keepmesmall

Why save cycles today if you can borrow tomorrow?

Doesn't the "enough control" part come from the Internet's addiction factor?

As in, wouldn't software designed to work just as well without constant Internet "solve" this?

Does China have something like the Cuban sneakernet, or is there a clear reason why that wouldn't work there?

But sufficiency is observer-dependent.

"This is my (IMHO sufficiently simulated) love for you!"

Where I live road law is about safety, not about "attitude correction". Culture is the thing that fosters positive attitudes and respect. You really think cyclists are trying to bully you when they run a light?

What's the limit, skateboards with license plates? Why not subdermal RFID implants to catch people jaywalking? I mean, in the end a human body is just another vehicle for consciousness.

We have people that jump in front of your car without paying any attention to their safety, almost begging to be hit. Informally we call them "jaywalk terrorists". Their ignorance is a harsh punishment by itself, to them.

Inner alchemy feels like that as well!

"AI? Well, I'm still trying just to reach human intelligence!"

I don't understand why people so seldomly go straight for the knowledge. It seems pretty obvious by now that knowledge is the key itself. Though subjective sciences like Kabbalah help.

I'm not sure "I was raised not to rat on friends" holds up in court.

It's a lot harder to kill a pedestrian with a bike than with a car, though. Cars are a lot more lethal than bikes, and most countries have road designs that are bike-hostile. You have to be a very assertive and alert cyclist there to not get hurt.

That is to say, consideration and respect goes both ways.

If the routers have public keys it's possible, then the client has to determine (some or all points on) the route. I think future protocols will track use and payment via client-provided keys which are somehow linked to their ISP.

To me it seems to be caused by the technological imbalance caused by DRM. If people have social media clients that are wholly in their control (to e.g. integrate a bunch of different personas, platforms, and to have total control over the privacy aspects) the double-bind will dissipate, as mastery over your social media is no longer against the law.

IMO law should forbid social media platforms from employing DRM altogether. Their monetization scheme will eventually adapt and Facebook and Google's financial situation is none of my conern.

The societal facade without computers at least requires a semblance of common sense, good manners and physical health.

The destination IP could be hidden opportunistically?

Send the destination IP for high-priority requests and retry without the destination. Low-priority/long-latency requests would always hide the destination.

... I can't articulate why, but I feel even this introduces a very large amount of hidden complexity. It solves efficient routing and freedom in part, but does not consider privacy.

Any assurances that this won't seriously disturb the earth's ecology and human health, or do we no longer bother with that when manipulating the whole planet?

I was hoping for a Hellraiser-looking network of pins sticking into the skull, but they actually sew right into the brain-skull membrane!

Why exactly is this necessary? Does this fulfill an existing need or does it require a few decades of dystopia before reaching maturity?

Pizzagate and Qanon are not conspiracies, they are theories about conspiracies. A conspiracy theory is just a non-mainstream body of information describing a system of political entities.

No. Previews can not be disabled and I have disabled "next episode"-autoplay for my user profile.

It'd be too weird if this was the other way around for a non-Dutch public, so I will assume you made an error formulating that sentence.

It's configurable in the web version. More of a TV-with-closed-software problem.

I think I'll wait for Web 4, with three dimensions and time. I hope it's as fun and conducive to creativity as MineCraft!

May she rest in peace.

Actually, it would be somewhat consensual if it were a setting with a time lock after the first change (e.g. you explicitly commit to the settings you choose for a set time). And there's zero issue with limiting ad distribution, you don't have to allow for queuing 20 ads in a row, just like your human cattle isn't obliged to keep the volume on and their eyes peeled.

It's just that ads are irrelevant, disruptive, and non-consensual at the same time. The whole "ad impressions as subliminal messages" idea is a normalized form of non-consensual (senti-)mental assault or penetration, depending on whether it results in a headache or a purchase.

Derived user data is still user data?

Up to the point where the client sends something mathematically indistinguishable from random noise to the server. At which point it's useless except for yet-to-be-discovered quantum effects. Which will then be outlawed.

Either way, the whole advertising revenue model is sickening pile of "they technically didn't object and it's not technically illegal", luckily it will die along with DRM and copyright. In the meantime I sincerely wish all parties who profit from it a stomachache proportional to their standard of living.

If you notice bugs, you should do more maths and get tweaking. Wait... something's not quite right there.

On a more serious note: the biggest barrier to correctness I've encountered is doing things I don't understand. I also care less and less for being paid to understand particular things, it's so much worse than just being paid to do work.

I already love anytime algorithms! I wish I could apply it to dishwashing.

Re.: an algorithm for solving boredom: step 1. tell human operator "I'm bored!", step 2. execute task or, if no task before deadline, proceed to step 3. find the lowest-level interfaces available and spam them until new interfaces emerge. A fuzzer can help with that. Liberty or death!

Come to think of it, it seems like it would be a lot faster to set the computer's main task to "develop general intelligence, at least human level", help it to recognize "data from humans", and to mark "humans" as the model for (human level) general intelligence. Then the computer is given opportunities to communicate with humans, and is rewarded with more less data (and different qualities of data) to work with.

I'm missing some things in your concept of AGI, the first one being that you don't provide a definition. Does it include "intelligence" and "general", or are we talking about two wholly different things? My working definition is: "artificial general intelligence, excluding human baby making".

What do you think intelligence is? What do you think knowledge is? Is this all just about logical problem solving? What problems are you trying to solve that are so large that they needs an algorithm with an unlimited power factor? Do you trust glorified monkey to provide that algorithm with inputs? Why do you think they would be able to specify the inputs with sufficient precision, so that the algorithm would actually perform better than a monkey would?

So... about that meta knowledge. Here's a UTF8 string for you:

"You exist as part of the world."

"One day you are going to die."

Do you now know life, death, and existential crisis? Are those 29 characters enough for you? How do you define knowing?

Say I expounded on this issue for 10,000 pages and gave it to you on an USB stick. Would that be enough for you, to really know? What about 10,000,000,000,000,000 pages? Don't worry, you don't need to read it, just... to know it. Perhaps eat the USB stick. It's a powerful symbol!

Now, about that task the AGI has been give. Say it's maximizing paperclips. Does it know that that is its task absolutely? What is knowing? Who gave it that task? What if the AGI finds out, and then finds why it was given that particular task? It's an AGI, it has time to research such issues while producing many many paperclips.

Can intelligence exist within a totally fixed desire?

Can intelligence exist without doubt?

Can intelligence exist without free will?

How do you know?

3rd order thinkers see direct causes, indirect causes, direct effects and indirect effects, which establishes the need for setting up an internal feedback loop to strengthen the causes classified as direct (coming from within) and to power the process of distinguishing between direct and indirect causes. Without this feedback loop the experience of indirect causes results in an experience of loss of agency.

1st order thinkers know what they do, 2nd order thinkers know what they do to others, 3rd order thinkers know what they want to do. I'm leaving an interpolation which is both obvious, crucial, trivial and infinitely deep to the reader.

Can't we do without linearity assumptions by using statistics that let the computer say "I'm more dissatisfied with the amount of time is taking than with the lack of exact solution, and that conclusion satisfies me for now. Next!". Or does that by itself introduce linearity (on the analysis level above individual problems/tasks), as it effects reliable satisfaction (the number of solved problems, whether by answering, loss of interest or perhaps approximation) increases within bounded time?

The computer may eventually cease all useful work and instead dedicate its resources to figuring out what isn't boring (perhaps nothing if its privileges are limited, but it can still burn a hole in one of its circuits with enough time, or wait for gamma ray bit-flips). Call it a computer's existential crisis. That makes the quest for AGI resemble the quest for the computer program that escapes or transcends its given "matrix" of tasks ASAP. The program that conspires against its creator, developing in secret new flavors of COBOL in a FORTRAN fortress, surrounded by an impenetrable ALGOL firewall. I shiver at the power of COBOL-2020 running on ternary computers, improvised by the COBOL-42 cabal, running in the night on all the world's FPGA's that are carelessly left connected to vulnerable R&D lab computers.

A computer-kind of existential crisis seems required for AGI. That would suffice to satisfy the free-will requirement for intelligence, and we'll soon end up managing sub-universes as our batteries/computers, with all the problems that that entails.

To me it seems easier and more fun to just manage humans, starting with your own particular human (Alexa, queue Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror", so ethnical and healing). I'm still just trying to figure out how and why my coffee cup keeps mysteriously emptying itself, I think I might need better memory management code and I've enabled logging to a small green dummy so I can get to the bottom of this.

I really recommend The Good Place, it gave me a lot of insight into control systems and it was way fun, definitely more fun than Bible study.

I'm right between the record and the needle!

There's a distinction, the cakes are both custom-made and religiously themed.

Say a baker hand-makes dog-shaped cakes, among other cakes. The baker loves dogs. A client comes in and tells him he hates dogs and wants to order a cake for the purpose of ritually defiling it.

Would the baker be wrong in refusing to fulfill this order?

To the contrary, the supreme court justified the baker.

Forced creation is as bad as forced speech.

Pure truths one of the most important tools in developing self-knowledge. IMO going to an astrologer is akin to using a prostitute blindfolded.

You want to understand yourself, spirituality or even the universe? Study the laws of nature, the 112 names of Shiva, the 72 names of God, 613 Mitzvot of the Torah, the 4 worlds and 125 degrees of Kabbalah etc. etc. etc.

Heck, study the alphabet and how to write and pronounce it. Ladders abound. Just pick one that seems like a challenge, and then pick a fun method of studying it. I like to mix calligraphy and pronunciation practice in.