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
Calling it “reverse” is itself misleading. Judging someone by the color of their skin is universally bad in every direction.
A brief mention that creativity = ability to solve problems, then mostly induction and mistaking inborn knowledge for intelligence. No mention of Popper.
I enjoy Kurzgesagt's videos but this one is rather schlechtgesagt. As if Popper had never lived :(
Yes any complex ability that wasn't predicted and is way off the mark for any traditional program behavior would be a good indication.
Resisting to being meddled with is another good indicator (but all good replicators will do this by definition, so doesn't mean its AGI)
Because the leaked knowledge can be (need not be) dogmatic and result in preclusion of knowledge creation, thereby forcing the program down a certain path, at which point the program can't be creative anymore.
Oh, I wasn't coming from an "ableism" perspective and didn't mean it as a snarky remark. I appreciate your work, sir.
Yup that. Also recall BoI chapter 7 that the programmer is in no position to judge whether the program created knowledge or if its just iterating on the programmer's knowledge.
More leaked knowledge = more rigid program. It may not create any knowledge (worse: look like it does)
Oof this one could use a better color contrast.
Nice shot! Great visibility of Saturn and Jupiter with the naked eye these past couple of weeks, too.
If that's at all possible, it would be a good way to avoid leaking knowledge into the program. I have a hunch it's the early decisions in these types of programs that make or break genuine evolution of knowledge.
Ok. I wonder if there's a way the arrangement of particles could itself become code that influences further replication (like in RNA-World Hypothesis). If so, that code should automatically be subject to variation and selection without any additional programming effort.
As you can see in the video, the replication process is quite imperfect.
Good—what happens if you just leave this running for a long time (speed it up and let it sit for a few hours)? Does it create more targeted replicators by itself?
Thinking out loud: don't you already have mutations in the sense that different clusters emerge already?
Does this link work for you? amazon.in/Window-Intelli…
"A Conversation with William Paley"—Pre-order now while it's still 50% off!
I created a Gumroad account, where I'll share things I create in the realm of philosophy, AGI, and software engineering, and anything else I find interesting.
Follow me!
"Governor Gavin Newsom orders all California counties to shut down indoor restaurants, bars and movie theaters"
HOW does he have this dictatorial power?
@wildAnnieMol @johnnycanuckguy @billburr @theMMPodcast
Yes and about how brave actresses are.
@Juyan_Azhang
You didn’t. On the contrary, I probably sound dumb to 99% of people when I say that to study intelligence we should ignore the brain and ignore sense data, as I did in our conversation.
Your conclusion—that we need places where it’s okay to sound dumb—is true.
RT @TCSphilosophy:
"A person's a person, no matter how small."
— Dr. Seuss https://t.co/iAh29ir4q4
This new edition contains more thorough in-text references, fixed typos, and a brief comment on Constructor Theory, among other smaller changes.
An updated version of A Window on Intelligence with some significant errors and omissions corrected is now available.
Kindle users who have the first edition should receive an email from Amazon with the option to download the new one.
@alliero71811366 @ConceptualJames
The web archive would have preserved them anyway (had anyone stored them).
@alliero71811366 @ConceptualJames
I meant a link to the web archive (web.archive.org), which would have shown an archived version of her post (if it was public at the time).
Just because different websites report this doesn't mean she ever really posted it.
Revolution only leads to more violence. Piecemeal error correction is better.
Pass it on. twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/s…
I’m guessing 3 is a close second.
It’s funny because people get a bit freaked out when you ask them to think of a number between 1 and 10 and then you confidently ask them “was it 7?”
Your example of usually winning at Rock Paper Scissors reminded me of the following:
When asked to think of a number between 1 and 10, people don’t do this randomly either. They usually pick 7, because they don’t want to be too close to the halfway point.
It’s always funny when girls do their best to look cute and something goes wrong.
I have not listened to the full interview.
One of the interviewees is Dr (!) Charlotte Riley. From her website (southampton.ac.uk/history/about/…): "I am a feminist historian [...]"
Not a feminist and a historian. No, a feminist historian.
The tweet was deleted. Somebody had the good sense to archive it in time: web.archive.org/web/2020070611…
You can't play the video on there, but the full interview is available here: bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0…
Was about to ask if you planned on open-sourcing it, good stuff!
This looks fake, even if it was reported here and there.
A web archive link to the post would be helpful.
@renovationgb @_Islamicat
Is ginger convert, not Islamicat himself.
Islamicat is usually put fat ginger converts out in sun as punishment ☀️
(Ab)using creativity to enforce the status quo. See BoI chapter 15&16.
These women are slaves of the static memeplex of wokeness. Change my mind. twitter.com/BBCSounds/stat…
RT @SwipeWright:
"A culture that rejects free expression as a value is a culture without a reliable mechanism for error-correction. We can…
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
The mind implements ideas as functions, which are computationally universal (see Lambda Calculus). Functions can represent explanatory knowledge, rules of thumb, behavioristic ideas... etc. Not all ideas in a mind are explanatory.
You is kidding right? How could you not is do this?
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
That one can derive predictions from explanations is one thing, but the purpose of the mind—to create those explanations—is another. It's a different focus.
Many schools of thought place too much emphasis on prediction and ~none on explanation, so the distinction is important.
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Ah—daydreams (and "proper" dreams) are likewise produced by ideas. Such ideas may temporarily produce faux sense data, some more realistic-looking than others, which are then interpreted by other ideas and produce the sensation of the dream.
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
PS The amount of questions at once is a bit overwhelming. I'll be happy to keep answering if you ask one question at a time. In case it is helpful, you may also find many answers to your questions in my book: amazon.com/Window-Intelli…
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Where do counterfactual sensations that fuels the reality simulator in the mind come from?
Not sure I understand.
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Do problematic and problem free ideas have the same opportunity to replicate?
I conjecture yes.
The purpose of the mind is to predict the future?
No, see what KS said. Its purpose is to explain the world.
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Ideas predict sensations and are refuted when they fail to?
You mean if the prediction does not come true? Then yes, the mind may consider those ideas refuted. But note that most ideas do not predict sensations. Most ideas aren't about sensations at all.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
It doesn't feel like my thought process is random [...]
Yes, it isn't. It has the appearance of design.
Is this just old ideas with free variables being reused, not creation of new ideas?
Maybe sometimes. But overall minds do create genuinely new ideas.
As a former employee and fan, I’m sad to see Apple devolving.
Racism is bad, yes. But the ends don’t justify the means. Tim spreads profoundly totalitarian concepts and sentiments in the name of good intentions.
I miss Steve. This wouldn’t have happened under him. twitter.com/tim_cook/statu…
@hollymathnerd @ConceptualJames
Yes you’re so right. Also, as a white person, I really shouldn’t be eating brown food.
Twitter’s code base isn’t public. So why advertise these changes? To signal how amazing and inclusive they are. twitter.com/TwitterEng/sta…
@TheOtherMarcus @tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
- Maybe?
- Yes
- Maybe?
- No, ideas don’t come to us through the senses
The majority of what? By what logic? Protection from what?
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
Is this process fast enough to explain how we learn new things?
Yes. Evolution in a mind happens orders of magnitude faster than gene evolution and even meme evolution.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
Where does the selection pressure come from?
From the scarcity of resources (brain's memory capacity and processing speed), competition between ideas for these resources, potential development of predatory ideas, and, most importantly, criticism (error correction).
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
Why are some replicas invoked more often than others?
Because they are better at getting themselves invoked. The details will vary depending on the idea in question.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
So, an idea can replicate when it is invoked and then not always perfectly to create variation?
Yes. Some ideas may mutate into passive replicators, much like some genes in biological evolution, in which case they replicate whenever an associated idea is invoked.
@SlaytonBenjamin
Including all of a mind's ideas in its copy is a little bit like if organisms inherited characteristics their ancestors acquired during their lifetime.
@SlaytonBenjamin
Yeah if the copy includes all of your ideas then you copy your entire being. But if you copy only the mind's scaffold—the basic building blocks—then you have a child.
I think the former would happen rarely and was thinking in terms of the latter when I wrote the previous tweet.
@tjaulow @AW43755181 @ella_hoeppner
Yes--though I want to stress once more that the theory is not about memes. I think there are rational and anti-rational replication strategies within minds, too, but the corresponding ideas aren't necessarily memes.
A “purely rational” idea would indeed have a hard time spreading through a mind’s “purely anti-rational” idea pool, but changes happen gradually. A mutation might make an idea slightly less anti-rational. Maybe it can still spread. Repeat, etc.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
How much of [them are] needed for a replica to be created?
That depends on the idea's implementation and its memory and performance characteristics.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
How does an idea claim [them]?
Mostly by being invoked. + potentially through other ideas’ side effects, which may cause beneficial changes in the environment.
@TheOtherMarcus @ella_hoeppner
What resource are replicating ideas competing for?
Several. The brain's memory storage and processing power, and attention of the mind's meta algorithm to get themselves invoked. Probably other things, too, depending on the implementation details of the idea in question.
Note also that the theory is not about cultural environments in the sense of memes or society but about the dynamics within a single mind.
The neo-Darwinian theory of the mind does not reject realism or the notion of objective, absolute truth. Ideas are still either true or false.
A true idea may spread through a mind--or not. It depends on whether that mind values truth-seeking.
An epistemologist is a mind trying to understand itself.
It is a mind trying to become self-referential.
Once self-referential, it can copy itself. E.g. onto a computer.
.@ella_hoeppner joined me on the podcast to talk about how Popperian epistemology influenced her intelligence research, her theory of AGI called "CTP Theory," the role of replicators (or lack thereof) in the mind, and much more. Enjoy.
Meaning: they’re going to fire white people for being white.
They’re confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
I predict that in the next few years covert corporate racism against white people will become as overt as it has in some non-corporate circles. twitter.com/kfc/status/127…
The list of companies pushing the woke agenda is getting longer. We can’t avoid using ALL of Apple, LinkedIn, Spotify, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc.
I feel silly even posting this on Twitter.
Serious question: what to do? Where to go? twitter.com/jtLOL/status/1…
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Also, what’s wrong with promoting one’s material? Do you get this mad every time you see a company advertising one of their products?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Actually you did clarify what you consider "real research." I'll just leave you with this: one shouldn't judge information based on its source, only its content. + I need to be able to refer to stuff I previously published--why else would I publish it in the first place?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Yes you’ve been talking about me a lot. Why not talk about animals instead?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
What’s “w/e”?
Btw that SoundCloud track was posted by someone else so I couldn’t possibly be paid for it. I was a guest on someone else’s show.
If you had been interviewed about your views I’d be fine with you sharing that interview here.
What do you consider “real research”?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I’ve written about it in my book. Can I share that or would that be pompous again? Does it have to be someone else’s work?
Also I’ve written plenty here in this thread. Nobody has refuted any of it.
And no SoundCloud doesn’t pay me.
@ehsaanehmad @ChipkinLogan
In Constructor Theory, wealth is--I think--the set of all physical transformations one can cause.
@steaknbacon13 @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Let me edit your sentence lightly:
The article explains one reason [for dogs suffering] as the dog having suffered [...]
Do you see how this is circular?
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I have spent many hours on this and probably googled more than you. I'm guessing you think the only possible reason I could think animals are not conscious is that I'm an idiot. I assure you I have done my homework.
Pick one of those animal behaviors and I will try to explain it
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
No, not because it's me talking. And no, SoundCloud doesn't pay me.
It's about what I say, not about me.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Can you please expand on what you think sounds pompous?
Re SoundCloud, I shared it because I think the conversation is good and explains the issue well.
My answer isn’t “watch my soundcloud,” it’s “you could refute me by giving evidence of creativity in an animal.”
It’s peculiar until we realize that the truth is hard to come by.
It’s peculiar there are still people opposing vaccines. Or people who think the Earth is flat. Etc.
These things take time. 200 years isn't that long. Gradually, some countries have been trying some amounts of voluntarism. There are no guarantees, but maybe one day we can try ever more and switch to a public life free of coercion.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I don't know why you keep insulting me. It's not going to change my mind. Does it make you feel better? I'm not angry at you btw and I respect that you care about animals.
You could change my mind if you refuted my explanation I gave earlier for why animals aren't conscious.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I agree that if animals can suffer, it's better to kill them quickly and with mercy. Do you think it would be even better not to kill them at all? If so, why aren't you a vegan? Many things are natural but still horrendous.
@steaknbacon13 @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I read the article in full. It points to behaviors, which, as I said earlier, makes for circular reasoning.
Again, what's needed is an explanation.
Conjecture: it may have to do with governments piggy-backing on static memes, which were the norm for most of human history (see BoI). As such, voluntarism may only be made possible by the relatively recent departure from staticity.
@Lene_Noir @ChipkinLogan @dino_rosati
Yes, it's about ethics, too. Coercing someone to help others is unethical. Say some third party pointed a gun at you and said "give me money so I can give it to Dennis." Would you think that's okay?
Those who want to help those less fortunate are free to do so.
@steaknbacon13 @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
I know those behaviors. Can you explain why those behaviors are evidence of suffering? (Without pointing to the behavior again, because that would be circular.)
@LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
It's great that you summarized my stance. Can you verbalize why you disagree with me?
BTW, animals are also machines: "survival machines" (see Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene"). So being alive or not can't be the deciding factor.
@ParodiMarcello @LibertarianJew @liberty_deity
Did I understand that correctly: you think animals can suffer but it's okay to slaughter them so we can eat them because it's natural? Yes/no?
BTW I changed back to eating meat for other reasons.
@LibertarianJew @ParodiMarcello @liberty_deity
I understand. I used to share your opinions on animal consciousness. Just know that this is not at all an obvious problem. Hope you enjoy the episode :)