Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
@RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer
Both would only be intelligent/conscious if knowledge originated from within them.
3/3
@RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer
In the case of plants, the knowledge originated in biological evolution and the plant just inherited it through genes.
In the case of a Roomba, the knowledge originated in a the minds of programmers and the Roomba “inherited” it through programmatic instructions.
2/
@RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer
Cool :)
I don’t think a Roomba is intelligent/conscious. Both Roombas and plants contain knowledge, no doubt. But to determine whether they are intelligent, one needs to determine the origin of that knowledge.
1/
@RealtimeAI
Okay, so does a Roomba. Is a Roomba intelligent/conscious?
I haven't thought enough about whether children should be given more lenience than older people. I have a hunch that yes, they should, but I wasn't really commenting on that.
Whichever way one argues, the argument should invoke knowledge, or a lack thereof - not brains.
@RealtimeAI
Because they move? What about a speck of dust flying through the air?
Flawed, reductionist reasoning. All people, including children, are universal explainers. That their brains develop until 25 doesn’t change that.
Why are people so set on ignoring software?
RT @ReachChristofer:
To celebrate the tenth episode of Do Explain, @DavidDeutschOxf stopped by to talk about our distant past, why genes an…
Gettier problems are pseudo-problems. Relativity is tentatively deemed true because it is a good explanation.
@BryanMageeNews @HermesofReason
He's rocking those sunglasses.
@skeptic_thomas @ks445599 @DavidDeutschOxf
Don’t know. Persuasion, I suppose.
@ks445599 @skeptic_thomas @DavidDeutschOxf
Coercion isn’t just about physical force. It’s a psychological state in which one idea arbitrarily wins over a conflicting one without solving the conflict.
Yes - they're not creative because their pattern recognition algorithms were designed by biological evolution.
Creativity, OTOH, is evolution happening inside a mind, during the person's lifetime. People are not given pattern recognition algorithms genetically but create them.
RT @mattstark256:
The polaroid game now has a working title: Viewfinder #madewithunity #gamedev #polaroid https://t.co/B6ArM6Ezn1
Creativity is when you solve problems through conjecture and criticism.
The question should be the other way round: is pattern processing possible without creativity?
The answer: no, because one's creativity creates one's pattern processing algorithms.
@ChristopherCode @DavidDeutschOxf
Well, say you can memoize the original function - the person. Then you're not running it. You're just looking up results in a behavioristic table.
In "The Beginning of Infinity", @DavidDeutschOxf asks: "What is the difference between a computer simulation of a person (which must be a person, because of universality) and a recording of [it] (which cannot be a person)?"
An attempt at an answer:
Intelligence is creativity not pattern processing.
I'm told the page is slow right now but it does eventually come up.
Since AGI is powered by evolution happening in a mind, you cannot build AGI without understanding evolution. So I wrote a blog post about some common misconceptions concerning evolution:
RT @webdevMason:
If your work doesn't seem viscerally important + interesting/fun to you, it'll really mess with your life and general…
@ashik_shanks @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @dela3499 @reasonisfun
One theory is that both ideas are replicators in his mind that compete. It took a bunch of error correction for the new idea to replicate and outcompete the original one. Then it took some more for the original one to outcompete the new one.
@ReachChristofer @ashik_shanks @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @dela3499 @reasonisfun
Yeah. And to say that knowledge != understanding is misleading. His explicit ideas did not match his implicit ones. He also explained the transition in terms of hardware (neuroplasticity). But his hardware didn’t change. His ideas changed.
@nchwd1 @Space_Station @Astro_Jessica @NASA_Astronauts @NASA
I was looking more for like, you know, an explanation in terms of physics... E.g. maybe the space shuttle in the foreground is too bright to see the stars in the background.
@Space_Station @Astro_Jessica @NASA_Astronauts @NASA
I sometimes wonder why the sky is pitch black in some photos taken in space and not others. Shouldn't stars be visible in this photo?
@RatCritical @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun
Don't think so. Consciousness seems to be epi-creative: you are aware of things when you look for errors with them and/or find errors with them.
Sort of related thread here (won't answer your question completely though I'm afraid): fallible.fun/#/posts/4a26dd…
@dela3499 @mizroba @Evolving_Moloch @LTF_01
It even looks like she's standing in a giant vagina.
Would the ball go boop without the second tuning fork?
The successful refutation of a bad explanation would need to include refutations of all its slight variants, which is intractable. Reject bad explanations out of hand instead. Create good explanations before you start testing.
.@Medium Please consider vertically aligning the text in your publish button. It's hard to unnotice once noticed. Here's one way to fix it: https://t.co/Iz6JXgC2g9
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
@rubrumtrabea
In the case of revolutionaries, perhaps all of them?
But these school strikers aren't revolutionaries.…
Example of buggy animal programming. twitter.com/tedgioia/statu…
LOL. Reminds me of attempts in software projects to replace "master/slave" with PC terms. See eg github.com/django/django/…, or github.com/antirez/redis/… with gem "Redis has a SALVEOF [sic] NO ONE command that was designed on purpose as a freedom message. So I'll leave it as it is".
Without externally given objective. It may set objectives for itself.
But a nice list otherwise. Almost all of these are missing in narrow AI.
@bnielson01 @dela3499 @reasonisfun @davidmanheim @DavidDeutschOxf @_FitCrit
Maybe that gives it more of an evolutionary flavor? Idk. You could also use symbolic regression, which is "proper" GP.
Not much hinges on whether NNs resemble evolution because, as DD says, science is about explaining the world, not predicting/retrodicting data (curve fitting).
@twatschmitt @DavidDeutschOxf @reasonisfun @davidmanheim @_FitCrit @bnielson01 @dela3499
Or, a non-math example: why are my keys missing?
- I misplaced them.
- I misplaced them while wearing a hat.
- I misplaced them while wearing a green hat.
... and so on.
@twatschmitt @DavidDeutschOxf @reasonisfun @davidmanheim @_FitCrit @bnielson01 @dela3499
For example, points (0,0), (1,1) fit x, |x|, xn for any positive n, etc.
You can do this for any given points by simply finding one curve that fits them all and then arbitrarily varying it in the infinitely many sections that don't run through those points.
@dela3499 @reasonisfun @davidmanheim @DavidDeutschOxf @_FitCrit @bnielson01
Yeah, that's what I meant by minimizing cost functions. The parameters are updated, sure - but not varied in the evolutionary sense.
@reasonisfun @davidmanheim @DavidDeutschOxf @_FitCrit @bnielson01 @dela3499
Knowledge is created by guessing and criticizing solutions to problems, not “extrapolating” from data, or finding mechanisms to fit data ever better.
Machine learning is empiricism applied to AI research. Should be avoided if the goal is to build intelligent programs.
@dela3499 @reasonisfun @davidmanheim @DavidDeutschOxf @_FitCrit @bnielson01
From what I’ve seen, ML does not involve variation and selection. It’s about minimizing cost functions (how well does this fit the data?).
@reasonisfun @astupple @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf
I’m guessing “Läkerol” means “yummy roll”? That’s adorable.
RT @NASA:
Completely invisible, yet unbelievably influential. 💫
Scientists have been baffled by how spiral galaxies like the Milky Way ar…
@ReachChristofer @reasonisfun @DavidDeutschOxf
DUDE! So fun!
RT @micsolana:
we are still living in the dark ages, fyi https://t.co/n46Vr2DtsN
A bit like the “IT” from South Park...
Not so much about correlation or IQ. Intelligence is the ability to create new knowledge to solve problems; consciousness, and with it suffering, seems to arise from that ability. Animals can't create new knowledge but only use genetically given knowledge. So they can't suffer.
@PrestonEmick @Aella_Girl
Creativity, the ability to create knowledge. Only people (by definition) have that.
No capacity for suffering without intelligence, so I voted intelligence.
It seems for that reason that preventative medicine and remedies should be sold at separate locations, no?
I meant that if you go to get your flu shot, someone else who is infected may previously have entered that building in search of flu remedy, making it more likely for you to get infected.
So going to get the flu shot may cause getting the flu (not in the sense anti-vaccers mean)
Is it me or should the place providing flu shots not sell flu remedy at the same time?
An explanation of the pattern you’re looking for so you can distinguish patterns from non-patterns.
A pattern recognition program is such an explanation.
Pattern recognition theories of mind are a dime a dozen. They are all false because you cannot decide what counts as a pattern without a theory first, so that theory cannot itself have come from an observed pattern.
I have no interest in continuing this conversation because you do not address my criticisms. No point in continuing.
The content of an explanation is a statement about what is out there in reality, how it works, and why.
Starting with observations leads to an infinite regress you fail to address. You seem to willingly ignore it, idk why.
You're displaying irrational discussion methodology by repeating your point over and over without addressing criticisms.
Again, they might well have an explanation of what the dog's nose looks like, yes. (That they wouldn't know what it would feel like seeing a dog's nose doesn't change this.)
It's not so much about thought. It's about knowledge: solutions to problems.
"Everyone knows that to do great work you need both natural ability and determination."
What do you mean by "natural ability"? Talent?
This isn't a productive way to think about knowledge, though. As I said, knowledge creation begins with problems, not observations.
A creative mind can - in principle, though extremely unlikely - happen to come up with a theory describing dog's noses without having ever seen them. What it would feel like seeing a dog's nose is a different matter (quale).
That's the right way to think about our role in the cosmos.
And hopefully, re the original post, we as individuals are going to find a way to be here for much longer than tens of thousands of days. twitter.com/ChipkinLogan/s…
No. You're putting words in my mouth. I have already agreed that blind people would not know what red feels like. I have also explained that this concerns qualia, not knowledge generally. This is part of the root of your mistake: you keep mixing up qualia with knowledge.
You keep describing knowledge as if it was already present. It isn't. It needs to be created through conjecture. Such as how to observe the delta between blue and red.
Explanations in terms of neural structures/hardware not fruitful. Intelligence is software, not hardware.
"Change is x to y." Yes. You know this from theory, not observation.
No. You know about change because you conjecture a theory that explains why things you observe are not always the same. Has nothing to do with neurons or underlying hardware.
Moral knowledge consists of components that cannot be observed. So where does it come from?
You know what change is from conjecture, not from observation.
So I ask you again where knowledge comes from that couldn’t possibly be observed, which you still haven’t answered.
Change is not observed either, btw.
Yes. It can wonder if there is anything other than darkness, what to do with its life, what to want, if this state will ever change, etc. And it can - tentatively, fallibly - answer these questions through conjecture.
None. But that’s fine. To create knowledge, we start with problems not observations.
LOL. If you just hide behind IP once the going gets tough, you haven't explained anything.
And how did physicists know how to combine these things to get to the concept of fusion?
And what observed concepts do I use to create things like moral knowledge, which does not consist of any observations at all?
So what are the building blocks of fusion that physicists observed?
Indeed. And, we know all kinds of things we could not possibly observe: we know how hot the insides of stars are, how massive black holes are... and we have moral knowledge, aesthetic knowledge, etc, which cannot be observed either, nor can their building blocks.
Nor have you explained what your AGI design is, or why the Popperian notion of knowledge is insufficient, which is what you set out to do.
You clearly are not familiar with the Popperian notion of knowledge, or you would have known that it's explanations.
If we make our own knowledge all the time without observation, why do you think that observation is so important?
Also, you haven't explained yet what knowledge is, only vaguely that we build it from observed "components".
The theory explains why empiricism (which is what you’re espousing) is mistaken, why neuroscience and other narrow AI is heading down blind alleys, it explains what knowledge is and (roughly) how to create it. What can yours do? Recognize shapes.
People create knowledge by sitting in a dark room all the time. Close your eyes and try solve problems. The solutions you create are explanations you create.
They also contain approximations to explanations of how to make wings, build brains, and may even contain approximations to the laws of physics.
Genes contain explanations of how to spread themselves through the population.
That's because you have the wrong idea about what knowledge is. Knowledge is explanations - statements that are adapted to solving problems. Those don't come to us through the senses. We have to create them ourselves through an evolutionary algorithm.
No. It is evolution that creates knowledge generally, both genetic and human.
BTW, these things need to be explained on the applicable level of emergence. Intelligence is a property of software, not of some underlying physical structures in the brain.
But knowledge does exist in the brain in the form of the structure of cortical columns; plus mechanisms of how to associate them given certain sense data, etc.
Knowledge - of any kind - is created by evolution: variation alternating with criticism.
Indeed. So biological evolution creates the genetic knowledge of how to do the wiring in such a way.
If biological evolution explains the origin of genetic knowledge, why should an evolutionary algorithm running on the brain not explain the origin of human knowledge?
In principle, but I agreed that it would be unlikely to happen.
Anyway, okay, so let's say those components are stored in cortical columns. Where does the knowledge of how to store stimuli in cortical columns come from?
I didn’t say blind people can see color.
Okay, so let’s say those components come to us through the senses. How?
Faith has nothing to do with it.
I had already granted that it would be extremely unlikely to think of dogs in that situation, but that's incidental.
You seem to claim that knowledge comes to us through the senses. Yes?
- For example, that it has legs, a nose, etc.
- Because in the sense you mean, red is a quale. We don't understand qualia, so I don't know.
I'm familiar with the argument you're making. Brain in a vat. I could think all kinds of things about dogs I want. Anything thinkable I can think.
If you were to say that I cannot predict the quale of seeing a dog, then I'm with you.
I'm in principle capable to have any thoughts about cars and dogs I like. I would be extraordinarily unlikely to have them, though.