lorepieri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_a...

I suggest https://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/wiki/kb/recommend... , they also have a spreadsheet to track sessions.

I really like this analysis. But what about companies allowing agents to interact natively (via API or similar) getting more of the agents inbound since agents are more optimised to go there? If people want to use agents it will cause a lot of lost revenue for companies not allowing agents to interact natively.

Check Manna.

There should be also a factor about resource consumption. See here: https://lorenzopieri.com/pgii/

Not sure if it has been benchmarked, but I've called this technique the "for-loop of thought". :)

One possibility is total cooperation on the basic needs (free for all) and a "capitalistic" system on the luxury needs. See https://lorenzopieri.com/post_scarcity/

Check https://github.com/nomic-ai/gpt4all instead.

This is the reason why I left academia for startups... Seems like a better way (not perfect by any means) to innovate, actually doing things.

PS: I would be happy to connect, you can find my socials in my bio.

See https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/39293/is-the-chinese-...

The previous poster is gwern... Regardless, peer review does not mean that the arguments of the paper are correct (and viceversa), as gwern just shown.

All of them going bust, as the economics are wildly off vs the status quo.

You might be interested in this roadmap to introduce UBI gradually: https://lorenzopieri.com/post_scarcity/

The likelihood is related to the apparent complexity of this universe: https://philpapers.org/rec/PIETSA-6

Related: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4438278/why-are-man...

I have worked on the black hole info paradox too, and this to me looks more a rant than anything. The solution to the information paradox is expected to improve our understanding of the horizon structure, if any, and this should give us predictions detectable as gravitational waves. And we just detected the first gravitational waves! What a time to be alive :)

https://lorenzopieri.com/

Science, Tech and Fundamental questions. Started in 2021, so far I published mainly around AI and Robotics.

This was done on the blockchain back in the days: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16329112 https://etherscan.io/address/0x631c0D6f503C900e969C14d80A61D...

You Wouldn't Download a Car https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb7N-JtQWGI

Perhaps some centuries ago it was dystopian to imagine living in a house without farming fields or some livestock nearby.

One may argue that level 5 will require a weak AGI, assuming that the hardware is not extremely over-engineered.

Level 6: The robot is also eating the food for you. :)

Is it still a good read in 2021?

You can estimate the wave size using the Beaufort scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale

I believe teleoperation will have a huge role indeed. It will be there in any case for remote support, but for startups it may make sense to start fully teleop until they nail autonomy.

The counting is done inside a chosen reference class of "human civilisation". Pick one definition that makes sense, and the argument applies there. So yes, by definition you are counting simulations of civilisations, not of simpler phenomena (say ants-only simulations).

In the space of all simulations, we are very likely to be pretty close to the simpler possible simulation inside the reference class, but there is no way of probing this. What we can do is make comparison with more complex versions of our current reality. If you think that we are not that simple, then you should believe that we are not in a simulation after all.

True, the universe may have been started 1 second ago, but among all the 1-second simulations some are simpler than other nevertheless. For instance a 1-second simulation in which we have colonised the entire milky way is far more complex than our current experience.

Very good tl;dr apart for a detail: it's not about the complexity of a single simulation, it's about the ratio of complexity of two simulations. In this way we can factor out our ignorance of the details (are we a brain-in-a-vat? Is the simulation run on an abacus? Is it written in Phyton?) and clearly establish which simulation is more complex.

Now, since by a counting argument we are more likely to be in a simple simulation, by looking at "optional" complexity around us we can establish if we are in a simulation. Reaching 5 sigma of confidence should be enough, so if we find out that the universe could have been 10 million times easier than what we experience, then we can be pretty confident that we are not sims (I assumed a linear scaling of the simplicity assumption here).

Now the tricky question is, which complexity is "optional"? I would argue open space which we would probe if we do interstellar travel, but maybe there are better ways to find optional complexity.

Not necessarily, it's enough to have some notion of finiteness of computational resources for the outside, in whatever form they may appear. This is a pretty small assumption as we don't know any system which doesn't behave this way. So, by Occam's Razor, why postulating new physics (simulators without any kind of resource finiteness) if we can explain what we experience with traditional physics?

Also, if in the future we start simulating universes, all these constraints will apply to us and all the simulations we do.

Any complex computational machine is still equivalent to a laptop machine in terms of what it can compute, so it can always reproduced as a regular physics simulation. Something different could be a machine able to do hypercomputation.

It would actually have consequences, for instance we would likely not be able to do interstellar travel. Ok, not really mundane, but still. See https://osf.io/ca8se (disclaimer, I'm the author).