Dennis Hackethal’s Blog

@dela3499 @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Yes, I don't disagree that the replication strategies of memes differ from ideas that never become memes. But... so what? :)

@dela3499 @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

I claim that they do replicate within minds, just not necessarily across people :)

@univ_explainer @ReachChristofer @RealtimeAI @dela3499 @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

All babies make that jump to universality long before they learn to speak. This universality lies within people - it is not induced or awarded by outside factors such as technology (let alone the fact that one needs creativity to make technology in the first place).

@dela3499 @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Eg "selecting" a preference between fight or flight can be done according to inborn algorithms that do not involve creativity (variation and selection in the evolutionary sense).

@dela3499 @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Ah, got it. I'll claim that's a stretch of the phrase "variation and selection" as it strays a bit from evolution because it doesn't refer to variation and selection of replicators.

@dela3499 @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Can you give an example of variation and selection in animal brains?

@RealtimeAI @dela3499 @ReachChristofer @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Why bring recursion into this?

@RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @dela3499 @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Well, people are universal explainers, so even if other organisms have some limited creativity, that marks a pretty sharp distinction. They would all have an infinitesimal repertoire compared to people.

@RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @dela3499 @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Could all of those things not be encoded genetically? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the presence of knowledge, including that which changes behavior, is not evidence of creativity. That knowledge may have emerged from biological evolution.

@ReachChristofer @RealtimeAI @dela3499 @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Yes, people do eventually die if they don't solve problems. But I don't think the absence of creative thought = death. Eg if you run on autopilot for a few minutes, that won't kill you.

Of course, the underlying message rings true: problem avoidance eventually kills people.

@RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @dela3499 @ToKTeacher @Soph8B

Here's a criticism of one of the ideas in BoI :)

critapp.com/#/posts/bdd9d1…

The artificial intelligence research community is in bad shape...

soundcloud.com/dchacke/scanda…

@DKedmey

Actually, I take it back - progress is the result of that. So still need a word for it. :)

@DKedmey

Progress? :)

@PopperPlay @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf

I’m about to publish something on this, stay tuned. :)

@PopperPlay @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf

Yeah those with side effects transform minds, and, if they get a mind to act, the world.

The motivation for treating ideas as functions is to solve the problem of how to encode ideas in a computer program.

Ideas need not return the same output for same input, nor do functions.

@PopperPlay @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf

PS: The above is more of an answer to your question “Is there a way we can show that all possible conjecturing and problem solving descends from a single algorithm?” from popperplay.com/problem/Qb6ij0…

@PopperPlay @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf

So the explanatory universality of people is powered by the computational universality of functions. Those two universalities are deeply intertwined.

4/4

@PopperPlay @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf

Since Lambda Calculus is computationally universal, all ideas in the mind can be expressed as functions, and so the above is the same as saying that it’s a functional replicator in a mind that explores the space of all possible functions.

3/

@PopperPlay @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf

A more elaborate one: ideas replicate imperfectly within a creative mind and thereby inadvertently explore the space of all possible ideas. This is how sometimes ideas evolve in a mind that happen to solve a problem/explain something.

2/

@PopperPlay @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf

Some quick arguments for the explanatory universality of creative minds:

1) What couldn’t one guess? (nothing , it seems)

2) Humans are so far off the mark (we have built space shuttles age cured diseases etc) that it just makes sense to think they are universal.

1/

@ReachChristofer @ks445599 @PopperPlay @DoqxaScott @DavidDeutschOxf

Yeah, IIRC, there is no computation a quantum computer can perform that a classical UTM couldn’t. It’s just that some of those computations run intractably slowly on UTMs compared to quantum computers.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

I once saw a video of a monkey swiping pictures on an iPhone. Cool, but not evidence of creativity.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

What do crows/monkeys/other animals do that couldn't be explained exclusively in terms of biologically evolved adaptations? Do you have a video showcasing such behavior, or maybe an article explaining it?

@DoqxaScott @ks445599 @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

I think conjectures are the result of imperfect replication of ideas in the mind.

@ks445599 @DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

I'd leave out any considerations involving pattern matching because they are too close to empiricism. It's a mistake I have made in the past myself. Empiricism is tempting so it does sneak back into mind here and there if one isn't careful.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

I mean, maybe we can consider the result of any algorithm running in the mind a conjecture, but thinking of creativity as pattern matching is a dangerous path into empiricism, which is really creativity-denial.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

That's why I wrote "intelligence/consciousness" a number of times, because if you have one you automatically have the other.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

I didn't mean to suggest that intelligence and consciousness are the same thing.

I think intelligence = creativity. Same thing just different words. And I think consciousness, among other things, is epi-creative, meaning it arises from creativity.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Ah - you’re saying the result of, say, a pattern matching algorithm is a conjecture?

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

There may be value in it, idk, I’m just pointing out that one is an error and the other a result of one. They are different things. So I don’t think the comparison applies.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Yes, with the proviso that no (or only little in the case of inborn ideas) knowledge of how to solve particular problems is given and needs to be evolved at runtime instead.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Sounds like empiricism. Not sure what you’re trying to say. Please elaborate?

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Yes. Sometimes adaptations have enough reach to incorporate use of new tools etc.

Knowledge of any kind, no matter how sophisticated, is not evidence of intelligence.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Well, a conjecture is the result of an erroneous replication in a mind, so I wouldn’t compare it to transcription errors per se.

But yes there are many differences between biological evolution and what I call functional evolution in a mind.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Don’t see why those couldn’t have been genetically programmed?

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Not pedantic, good point. Errors in transcription do indeed happen somewhere in plant. But no evolution within plant. Hence not intelligent.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

I think conjectures and refutations are components of intelligence regardless of whether they are made consciously.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

There is no variation and selection happening within plants. They happen across plants.

And yes I think only people are intelligent.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

That's not creating knowledge. It's just updating some parameters and it all happens to genetically given instructions.

@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Genes are within plants, sure, but they are not intelligent/conscious because new knowledge is not created from within them.

@RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer

Okay but why? :)

@ks445599 @RealtimeAI

It’s a way to avoid explaining that by saying that consciousness is somehow already present everywhere.

Similar to how Lamarckism, empiricism etc state knowledge is already present somehow.

2/2

@ks445599 @RealtimeAI

Agreee. Also note that panpsychism is not an explanation. It’s just a statement: everything is conscious to some degree. That’s too easy. Doesn’t explain what consciousness or at least what gives rise to it.

1/

@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?

@univ_explainer

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?

bbc.com/news/uk-scotla…

RT @ReachChristofer:
To celebrate the tenth episode of Do Explain, @DavidDeutschOxf stopped by to talk about our distant past, why genes an…

@seanmcarroll

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.

@connectedregio1

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

@connectedregio1

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:

critapp.com/#/posts/02a915…

@connectedregio1

Intelligence is creativity not pattern processing.

@ashik_shanks

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:

critapp.com/#/posts/44f850…

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.

RT @NASA:
The luminous clouds of Jupiter! ☁️ Taken by our @NASAJuno mission on its 20th close pass of the planet, this view reveals the hi…

@InertialObservr

Would the ball go boop without the second tuning fork?

@reasonisfun @ReachChristofer

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.…

@drkiki

Have you considered not lying to your son?

Example of buggy animal programming. twitter.com/tedgioia/statu…

@DavidDeutschOxf

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".

@caerwy @hunchandblunder

Without externally given objective. It may set objectives for itself.

But a nice list otherwise. Almost all of these are missing in narrow AI.

@twatschmitt @DavidDeutschOxf @reasonisfun @davidmanheim @_FitCrit @bnielson01 @dela3499

See also btw

twitter.com/carnunmp/statu…

@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?

1. I misplaced them.
2. I misplaced them while wearing a hat.
3. 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

RT @JPMajor:
Saturn's moon Tethys (1,076 km wide) imaged by #Cassini in front of Saturn on December 3, 2005. North is to the left in this v…

@visakanv @Borderlands

A bit like the “IT” from South Park...

@ToKTeacher @RealtimeAI

Hehehehe

@jamiemb17 @Aella_Girl

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.

@Aella_Girl

No capacity for suffering without intelligence, so I voted intelligence.

@RealtimeAI

Where does she say that?

@thethinkersmith

It seems for that reason that preventative medicine and remedies should be sold at separate locations, no?

@thethinkersmith

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)