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

@Azaeres @onnlucky @SerhiiHavrylov

That is precisely how an AGI does not learn. It’s induction again.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Azaeres @onnlucky @SerhiiHavrylov

How do you know it will take immense resources without having a good explanation of how the program works first?

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@onnlucky @Azaeres @SerhiiHavrylov

Indeed. We already know that modern day computers could run a universal creativity program. What's lacking here is neither hardware nor processing power: we lack a good explanation of how to write the program.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Azaeres @SerhiiHavrylov

That is correct.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Azaeres @SerhiiHavrylov

If resources were the problem, we would gladly wait to run it if we had a good explanation of how it works.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Azaeres @SerhiiHavrylov

Bayesianism is inductivism in a cheap tuxedo. Has nothing to do with creativity. See bretthall.org/bayesian-epist… by @ToKTeacher

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Azaeres @SerhiiHavrylov

The problem with inductive processes is that they don’t exist.

Re intractable: I don’t know what you mean by “holistic nature”, but our minds are creative somehow, so it can’t be intractable. We just don’t yet know how.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@dela3499 @ChristopherCode

I skimmed it. The causal approach is the right one. Also reading up on program synthesis now.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@SpaceTime_A @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher

Great question - I have no idea :)

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@davidarredondo

It is creativity. And we are beginning to understand it. Baby steps :)

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@ChristopherCode @dela3499 @DavidDeutschOxf

I responded in the document in purple.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@SerhiiHavrylov

I skimmed it, still sounds inductivist.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Doxosophoi

Hopefully in the next episode :)

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@ChristopherCode @dela3499 @DavidDeutschOxf

Indeed. E.g. for objects in JS, Clojure etc one first needs an explanation of how to map keys reliably to values: a hash function. We know from lambda calculus that any such concepts can be built from pure, single parameter functions, because it is Turing complete.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@DKedmey

Yeah, that’d be pretty neat. Being a universal explainer, the creative algorithm could do so.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Doxosophoi

What do you mean by “epistemological facts”? Do you mean rules such as hard to vary? If so, my guess is knowledge of those rules is the result of the creative algorithm as well. If your question is how the creative algorithm creates new explanations, I haven’t covered that yet.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@SerhiiHavrylov

First time reading about this, too. First impression: Sounds like Occam’s razor applied to functions. I’m after good function implementations, which need not be the shortest. The best implementation of multiplication in this episode only happens to be the shortest, IIRC.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@SerhiiHavrylov

First time reading about Solomonoff’s inductive inference, so may be missing something. Wikipedia says it “is a theory of prediction based on logical observations”. Sounds inductive to me. Too focused on observation. No mention of knowledge creation as far as I can tell.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

The podcast is now available on Apple Podcasts:

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pod…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@pmaymin @DavidDeutschOxf

Thank you for reminding me. Episode 5 you will probably want to watch on YouTube since it heavily relies on video, but all others so far you can now listen to on Apple Podcasts as well: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pod…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

Today I learned that some recursive functions cannot be written in iterative form:

youtube.com/watch?v=i7sm9d…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

The fifth episode of the podcast on artificial creativity is out. This time it's a video episode. As always, heavily inspired by @DavidDeutschOxf.

youtube.com/watch?v=DHR6ro…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@ToKTeacher

Now I really want to try it!

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@krazyander @ToKTeacher @RealtimeAI @DoqxaScott

One of the points of h2v is that you don’t even need to bother testing e2v theories.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@krazyander @ToKTeacher @RealtimeAI @DoqxaScott

You observe a conjuring trick and want to explain how it’s done. The explanation “the conjurer did something” has a lot of “evidential support” - you saw him doing something - but that’s a bad explanation b/c easy to vary. Doesn’t explain what he did and applies to any trick.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@astupple

Glad to hear! Currently working on episode five, which will be about how the epistemological concepts we covered in episode four apply to computer programs and what that means. Hopefully ready to release soon!

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@RealtimeAI @krazyander @ToKTeacher @DoqxaScott

You can tell an explanation is a hard to vary if you try to change parts of it and you end up diminishing its ability to fulfill its purpose. I.e. an explanation is hard to vary vis-a-vis a problem it purports to solve. Pick any theory and try changing parts; if difficult, h2v.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@mortimerSeth

I guess that the flaws you mention are generally the result of irrational memes and/or bad explanations.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@mortimerSeth

In order:

Not generally. A chemistry lab may blow up during an experiment or something, but that’s an exception. Extinction of ideas is fundamentally non violent.

Those may all be drivers but can be overwritten. GPPS still susceptible to irrational memes.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@astupple

Thanks for listening :) It's part of the appendix of his book "Objective Knowledge": amazon.com/Objective-Know…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

Got it. Yes. Two possibilities that could make you correct in the first place:

1) if creativity is solely genetic and requisite knowledge of DNA created (so indirectly caused their own understanding)

2) understanding means replication so genes “understand” themselves in a way.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

I watched it on the assumption that that's the one. I can see now how extinction can be seen as a constructor of future possibilities. Still unclear about your remark re DNA/RNA.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @fermatslibrary:
B. F. Goodrich Company patented a Möbius strip conveyor belt. It lasts longer since the wear and tear is spread uniform…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

Huh, you're right. @DavidDeutschOxf, have you changed your mind on people being universal constructors?

@EvanOLeary do you mean the video on this page? edge.org/conversation/c…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

Problems also don't label ideas. If that were the case there'd be information about new knowledge already existing. That'd be induction.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

BoI p. 59 "[People] are 'universal constructors'".

p. 76 a constructor is "a device capable of causing other objects to undergo transformations without undergoing any net changes itself".

A problem is a conflict between theories. It doesn't do anything.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

People are constructors. I don't think problems are.

Creativity is the only thing I know of capable of creating explanations. As David says in BoI, the creative program may be part genetic, part meme.

Nervous systems on their own don't create explanations. They're just hardware

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

I'm not following.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

The podcast is now on YouTube as well. I plan to make a video or two that have screen recordings to show some code, so having all episodes there for context seems to make sense.

youtube.com/watch?v=GhDuZM…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

Not sure what you mean. Knowledge in DNA not explanatory. At most it explains how to spread through population at expense of rivals.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@mizroba

Part of why that lingo spreads so well.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @PessimistsArc:
1981: "If teachers don't stand up to the growing invasion of computers in the classroom, there's a good chance literacy…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

Episode 4 of the podcast on artificial creativity is out. Again, heavily inspired by @DavidDeutschOxf.

soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@primalpoly

Sure, if you like. :) That’s more of a science though, since it’s falsifiable by observation.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@primalpoly

When they have a method it is.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@primalpoly

Many scientists have the wrong PoS (empiricism, instrumentalism, positivism). That can lead them astray since there is no way to do science without PoS. But they all have one. And when they do create knowledge anyway, they’re doing something that’s the object of the study of PoS.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@WiringTheBrain @PrincetonUPress

For the wiring of our brains to shape who we are, it would need to violate the universality of computation.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

The podcast is now on Stitcher also.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@VermaakTom

I haven’t watched it yet, but in case it’s related: I explain in episode three why contributions to AGI based on neuroscience would likely need to violate the universality of computation.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

Didn't mean for that to embed it, but oh well...

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

The podcast is now on @Spotify... Approval on Apple podcasts still pending.

open.spotify.com/show/4mSSGJ4pr…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@PedroC_double2

It's pending review on Apple Podcasts. Will roll out to more apps as well.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

The third episode of the series on artificial creativity is out, again heavily inspired by @DavidDeutschOxf: soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@thethinkersmith @DavidDeutschOxf

Wow, thank you :) I'm glad you like it!

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

The second episode of the series on artificial creativity is out: soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

Starting an audio series on artificial creativity, heavily inspired by @DavidDeutschOxf. soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@DavidDeutschOxf

Do I have your permission to quote some passages from The Beginning of Infinity for a podcast series I am planning to make?

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@reasonisfun

Or rather, their implementation is still “prescribed”, but their output is not exactly predictable. Input/output pairs can’t be reliably reproduced.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@reasonisfun

I’m not sure. Isn’t creativity encoded in our genes and must therefore be programmable?

Not being able to relate output to input in a prescribed way just means the program isn’t pure. Eg Math.random(), Date.now(), etc. Those functions are impure but programmable.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
Foul.
In every "Before allowing them to read"
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear. twitter.com/nfergus/status…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

The reason I ask is because I think it means something else - assuming you’re using the term the same way it’s used in “universal explainer” for example - but I want to make sure I understand your position first.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

“We cannot get away from the laws of physics. They apply to everything all the time, that’s what “universal” means.” podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tok… at 11:15

@ToKTeacher Can you please elaborate on what you think “universal” means?

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @webdevMason:
Westerners now have such a reflexive tendency to associate having society-level preferences at all with a rapacious colo…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @HumanProgress:
The radicalization of the environmentalist movement, as seen on the streets of London over the past week, is acceleratin…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@HistoryTime_

What's the third picture? Presumably Germany minus French occupied land? And something's missing in Silesia there, too?

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

"The Creative Brain" on Netflix is a great example of the nonsense neuroscientists spew about creativity.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@ReachChristofer @reasonisfun @ToKTeacher @AndrewREsquibel

I wonder if some brains are slower than other solely in terms of hardware. My guess is “no” or “negligibly so” unless there are genetic mutations.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @PessimistsArc:
1878: Thomas Edison proves a cynic wrong, blowing his mind by proving sound can be captured and replayed. Podcast: https…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @PessimistsArc:
Real fears about the 🚲

• Turning us into hunchbacks
• Making women too independent
• Making women dress indecently (n…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
@reasonisfun @robinhanson

Setting aside one's own curiosity in favour of what one (or someone) thinks important is a c…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

“The sense of self that is lost during those moments of epiphany [while meditating] is just that: the loss of personhood, not a glimpse into the true nature of self.” Very well said @ToKTeacher podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tok…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@DavidDeutschOxf

And today it’s @elonmusk et al talking about AI risks.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@ToKTeacher

My response: “We haven’t really cracked artificial creativity yet, and it’s just nagging me”. Then they just get confused and turn away. :)

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@reasonisfun

Ich bin Deutscher. Ich helfe dir gerne.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@reasonisfun

Cool, du sprichst Deutsch?

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Crit_Rat

Progress opposing fools. They could have written the same about horses hundreds of years ago.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@KamedisUSA

Chinese medicine is bullshit. You’re taking advantage of gullible people. Reported.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@davidarredondo @DavidDeutschOxf @ks445599 @Crit_Rat @desgren

My guess is quantum computation, but can’t say for sure.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EvanOLeary

I admire David for remaining so composed in the face of the nonsense Rees says. Many would have gotten frustrated rather quickly.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @EmilyDreyfuss:
Just a few telepresence robots hobnobbing at #TED2019, one of whom is physicist @DavidDeutschOxf https://t.co/TriHuNUUv9

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@reasonisfun @sivers

Thank you, I needed that today.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@DavidDeutschOxf

My thoughts exactly

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Ptolemy_3 @DoqxaScott @EricRWeinstein

It is not faith. We have good explanations of what progress is and how it works and why, as well as how and why it’s attainable.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@LauraBehrensWu

Wenn dich AI interessiert, hör dir das mal an. Hoffe, dir geht’s bald besser. cbc.ca/amp/1.4696754

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

It's a never ending, beautiful journey. twitter.com/Calvinn_Hobbes…

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@Ptolemy_3 @EricRWeinstein

Also nonsense. Our minds are much better than any other animal's because we can create new explanatory knowledge. Innovations help us prosper. Progress is achievable and has been achieved only thanks to reason and science. Advocating against using "too much" reason is anti-human.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@IsTelos @EricRWeinstein

Nonsense. People are universal explainers, unlimited progress is possible. Read "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@DoqxaScott @mizroba

Interesting. What about him?

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@EricRWeinstein

  1. What’s the issue with logic, reason and science? Name one case where using them less would be better.
  2. We don’t put faith in them. That would itself be illogical, unreasonable and unscientific. Faith means “don’t ask questions”.
@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@dela3499

Looks pretty hard to vary :)

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

RT @ToKTeacher:
Justified True Belief. https://t.co/e8IdnlIVIL

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@DavidDeutschOxf

Is this a little bit like life? And if so, would understanding the origin of life help us understand how creativity works, and vice versa?
2/2

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@DavidDeutschOxf

The creative algorithm was originally used to replicate memes. When turned on itself, it tries to replicate creativity (e.g. in AGI research); it tries to replicate itself.
1/2

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

@ChipkinLogan

As in “falsifiable by observation”? It can’t be. It’s a philosophical principle. You can criticize it, though.

@dchackethal · · Show · Open on Twitter

Search tweets

/
/mi
Accepts a case-insensitive POSIX regular expression. Most URLs won’t match. Tweets may contain raw markdown characters, which are not displayed.
Clear filters