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
"There is no distinction between the computer and the program. They are one and the same."
Utter nonsense.
@ReachChristofer @SamHarrisOrg @DavidDeutschOxf
A correction to a mistake I made: our computers are technically not Turing complete because they have finite memory. We may choose to consider them Turing complete for practical purposes.
Any run of the mill computer also has software interacting with hardware and vice versa. It does not chance the distinction between the two.
The "neuroscience of learning": topos.house/residency.html
The brain is a computer. People learn via a program on that computer. We need to study that program, not the computer.
@aroraharshita33 @james_ough
Here's your answer: you could, but only by increasing the brain's processing speed somehow.
The second link states you're trying to understand how humans learn. That's the right question to ask, but have you looked into whether we already know a fair amount about this? (We do.)
@MartvMegen @ReachChristofer @SamHarrisOrg @DavidDeutschOxf
Yes. Can you guess why?
I was on @ReachChristofer's podcast. We spoke about evolution, knowledge, machine learning, and the benefits of building AGI - among other things.
Thanks for having me!
Yes. Computation is when you use physical objects to represent abstract ones.
RT @ChipkinLogan:
Episode 3 of Fallible Animals, titled Progress as Error-Correction, is out now on iTunes, Youtube and Spotify!
https://…
Nice! Also, looking forward to learning about constructor theory.
RT @PessimistsArc:
'The Decline of Intellect' (The New York Times, 1900)
“The human intellect, like “the service” has long been “going to…
@ks445599 @markcannon5 @dela3499 @DavidDeutschOxf
I’m guessing he’s talking about weighted connections between neurons as inspired by neural networks, AKA coefficient matrix. Not about weighing ideas.
Hmm. How does one emulate it without an explanation?
You write in “Possible Minds” that “digital immortality [...] is on the horizon for humans, too, perhaps sooner than AGI”. What technology are you thinking of here?
Nvm, I found it: it was called the "Fifth Generation Project" but I cannot find that it was meant to lead to AGI through hardware improvements.
I seem to remember a project for a supercomputer in the 1970s or so. Its architects hoped its speed and memory would lead to AGI. I vaguely remember it being a Japanese project.
I cannot find this online. Does this ring a bell with anyone?
RT @JulieBorowski:
Climate alarmists need to chill. https://t.co/9rJ4XAkP9T
@physicsJ @MorganMJohnsen @businessinsider
Thank you, that's fascinating!
@physicsJ @MorganMJohnsen @businessinsider
Ooh - you mean sometimes the earth pulls harder than others?
@physicsJ @MorganMJohnsen @businessinsider
I noticed the yearly added distance doesn't decrease steadily, but jumps around a bit. Why is that?
You slightly misquoted it, which made it harder to find, but I found that passage.
I'd like to help you, but can you clarify what you're struggling with? Popper says right afterwards that if a theory doesn't predict more than the problem you're explaining, you get circularity.
@AijeCarvajal @ToKTeacher
Alternatively, read chapter 1 of "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch.
@AijeCarvajal @ToKTeacher
That was not blame. Do you not need to learn more philosophy? Do you already know everything about philosophy?
The source or format of an argument shouldn't matter, but if it has to be me, you could listen to soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi….
@AijeCarvajal @ToKTeacher
I am familiar with the common sense conception of knowledge. It is wrong. You need to learn more philosophy in order to understand this.
A good paper to get you started is sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
@AijeCarvajal @ToKTeacher
Automatic or not, that is knowledge. It is encoded in genes. Knowledge does not require a knowing subject.
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
Moral inversion: blaming the nemesis of slavery for slavery; lamenting the existence of the USA; etc.
Blaming the Wes…
Thanks. What book is that extract from? I see the author is Richard L Gregory?
@ks445599 @SuUm4ya @HunterBergsma @RortyWitt
But that was not your question. I agree that capitalism couldn’t be phased out without coercion. Trying to end capitalism always ends in theft and violence.
Capitalism is what allows for creativity in the first place.
@ks445599 @SuUm4ya @HunterBergsma @RortyWitt
I made a mistake. I misread your tweet as saying “How do you phase out coercion and authoritarianism? Can’t be done”.
To which my answer is, yes, coercion and authoritarianism can be phased out and that would be pure creativity.
@ks445599 @SuUm4ya @HunterBergsma @RortyWitt
Sure it can. Such a state would be pure creativity.
I don’t know. Just remembered hearing somewhere that Einstein predicted more bending. You may well be right.
Nice. BTW I think Newtonian physics does predict the bending of light by gravity: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2983…
RT @HumanProgress:
In the year 353, a bishop called Hilary of Poitiers predicted that the world would end in just 12 years, in 365. It is a…
Is he serious?? @BernieSanders is trying to actively destroy a beginning of infinity: that of wealth creation. Static memes galore. twitter.com/BernieSanders/…
RT @PessimistsArc:
When things are scarce pessimists say “The glass if half empty!”
When things are abundant pessimists say “The glass is…
@wster @woj_zaremba @OpenAI
Indeed. @woj_zaremba is actually talking about the prerequisites of being an effective universal constructor but doesn't realize it.
There are only two prerequisites for intelligence:
- Universal computation
- Creativity
More disappointments coming out of @OpenAI.
Only humans are intelligent, for only they have the universal ability to create new knowledge. And winning is only ever achieved through knowledge, not environments or tools. twitter.com/woj_zaremba/st…
Reactions to @GretaThunberg’s speech are as rehearsed as the speech itself. “Wow, such condemning words from a child, how inspiring.” She’s a victim of static memes, as is the agreeing audience.
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
@richarddorset
You don't have to wait for the apocalypse to find hell on Earth. There are millions of people in it rig…
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
I don't think Kant's "sapere aude!" is a great motto for the Enlightenment, but it has its moments, and this is one.…
Given a universal system, any errors it contains have no bearing on its universality. Unless we are mistaken about its universality.
It can improve in other domains: speed, efficiency, reducing unintended side effects, etc.
RT @andrewdoyle_com:
Okay. I know this photo is going to come out eventually. So I may as well get it over with.
Many years ago, I dressed…
RT @unherd:
"Needless to say, the last thing the world needs right now is yet another book by a straight white cis male" | @TitaniaMcGrath…
A good mantra. But: a better question to ask is "how can we detect and correct errors"?
One thing I should have said differently: the goal absolutely is to build AGI.
The Labrador Energy podcast interviewed me about AGI when I was in Berlin. As always, heavily inspired by @DavidDeutschOxf:
Congrats, @jessykate et al. I'd like to one day look up at the moon and see lights of cities shining back down on us, like those photographs of nighttime on earth. twitter.com/DavidDeutschOx…
@bnielson01 @Unendedquest @RatCritical @RealtimeAI @reasonisfun
Because lack of such a signal shows weakness. A weak man is less likely to be successful because he can be pushed around. A strong man is more stable and therefore a safer investment.
@Unendedquest @RatCritical @RealtimeAI @reasonisfun
This is not because women don't want to push buttons (twitter.com/reasonisfun/st…); they may decide to actively push buttons until the man signals that preparedness. Men generally do not require this sort of signaling from women.
@Unendedquest @RatCritical @RealtimeAI @reasonisfun
In relationships, it is typically women who expect men to signal the preparedness to leave anytime so they (women) feel safe investing emotionally in the relationship.
@Unendedquest @RatCritical @RealtimeAI @reasonisfun
Yes. Being prepared to leave isn't enough: things are only less likely to go wrong after one has signaled one's willingness to leave. Until then, an adversary may bet on one's not being prepared to leave and act accordingly.
@RealtimeAI @reasonisfun
That doesn't answer my question. I can see that it will make repeated violation of boundaries less likely. Those won't repeat if you walk away. But I don't see why it makes the first violation less likely.
Why does being prepared to leave make things going wrong less likely? You're still waiting for the first thing to go wrong to trigger your leaving, no?
RT @HumanProgress:
It took five days to reach the U.S. East Coast from London in 1914. Today, it takes half a day. buff.ly/2Und18R
No. Computational universality implies that no brain replica is required to build AGI. It’s simply not a question of hardware. No sensory input required either.
I explain this stuff here: soundcloud.com/dchacke/artifi…
Correct; you need a processor to run those lines.
Will you consider writing appendices called "Can machines eat?" and "Can we eat machines?" as a nod to Philomena Cunk? I'm still laughing about that clip!!
A great example of how empiricism, reductionism, and violation of computational universality sabotage research in artificial intelligence. twitter.com/QuantaMagazine…
Say you sleep poorly one night and don’t end up getting the 7 hour minimum. Do you then stay in bed longer in the morning trying to fall asleep again, or do you get up around the usual time so as to not mess up the regular schedule?
RT @Hugoisms:
Me after I read The Fabric of Reality and learned about computation https://t.co/XW1xwJ53Yj
I don’t disagree that marks on paper can represent abstract entities.
I’m saying that consciousness requires information processing, and a piece of paper is only memory.
The piece of paper “knows” how to multiply given the right marks, but it can’t multiply without a processor.
But why wouldn’t the AGI have access to existing knowledge?
Interesting. Why not?
And why do you think one mind may already contain multiple UEs?
I wonder if it would have access to existing knowledge in the host’s mind.
But the piece of paper is memory only, without processing. So it can’t have consciousness on its own.
Is it your making marks that instantiates consciousness? Hard to believe, too.
Knowing how to multiply is required to multiply, but different from it: there is having knowledge and applying/running it.
If a person understands how to build an AGI, and runs this knowledge, does that instantiate a second person in their mind?
Not that I know of, unless a client like SoundCloud or Apple Podcast gives you a way to do it.
Have you been enjoying the podcast on artificial creativity? Consider making a donation to support the show: patreon.com/artificialcrea…
Thinking of setting up a Patreon page for my podcast, but hesitant because of their practices of kicking out people who disagree politically.
Has anyone found or tried decent alternatives? I found buymeacoffee.com but it doesn't come close in terms of functionality.
@bnielson01 @yudapearl @onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg
Right, that. Is it not meant as an answer to the question of how we know? That’s how it seemed to me in the podcast.
@bnielson01 @yudapearl @onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg
Is the ladder of knowledge not an answer to the question “how do we know”?
@bnielson01 @yudapearl @onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg
(It's really the only theory of knowledge we have.) From your article, I don't see @yudapearl adding anything of value to Popperian epistemology, nor criticizing it. Both are welcome. Again, I may change my mind if I read the book.
@bnielson01 @yudapearl @onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg
I skimmed it. The touch point I see between the two is the focus on causation. And the criticism of deep learning is correct. The reason Popperians tend to have an attitude of "all or nothing" is because it's the best theory of knowledge we have.
RT @nature:
The first few weeks of an embryo's development are vital. Now, new techniques are allowing scientists to learn more about this…
@yudapearl @onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg
Then I suggest the same thing to you that I suggested @onnlucky do. I'll be sure to read your book as well.
RT @PessimistsArc:
Sliced bread? LAZY! (1935) newspapers.com/clip/31259441/… https://t.co/EsY9rjjNGp
@onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg @yudapearl
At this point, I suggest you read chapter 1 of "The Beginning of Infinity". Then, read it again. And then you read it a third time. Then report back.
@onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg @yudapearl
Yes. We can have both. One lets us see. The other lets us understand how seeing works. Either way, no observation without theory.
@onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg @yudapearl
What’s “descriptive knowledge”?
@onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg @yudapearl
Theory of optics is supplied genetically. Many animals have it from birth.
@onnlucky @ks445599 @SamHarrisOrg @yudapearl
No. Before you can observe anything you need a theory of optics, and a theory of what to look at.
@onnlucky @SamHarrisOrg @yudapearl
The point is induction does not exist. It’s impossible.
@onnlucky @SamHarrisOrg @yudapearl
Then I suggest you read the material I reference.
Why do you keep ignoring Popper? Eg he solved the problem of induction, yet you and @yudapearl talk about it as if it’s this mysterious thing.
Episode 11 of the podcast on artificial creativity is out, on the problem of induction as it surfaces in @SamHarrisOrg’s latest episode with @yudapearl, Karl Popper’s solution to it and how it relates to AGI:
Going to be in Oxford over the weekend. Anyone I should meet?