And he and I can egg yours.
Round and round it goes~…

Not to pick on you or anything, but I just can’t understand this perspective.

Like, imagine wanting less action in your Marvel movies because you can just youtube real fights in Denny’s restaurants.

I took an entire week off for Rebirth, and the whole time was like “Whee! :D”

It’s what conservatives say instead of the n-word.

I’m playing Silent Hill 2. When do I meet this one?

dozens of kids acquiring life altering tbi for doing something as mundane as running near a pool.

😬 yeesh, the mental image.

I suppose the whole white supremacy thing shouldn’t surprise me, but still, I did not know this. Thanks for being such a firebrand about it here, I guess, haha.

Ah, but here we have to get pedantic a little bit: producing an AGI through current known methods is intractable.

I didn’t quite understand this at first. I think I was going to say something about the paper leaving the method ambiguous, thus implicating all methods yet unknown, etc, whatever. But yeah, this divide between solvable and “unsolvable” shifts if we ever break NP-hard and have to define some new NP-super-hard category. This does feel like the piece I was missing. Or a piece, anyway.

e.g. humans don’t fit the definition either.

I did think about this, and the only reason I reject it is that “human-like or -level” matches our complexity by definition, and we already have a behavior set for a fairly large n. This doesn’t have to mean that we aren’t still below some curve, of course, but I do struggle to imagine how our own complexity wouldn’t still be too large to solve, AGI or not.

Anyway, the main reason I’m replying again at all is just to make sure I thanked you for getting back to me, haha. This was definitely helpful.

To be fair, I don’t think “wife’s son” is all that weird to begin with. I’d think it just means you aren’t close with your girlfriend’s kids yet.

[edit] ‘wife’, married, right. I just realized. Still, I don’t think it’s that weird.

Word count: 134

And what does that mean, you fill a document with feminist phrases and ctrl+v over every word ‘woman’ the word ‘man’? That is… wow, that is incredibly academic. I’m actually hit-stunned by how smart that is.

rationally and logically studied the ideology call the practitioners female supremacists,

Wow. That was remarkably mask off. You watch a lot of Ben Shapiro, buddy?

Ah, yeah. That’s a good point, actually.

Hey! Just asking you because I’m not sure where else to direct this energy at the moment.

I spent a while trying to understand the argument this paper was making, and for the most part I think I’ve got it. But there’s a kind of obvious, knee-jerk rebuttal to throw at it, seen elsewhere under this post, even:

If producing an AGI is intractable, why does the human meat-brain exist?

Evolution “may be thought of” as a process that samples a distribution of situation-behaviors, though that distribution is entirely abstract. And the decision process for whether the “AI” it produces matches this distribution of successful behaviors is yada yada darwinism. The answer we care about, because this is the inspiration I imagine AI engineers took from evolution in the first place, is whether evolution can (not inevitably, just can) produce an AGI (us) in reasonable time (it did).

The question is, where does this line of thinking fail?

Going by the proof, it should either be:

• That evolution is an intractable method. 60 million years is a long time, but it still feels quite short for this answer.
• Something about it doesn’t fit within this computational paradigm. That is, I’m stretching the definition.
• The language “no better than chance” for option 2 is actually more significant than I’m thinking. Evolution is all chance. But is our existence really just extreme luck? I know that it is, but this answer is really unsatisfying.

I’m not sure how to formalize any of this, though.

The thought that we could “encode all of biological evolution into a program of at most size K” did made me laugh.

but there’s no reason to think we can’t achieve it

They provide a reason.

Just because you create a model and prove something in it, doesn’t mean it has any relationship to the real world.

What are we science deniers now?

So, if just stop oil were peeing on people like… you are, I guess, you would be happy with that?

I know it feels really good to be angry and indignant, but I mean it, what have you done? Have you organized anything? Have you inspired people to take action?

You don’t have to agree with Just Stop. But the topic of conversation has come up. We’re talking about it. What will you do to save humanity from the sheer cliff it’s about to drive over?

I’m afraid “doing nothing” isn’t going to cut it here, man.

That’s great, man. Maybe they’ll write that on your underwater tombstone.

My audiology is fine, I have a pretty big collection.

If you’ve got a better strategy than damaging plexiglass, why aren’t you doing anything? Get out there and prove them wrong, champ.

I don’t mean that as a dig, I mean seriously, go out there and do something. The world needs you.

What did it raise awareness for? Nothing’s happened.