AI. Questions, comments, feedback, and hurled invective welcome.

We need pedagogy to displace ignorance and fear.

Soon, very soon, there will be no way to discern the output of AI from that of a human, just as there is no way to determine whether I added two numbers by hand on paper manually, or I pushed the "+" on my calculator, given only their sum. Would you refuse to read an article if someone used a calculator to obtain results? What about numerical integrations? Would you refuse to read a book because a printing press made it? Perhaps books should have labels that say "WARNING this book was printed by a machine".

What if over the next few decades, science is creatively destroyed; no more science remains that isn't in some way produced using AI. I'm quite critical in using these tools but I'm not a Luddite.

I thought the word "artifact" gave a clue, so much for subtlety. Is there a reflexivity to avoiding AI?

Isn't that in the text above? Seems clear enough, no? I mean it wasn't like I asked how the day was going, there was significant prompting.

I had an interaction with chatGPT that I thought was fun and interesting for three reasons:

1) There could be something novel about this, even if it's just the way it all hangs together.

2) If not, then it could be mundane but consistent output which is encouraging, with respect to previous interactions.

3) It could be wrong but then it is quite convincingly so, I have not yet checked the details.

Do you agree? Tell me what you think?

Geometry is fundamental, period.

It might be better to think about what a horse is to a human, mostly a horse is an energy slave. The history of humanity is a story about how many energy slaves are available to the average human.

In times past, the only people on earth who had their standard of living raised to a level that allowed them to cast there gaze upon the stars were the Kings and there courts, vassals, and noblemen. As time passed we have learned to make technologies that provide enough energy slaves to the common man that everyone lives a life that a king would have envied in times past.

So the question arises as to whether AI or the pursuit of AGI provides more or less energy slaves to the common man?

A better anology would be a virus. In some sense LLMs, and all other very sophisticated technologies, lean on our resources to replicate themselves. With LLMs you actually do have a projection of intelligemce in the language domain. Even though it is rather corpse-like, as though you shot intelligence in the face and shoved its body in the direction of language, just so you could draw a chaulk outline around it.

Despite all that, one can adopt the view that an LLM is a form of silicon based life akin to a virus and we are its environmental hosts exerting selective pressure and supplying much needed energy. Whether that life is intelligent or not is another issue which is probably related to whether an LLM can tell that a cat cannot be, at the same time and in the same respect, not a cat. The paths through the meaning manifold contructed by an LLM are not geodesic, they are not reversible, while in human reason the correct path is lossless. An LLM literally "thinks", up is a little bit down, and vice versa, by design.

An LLM creates a high fidelity statistical probabistic model of human language. The hope is to capture the input/output of various hierarchical formal and semiformal systems of logic that transit from human to human, which we know as "Intelligence".

Unfortunately, its corpus is bound to contain noise/nonsense that follows no formal reasoning system but contributes to the ill advised idea that an AI should sound like a human to be considered intelligent. Therefore it is not a bag of words but a bag of probabilities perhaps. This is important because the fundamental problem is that an LLM is not able, by design, to correctly model the most fundamental precept of human reason, namely the law of non-contradiction. An LLM must, I repeat must assign nonvanishing probability to both sides of a contradiction, and what's worse is the winning side loses, since long chains of reason are modelled with probability the longer the chain, the less likely an LLM is to follow it. Moreover, whenever there is actual debate on an issue such that the corpus is ambiguous the LLM becomes chaotic, necessarily, on that issue.

I literally just had an AI prove the forgoing with some rigor, and in the very next prompt, I asked it to check my logical reasoning for consistency and it claimed it was able to do so (->|<-).

A bad thing with some positive side effects is not a good thing. Wildfire is bad, too frequent wildfires will turn forest into savannah. I didn't see where this part of the analogy was discussed.

Again stopping the execution of the handler based on an ID is not idempotency, but rather a corrective measure due to the fact that the handler is not idempotent. Idempotency is a property that says the handler can run as many times as I like, as diametrically opposed to the notion that it can run only once.

We are saying the same thing using different words. I view this as a strategy for dealing with a lack of idempotency in handlers with a great deal of overhead. So I guess I would call it a non-idempotency key since a handler that is not idempotent will necessarily use it. I think this strays too close to a contradiction in terms.

And most people problems are math problems.

I agree, this whole thread seems to turn the concept of idempotency on its head. As far as I know, an idempotent operation is one that can be repeated without ill-effect rather than the opposite which is a process that will cause errors if executed repeatedly.

The article doesn't propose anything especially different from Lamport clocks. What this article suggests is a way to deal with non-idempotent message handlers.

Time can also be viewed as a length.

Yes of course, not only can we but it makes everything so much easier.

It is interesting that we can measure absolutely every physical quantity in units of length and that our best gravitational theory is based on manifold curvature characterised by an infinitessimal line element. This suggests that ultimately the universe may be geometric in nature with, at least from our perspective, a fundamental length (area) scale at which very simple geometric rules operate ad infinitum to produce all of the emergent complexity we observe. On this view, we live in a fractal, we are patterns at scale that do not appear to arise obviously from the fundamental rules, but we do so arise.

The above entails that the speed of light is not quite constant, but rather energy dependent; c=f(E). The variation would be very small so detecting this is challenging. Myriad observational hurdles may prevent us from ever detecting such small variations but there are many reasons to posit such a model, most quantum gravity theories do so.

Yes, just took a few seconds.

It is of course a very well known result.

Not sure why all the down votes.

Here is a thought; Instead of using F=ma, use the equations of motion from GR:

================================================================================ SCHWARZSCHILD METRIC AND GEODESIC EQUATIONS OF MOTION (SUMMARY) ================================================================================

I. THE SCHWARZSCHILD METRIC (g_uv)

The spacetime geometry is defined by the *line element*, ds^2, which relates coordinate changes (dt, dr, d(phi), etc.) to physical distance or proper time: ds^2 = g_uv * dx^u * dx^v

For the Schwarzschild vacuum solution, the line element in the equatorial plane (theta = pi/2) is: ds^2 = -(1 - r_s / r) * c^2 * dt^2 + (1 - r_s / r)^(-1) * dr^2 + r^2 * d(phi)^2

The corresponding non-zero metric components (g_uv) are: g_tt = -(1 - r_s / r) * c^2 g_rr = 1 / (1 - r_s / r) g_phiphi = r^2

Where: r_s = 2 G * M / c^2 (Schwarzschild Radius)

The Lagrangian L for the geodesic path is constructed directly from the metric: L = (1/2) * [ g_tt * (dt/d(lambda))^2 + g_rr * (dr/d(lambda))^2 + g_phiphi (d(phi)/d(lambda))^2 ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. CONSERVATION LAWS (FROM EULER-LAGRANGE EQUATIONS)

A. TIME EOM (Conserved Energy E) Since the metric is time-independent, the quantity conjugate to t is conserved: *Specific Energy (E)*.

EQUATION (1): Time Evolution d(t)/d(lambda) = E / ( c^2 * (1 - r_s / r) )

B. PHI EOM (Conserved Angular Momentum L_z) Since the metric is symmetric with respect to phi, the quantity conjugate to phi is conserved: *Specific Angular Momentum (L_z)*.

EQUATION (2): Angular Evolution d(phi)/d(lambda) = L_z / r^2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. RADIAL EQUATION OF MOTION (FROM THE METRIC CONSTRAINT)

The radial EOM is derived by imposing the metric normalization condition (g_uv * u^u * u^v = epsilon).

A. MASSIVE PARTICLES (Mass m > 0) The proper time (tau) is the affine parameter (lambda=tau), and the normalization is epsilon = c^2. The final EOM is: (dr/d(tau))^2 = E^2/c^2 - V_eff^2

EQUATION (3M): Radial EOM (Massive) (dr/d(tau))^2 = E^2/c^2 - c^2 * (1 - r_s/r) * ( 1 + L_z^2 / (c^2 * r^2) )

B. MASSLESS PARTICLES (Mass m = 0) The normalization is epsilon = 0. The final EOM is: (dr/d(lambda))^2 = E^2 - V_eff^2

EQUATION (3P): Radial EOM (Massless / Photon) (dr/d(lambda))^2 = E^2 - (1 - r_s/r) * L_z^2 / r^2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. SUMMARY OF GEODESIC EQUATIONS OF MOTION (EOM)

The motion of any particle (massive or massless) in the Schwarzschild spacetime is determined by the following three coupled first-order differential equations:

A. TIME EVOLUTION: d(t)/d(lambda) = E / ( c^2 * (1 - r_s / r) )

B. ANGULAR EVOLUTION: d(phi)/d(lambda) = L_z / r^2

C. RADIAL EVOLUTION (Specific): 1. Massive Particle (using d(tau)): (dr/d(tau))^2 = E^2/c^2 - c^2 * (1 - r_s/r) * ( 1 + L_z^2 / (c^2 * r^2) )

2. Massless Particle (using d(lambda)): (dr/d(lambda))^2 = E^2 - (1 - r_s/r) * L_z^2 / r^2

================================================================================

This also holds for a non-rotating black hole.

Does the EU assume criminals are brainless?

First, suppose two child pornographers get together and agree on a set of word substitutions that remove the key words and phrases deemed suspect. Now the authorites are scanning chats about flowers being planted, or birds being watched, etc. that are actually about targeting victims. Then the only detected uses of suspect words and phrases are accidental. If the authorites learn the new lingo the perpetrators will evolve it.

The only child pornographers that will be caught are the very stupid ones but they would have been caught by other less invasive means.

Meanwhile, the mass surveilance will destroy the free market. Imagine having to negotiate contracts when every business is a global corporation that knows what colour underwear you are wearing from scanning all of your chats. That means every business has a permanent information asymmetry in its favour, in every economic transaction you will ever make. Try to negotiate the purchase of a car, home, and so forth.

It would seem the end of freedom is nigh, listen for the sound of cheering and applause.

Isn't it obvious that mass surveilance only works on those who can be kept ignorant of it? If people know about surveilance then their behaviour is altered. How do entire nations and groups of nations fall for nonsensical plans like chat control.

The idea of chat control is to combat child vicimization by setting authorities on impossibly costly, technically insane strategies that can be thwarted by a high functioning chimpanzee.

What am I missing?

The title should be, "GrapheneOS jumps from frying pan to fire".

- 99.9999%

Wow! That's a great many indeed. Can you just name 1 though? Just 1?

Let's start with fire, certainly making and controlling fire is a skill that uses knowledge, a "technology". Go from there, try to find one technology that did not find itself in the service of power, for consolidating resources, etc..

Don't get me wrong, I think might, both intellectual and physical, should serve the purposes of benevolence and valour. I'm not complaining, I'm taking note of reality.

Here is a program for avoiding insanity:

1) Always listen to your rational adversary, repeat their arguments back to them to their satisfaction rather than in caricature.

2) List facts; states of affairs that are not in dispute. Adduce no fact in isolation.

3) Form the strongest version of your rational counterparts' argument.

4) Apply reason faithfully to analyze.

5) Lather rinse repeat.

It seems the above is the best humans have every been able to do, it is child's play that we somehow forgot, maybe because we labelled it as something obscure like "the scientific method" or "legal process". I think this is as simple as "follow your nose".

The list of technologies that have not become a front for consolidation of resources and power appears below:

The real formal procedure:

dy/dx = g(x)f(y)

Let h(y) = 1/f(y)

=> dy/dx = g(x)/h(y)

=> h(y) dy/dx = g(x)

Now, we integrate both sides,

int h(y) dy/dx dx = int g(x) dx

But the left hand side is the same as

int h(y) dy by substitution rule of integration.

Therefore,

int h(y) dy = int g(x) dx

Proceed with solving now, no abuse since the substitution rule is provable. QED

"Normal" is what people are until you get to know them. I like genuine wierdos and freaks.

It's not hard to build an internet that serves the people but nobody will pay you to do it, and if you are so brazen as to do it yourself then you will be investigated, harrassed, arrested, and beaten. Having been visited with every sorrow short of death, you will beg for death.

Incidentally, in the above quote Merlin is speaking on behalf of the committee of animals to the King.

"We find that at present the human race is divided politically into one wise man, nine knaves, and ninety fools out of every hundred. That is, by an optimistic observer. The nine knaves assemble themselves under the banner of the most knavish among them, and become "politicians". The wise man stands out because he knows himself to be hopelessly outnumbered, and devotes himself to poetry, mathematics, or phylosophy; while the ninety fools plod off behind the banners of the nine villians, according to fancy, into the labyrinths of chicanery, malice, and warfare. It is pleasant to have command even over a flock of sheep, and that is why the politcians raise the banners. It is, moreover, the same thing for the sheep whatever the banner. If it is democracy, then the nine knaves will become members of parliament; if fascism, they will become party leaders, if communism, commissars, the result is still exploitation. As for the wise man his lot is the same under any ideology. Under democracy he will be encouraged to starve to death under garret, under fascism he will be put in a concentration camp, under communism he will be liquidated." -- Merlin