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
Good for you for speaking out against trendy nonsense.
I don't know what's more disturbing. The tweet itself or the amount of likes & retweets it got. twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/stat…
Yes, heroes. Now cue environmentalists saying "but if they hadn't done that we wouldn't be having as much of an impact on the environment today and the planet would be better off." Environmentalists oppose progress, even (or especially?) when it saves people's lives. twitter.com/HumanProgress/…
RT @dvassallo:
"If you're on the wrong train, every stop is the wrong stop." — @GuruAnaerobic
No matter how much you've invested in your c…
RT @Trad_West_Art:
She is an 'artist' twitter.com/ParanoidKino/s…
RT @Ace_Archist:
@PBP1366 @smellycarney @1diotzQuery
You can think anything you like, yes. You don’t have a right to impose it on me throug…
I was wrong. It may be even simpler: feeling cold + not touching ground.
Seeing water + not touching ground = kick off swimming motion.
More buggy animal programming: youtube.com/watch?v=H49iVB…
Note the comments: nobody goes "wow, it's remarkable how dumb these dogs are." Most go "OMG so kewwwt." Only the users "FlyingFuzzies" and "Remember White" say what I think is right: it's instinctual behavior.
Four new videos in the "Functional JavaScript" series -- on thread operators and accessing and updating object properties.
Did Bostrom write that headline? twitter.com/PessimistsArc/…
Want to step up your JavaScript game? I created a video series on functional JavaScript: youtube.com/watch?v=KGR7U-…
11 videos so far, and I'll be uploading more content soon.
It's like: updating parameters has nothing to do with creativity regardless of where the knowledge of how to that comes from.
Re leaking knowledge generally: it's fine as long as the only knowledge leaked into the creative program is knowledge of how to create new knowledge.
The reason ML isn't the path to AGI/creativity isn't just that programmers leak knowledge into ML programs. It's that ML is about optimizations and not about creating knowledge.
Even if in the latter case the animal wouldn't be confused, though -- it just wouldn't recognize things.
It could go either way. Either like you say - it's all already given genetically - or the animal's genetically-given recognition algorithms first need to be trained similar to today's ML algorithms so then the animal would get better at recognizing things over time.
Popper arguably being one of the most important in terms of philosophical progress made.
RT @CalebJHull:
"Flattening the curve" turned into communism real quick
How do we explain this? newscientist.com/article/dn1230…
It looks like there’s virtually only neocortex left.
RT @Kasparov63:
Of course. This is why it's important for Americans and others in the free world to understand that there is no useful sepa…
Yes. It’s just that we are not always aware of many of the incremental steps so some new conjectures can look like leaps.
IIRC, DD says something similar in BoI but I can’t find the quote rn. But yeah generally I’d say boldness and gradualness are orthogonal not opposites.
“The Beginning of Infinity” by David Deutsch.
Well, the evolutionary “purpose” of any biological adaptation, including the brain, is to spread its genes through the gene pool. See Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene.”
In terms of what the brain does, it’s a computer.
In terms of what the mind does: it explains things.
Judging by the title, it seems the author claims to know “How Your Mind Really Works.” So then he’s built AGI?
See also Pinker’s “How the Mind Works.” (He hasn’t built AGI either.) Such a bold title should be reserved for whoever builds AGI.
I just stumbled upon the Japan Popper Society. How cool!
Therefore, Popper's conjecture about consciousness holds and we are still only ever conscious of one thing: disappointed expectations.
Consciousness seems related to disappointed expectations (Popper). But we also seem to be conscious of newfound solutions.
Conjecture: having found solutions to a problem can be reduced to a disappointed expectation because we never expect to find a particular solution.
In other words, the first step in a scientific or philosophical discovery is surprising oneself.
In evolution, mutations happen without regard for the problem situation. The human mind contains an evolutionary algorithm to solve problems, and so we always only happen to think of a solution. So an insight is always surprising and, therefore, exciting.
RT @andrewdoyle_com:
Two college professors (one at Harvard) have written an article for a major publication calling for the US to follow C…
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
Also, holding an idea immutable has an unpredictably large effect on apparently unrelated ideas—like glueing down a ji…
To be clear, I'm agnostic as to whether masks work. What I dislike is the use of force, regardless.
"Law enforcement officers of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office are authorized to enforce this Order."
:(
Here's the full "Emergency Order": cupertino.org/home/showdocum…
"Violation of this Order shall be punishable through the issuance of administrative citations, fines, and penalties as set forth in Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 1.10."
Very disappointing.
The City of Cupertino is now forcing people to wear masks.
This ability would require a change in software, not hardware, so a brain implant wouldn't do.
In any case, perfect memory is impossible because mutations of ideas in a mind can't be avoided forever. That would require reliable knowledge, which, as Popper explained, can't exist. twitter.com/SarahTheHaider…
RT @DanielJHannan:
"If we loosen up now, everything we have done will be in vain".
"Let's wait until we can be absolutely certain."
"How ca…
This Earth Day, remember the Earth only gives us raw materials. Otherwise, it is a death trap. It is people who make our planet habitable and who build life-support systems.
Let's call today "People Day" instead.
Yes! Currently making some edits, but it will be back.
@HeuristicAndy
Well, I’m a bit late to the party (just now starting season 3) but so far it seems he has been doing those things to pay for his medical treatment and to leave his family some money should he die.
That may change later on - but no spoilers please :)
“Breaking Bad” is a fictional but good example of all the horrible things good intentions can lead to. And not just in Walter White.
“Unfortunately, instead of viewing the present as a vast improvement on the past, many people see the present as failing to live up to some sort of ideal world and deny the progress that has been achieved.” twitter.com/HumanProgress/…
Yeah, freeze should re-read my tweet. I said "its" not "it's."
But your example got me thinking... need to think more about it.
Hmm yeah good point. In that scenario, you should be held accountable. But somehow that example feels... different. I guess because going to the store is a normal, regular, even necessary part of life. Shooting one's gun isn't.
I think you are saying in an emergency situation, government should be allowed additional powers to restrict citizen behavior for protection. Did I get that right?
Re AIDS: I'm guessing you'd respond that it's not comparable, as you have indicated. Not sure beyond that.
What your position is re AIDS or generally re COVID?
I think the responsibility lies with everyone for their health. If you go to the store and inadvertently contaminate things, you shouldn't be held responsible. Others know they are taking that risk. They take that risk with all kinds of diseases: cold, flu, warts, pink eye, etc
@DoqxaScott @RealtimeAI @neiltyson
You're more than welcome to sign up and use it as inspiration. I won't hold it against you. It's a small, tight-knit group and I'm guessing the site is worth no money. But I understand if you'd rather not join - up to you.
@RealtimeAI @DoqxaScott @neiltyson
And that itself was a mutation of an idea I had of being able to comment on YouTube transcripts based on timestamps, which I never ended up building.
@RealtimeAI @DoqxaScott @neiltyson
Hehe
@DoqxaScott No and I don't remember your idea other than it being a discussion site (?). critapp started much later (December) and grew out of discussions in the four strands group about how to make online discussing better and the frustration of using email threads.
Oops, the quote should have been:
If you have good reason that my action is putting your life in danger
I'm also curious what you think about my questions re AIDS? (They weren't rhetorical.) I'd like to explore whether the COVID situation is comparable or not.
If you have good reason that my action is putting your life
E.g. if you have the virus and go to the store, that doesn't put me in danger. It only does if I go to the store, too. You and I should still be free to go to the store if we want to despite this information.
Are you making the freedom of people contingent upon the availability of testing?
Further, do you think someone who has AIDS should be forbidden to have sex? And should others who do not have it yet be forbidden to sleep with him?
RT @yaronbrook:
Almost all deaths from Coronavirus in NYC seem to have underlying conditions (heart desease, diabities, etc.). Yet, we are…
I have a lot of things to say about this and disagree with much of what you're saying. But it's near impossible to discuss seriously on Twitter because of the character limit. If you want to continue this conversation sign up for critapp.com and we can continue there.
So when parents forbid their children from doing something and claim it's for their best, do you think they are allowing room for the possibility that they are wrong about what's best for the child, especially when the child questions it? And that that's even what matters?
I have explained why and how good intentions often lead to bad outcomes; I'm not claiming that because they did in the past they will again.
So, I'm basically claiming that, ceteris paribus, good intentions often lead to bad outcomes and make it harder to criticize bad ideas. Is the ceteris paribus where we disagree?
Yes, I understand you argue that, and I have explained why it often leads to bad outcomes. Where do we go from here?
This is brilliant:
It didn't occur to me that these problems all already exist in some form.
It doesn't. Interestingly, you may want a copy of yourself at the origin as a backup. (It just won't be run until it is established that something went wrong during the transfer.)
(Btw, check out the video game SOMA that beautifully plays with these considerations.)
I'm trying to help you see that goal.
That's a good example of unsolicited help, btw.
The proviso emphasises that for theories to conflict, they must be aiming for the same goal.
I don't think that's right. Two seemingly unrelated theories with different goals may well conflict as long as you have a theory of how and why that is.
None. His kind of reasoning leads to such legitimization and authoritarian thinking.
Also:
It would be death only if the program is stopped ~forever.
Rebirth sounds like a clean slate, whereas the program would resume with all its memory intact and there wouldn't be a break in experience.
2/2
So, being untethered only refers to the ability to transfer between physical media.
That said, I consider the state of a person during "communications travel" to be more like a coma since the program that is the person is about to be resumed in that scenario.
1/
Yes, a conflict between two moral theories that aim for the same objective function.
Why is that proviso necessary?
The crucial question is what is the objective function of a moral theory? We've answered it.
It's to tell us what to want and what to do, no?
No, not quite.
I'm saying: good intentions are used to legitimize bad ideas. And also: memes that advertise good intentions will spread better than those that don't, and good intentions make bad ideas harder to criticize.
It means to resolve the conflict between two or more moral theories. The good of humanity simply doesn't play a role here.
I'm saying good intentions are morally good.
You keep saying that despite my refutations, which you ignore.
Your paragraph about fascists and communists is non-sequitur.
No; especially communists believe they do things for the good of all humanity and commit atrocities.
No, we use criteria that solve the problem, meaning solves a conflict between two or more moral theories.
So you're basically saying "good intentions are good intentions." Revelatory.
Well then, let's give all those fascists and communists who thought they were doing what was necessary for the sake of humanity a hand because their intentions were pure.
I'm arguing any universal moral prescription is made with the benefit to humanity in mind.
No. It's made to solve moral problems. Big difference.
I'm not arguing against the use of reason. I'm arguing against using "the sake of humanity" as motivation.
What criteria do we use to decide what to do?
Depends on the situation, why?
Not that which leads to the worst outcome.
Right; never said we use that one.
Who is "we"?
One. People generally in the West.
I don't see how the other two questions pertain to what we're discussing.
Yes, moral claims are claims about what's best for a situation.
No, they're about what to want and what to do. Very different.
You and I know all knowledge fallible.
Yes, but does Neil know this? @neiltyson
Check this thread re difference between helping people and knowing what's "best" for them:
I agree that we should use reason to counter ignorance. When did I say otherwise?
I don't fear bloodshed as the outcome of any moral stance.
We're not trying not to destroy the means of error correction for the sake of all humanity. We try not to because it would be immoral and because it would prevent progress.
Forcing help on others is what Neil's sort of reasoning leads to.
If by the virus you mean Covid 19, that's not what the quote is about. He wants less ignorance.
If you don't think good intentions are problematic, then you're ignoring what I've been writing in this thread.
However, helping people ≠ claiming to know what's best for them. The latter often leads to forcing "help" on others who didn't ask for it. Like children.
Either way, the best technology is built out of personal need.
My point was stronger than that: whenever somebody claims he knows what's best for you, RUN.
But yes, one can help people out of self interest and some do that.
Such dissenters are then dealt with accordingly.
Btw, it's quite a presumptuous thing to claim to know what's best for everyone. It's a claim of infallibility. "I know what's best for you; just listen to me and do as I say." That doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster to you?
Claiming the necessity of something for the benefit of humanity is dangerous because anyone who doesn't buy into it is seen as a dangerous dissenter who doesn't see the allegedly manifest truth and must, therefore, either be evil and hate humanity or be dumb and untrustworthy.
I don't think so. Doing almost anything with good intentions can lead to very bad results. That seems to be the case universally.
Doing things for self-generated reasons such as interest and fun usually lead to better results, and never bloodshed.