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
You say “using JS, for example.” What else would one use?
I've been wondering if that's the same thing as on the Stripe homepage?
And here I was thinking I had to make the Berlin transpiler do it... Will be nice to remove some lines of unnecessary source code. twitter.com/denicmarko/sta…
Exactly. It's a similar kind of asymmetry as the one Popper explains between confirmation and falsification.
And that, right there, is why programmers are Popperians, even if they don't know it. twitter.com/catalinmpit/st…
You want to learn about AGI, but where to start? Read these chapters from David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity for the cutting edge of AGI research:
@iamFilos @ToKTeacher @DorfGinger @EpistemicHope @micahtredding @MatjazLeonardis @WorriedDenizen @Vivify705 @krlwlzn @reasonisfun @DavidDeutschOxf @bnielson01 @crit_rat
Brett wasn't calling Eli anything. If I understand correctly, he was characterizing the views some people hold, not any particular person. I think he was trying to be helpful by offering criticism.
RT @RamenRockets:
@EpistemicHope
Also, Dennis Hackethal @dchackethal is pretty good at explaining the critrat position on AGI.
https://t.c…
@__adamjohnson_ @TahaElGabroun
Ah, I mean "understood" as in "you objectively contain the knowledge of how to solve the problem," not as in "you subjectively experience having found the solution." You're right that the latter may not happen.
@__adamjohnson_ @TahaElGabroun
I'd go even further: to understand something is to program it, if only mentally.
@__adamjohnson_ @TahaElGabroun
I do think if you can program it, that means you've understood it. Sometimes we programmers stumble upon a working solution by accident, but that's rare. And even then we're not content until we find out why it's working.
And today they would call it "artificial intelligence." twitter.com/PessimistsArc/…
FYI, since the request for refutation isn't being met, I may drop out of the conversation. (To be clear, I'm not saying it's your responsibility to come up with a refutation, I'm just letting you know that I may drop out and don't want to do so without an explanation.)
Like, one shouldn't drop a theory just because there is another one that's also hard to vary and explains more or less the same phenomena (if that is the case).
I think the NDTM is quite hard to vary as well. In any case, my point about the dinosaurs—or any arbitrary good theory—is just about what it takes to refute it, not about how hard to vary it is.
That's true of any theory and its refutation. A refutation explains why it can't be true, not why it need not be true. No theory need be true.
... just because there are infinitely many ways to explain fossils that don't involve dinosaurs and so one doesn't "need" them (so the argument goes).
...instrumentalist reasons, but the result is the same). Advocates of the reality of past dinosaurs are right to hang on to their theory until somebody explains to them why there couldn't have been dinosaurs. It's not surprising that they won't change their minds...
In this discussion, replace my theory with the dinosaur "theory" of fossils and it reads a bit differently, perhaps. There are those who say dinosaurs really existed. Then there are those who say dinosaurs are an unnecessary addition/interpretation of fossils (for different,...
because you could always find some way to add replication to a system
That's still thinking in terms of necessary/unnecessary, not possible/impossible. I won't keep adding replication back into the theory if it can be shown that it cannot contain replication.
Ok. A refutation, not a replacement, will be needed to change my mind. On that note it would be good to know what would cause you to accept the theory.
Circuits are physical objects. Btw my theory isn’t about memes either.
I hadn’t seen this. Note that “neural Darwinism” and the neo-Darwinian theory of the mind are very different because (judging by a brief skim of the article) the former is about hardware only while the latter is about software only. The former also seems a bit empiricist.
Scotland Police promoting a snitch tool in violation of freedom of assembly and association. twitter.com/PoliceScotland…
@EpistemicHope @iamFilos @micahtredding @MatjazLeonardis @ella_hoeppner @WorriedDenizen @DorfGinger @Vivify705 @krlwlzn
Note that you're explicitly stating a meme-replication strategy. Should that not give you pause that something has potentially hijacked your thinking so it can get itself replicated more?
@EpistemicHope @iamFilos @micahtredding @MatjazLeonardis @ella_hoeppner @WorriedDenizen @DorfGinger @Vivify705 @krlwlzn
Right, because it assumes that alignment is a worthwhile goal. Any way to convince you that that isn't the case?
...that it gives you those things for free. And evolution doesn't use weights as far as I know...
Do you have an explanation not for why mental evolution need not involve replication, but for why it can't, i.e., a refutation?
Well, we've discussed this before, but IIRC, at least two things can't be explained without replication in a mind: memory and the evolution of people. We could always fix that by coming up with an ad-hoc solution like adding weights, but the nice thing about neo-Darwinism is...
@EpistemicHope @MatjazLeonardis @iamFilos @micahtredding @ella_hoeppner @WorriedDenizen @DorfGinger @Vivify705 @krlwlzn
I usually take them at their word and stop arguing with them, but yes, sometimes they're wrong about that. :)
@EpistemicHope @MatjazLeonardis @iamFilos @micahtredding @ella_hoeppner @WorriedDenizen @DorfGinger @Vivify705 @krlwlzn
Yeah to be clear this wasn't meant as a comment on your stance, just as an example.
@EpistemicHope @MatjazLeonardis @iamFilos @micahtredding @ella_hoeppner @WorriedDenizen @DorfGinger @Vivify705 @krlwlzn
Yes. Also, when someone doesn't know what would change their minds, it's even harder for you to find that out.
Worse, they might say "nothing could change my mind", in which case you've saved a lot of time by not arguing with someone whose mind can't be changed.
@MatjazLeonardis @EpistemicHope @iamFilos @micahtredding @ella_hoeppner @WorriedDenizen @DorfGinger @Vivify705 @krlwlzn
For example, somebody could be convinced that "alignment" philosophies aren't bad by convincing him that coercion isn't bad. That doesn't mean he already thinks coercion isn't bad—he's just offering some way to open the door into his mind.
@MatjazLeonardis @EpistemicHope @iamFilos @micahtredding @ella_hoeppner @WorriedDenizen @DorfGinger @Vivify705 @krlwlzn
No. It could be nobody has made that argument yet, or you think the argument is false but would change your mind if it were shown to be true and nobody has shown that yet.
@EpistemicHope @iamFilos @micahtredding @MatjazLeonardis @ella_hoeppner @WorriedDenizen @DorfGinger @Vivify705 @krlwlzn
IIRC, you think that the default outcome of AGI is certain doom.
If so, how could one convince that that isn't the case?
It is rather reminiscent of those scenes from WALL-E. Although it is a gorgeous movie, it promotes the spaceship-earth idea—despite depicting people as having succeeded in leaving this rock.
It’s also useful for converting form data into a map.
Yes. Governments need to stop imprisoning people in their homes and shutting down their businesses.
.@ChipkinLogan and I are trying out a tool. Join us as we talk about lockdowns, libertarianism, philosophy, and whatever else we feel like talking about. A fun Saturday night chat.
Everyone out and about voluntarily decides to take the risk. Others are free to isolate. Sounds like Montgomery says unless you ensure the health of others by sacrificing your life, you have blood on your hands.
That's not how this works. Let people manage their health. twitter.com/RichardDawkins…
RT @michaelmalice:
this is completely untrue
the majority and possibly vast majority do twitter.com/ErikRHarris/st…
Re multiple copies of ideas seeming pointless: I’ve argued that this feature allows us to explain things we couldn’t explain as well otherwise (memory, conviction... Ella is familiar). And why not claim that gene replication in the biosphere is pointless as well?
And then there are plenty of people accommodate contradictory ideas, are aware of the conflict, but don’t set out to solve it.
Having only read the three preceding tweets:
Minds don’t reliably reject ideas that cause contradictions. Rational minds often do, and even they don’t always reject all conflicting ideas—sometimes they resolve the conflict in favor of one of the conflicting idea.
Are that fancy arrow and triple-equals valid JS?
Doesn’t sound like a bad idea. But at least they put the colon in “Berliner:innen”!
Telling. But it’s misleading to put the virus at the 2020 mark—it’s government that is causing these upticks. twitter.com/johanknorberg/…
RT @MarkSShenouda:
Me tonight at 12:00😂😂😂😂😂
#100DaysOfCode #javascript https://t.co/aqr8Wunjp2
If this is aimed at justifying locking people into their homes to care for the health of others: it’s not analogous at all.
I’ve been advocating the use of burkas in our fight against Covid. But those #covidiots just won’t listen... #followthescience #fauciforpresident #grandmakillers
I plan to attend. Cynical prediction: no mention of Popper or computational universality. Let’s hope I’m wrong. twitter.com/royalsociety/s…
RT @TheAtlasSociety:
Never More True Than Today....What Will YOU Seek? #AynRand #Liberty #America https://t.co/dL7pSnoR9q
RT @RichardDawkins:
If lions were discovered weaving antelope-catching nets ten lion-lengths wide, it would be headline news. Yet spiders w…
@scarygary21 @nanogenomic @nadinbrzezinski @abbysimons @GavinNewsom
Not surprising. SF is full of authoritarian folks, I’m afraid.
Software engineering in the wider sense has. Lots of people claiming software engineering is classist and sexist etc with straight white make gatekeepers. Complete nonsense.
Poor color contrast, almost impossible to read.
@chrisLmuc @EGermroth @c_drosten
Und nur um das klarzustellen: du findest es nicht egoistisch sondern verantwortungsvoll, wenn du alle anderen dazu zwingst, für deine Gesundheit zu sorgen?
@chrisLmuc @EGermroth @c_drosten
Wie kann es verantwortungsvoll sein, wenn es nicht frei entschieden ist?
Und wieso ist es egoistisch, wenn man nicht will, dass Leute zu Dingen gezwungen werden, die sie nicht machen wollen?
lots of people trying to fit as many SJW terms into tweets about software engineering as possible these days. Despite the fact that software engineering is one of the most egalitarian fields ever, with a low bar to entry. Nothing “classist” about it.
Time to settle this question once and for all: is Die Hard a Christmas movie?
Not meant that way, see twitter.com/dchackethal/st…
Not really, only the code the compiler thinks is affected. And sometimes not even that when it comes to types because people use ‘any’ a lot.
RT @ElonBachman:
1\ This thread commemorates those brave politicians who didn't let lockdowns slow them down
Send me other examples by DM,…
“Deadly” is a strong term when the vast majority of people who get it end up fine.
@AugustaDorman @MyovichOFFICIAL @GavinNewsom
People who don’t want to take the risk are free to stay at home if they think that means they won’t die. That’s the point.
Then don’t go to work. Why does everyone else have to be forced to do what you want to do?
Why haven’t you concluded yet that masks and stay-at-home orders don’t work?
@moiMeru @sashintweets @iamFilos
Natürlich sollen Menschen rücksichtsvoll sein - das bestreitet ja keiner. Die Frage ist, ob man Menschen zur Rücksichtnahme zwingen darf. Zur Gesundheitsversorgung anderer.
Jeder ignoriert diese Frage. Vielleicht weil alle bereits wissen, dass die Antwort “nein” lautet.
@moiMeru @sashintweets @iamFilos
Die Bedingungen in den Krankenhäusern mögen schrecklich sein, aber das bedeutet nicht, dass man Bürger dazu zwingen darf, dazu beizutragen, dass sich diese Bedingungen verbessern.
@moiMeru @sashintweets @iamFilos
Wieso soll ich—oder sonst jemand—verhindern, dass es in den Krankenhäusern schlimmer wird? Vielmehr: wieso sollen Leute dazu gezwungen werden?
Bessere Alternative: all denjenigen, die zu Hause bleiben wollen, steht dies bereits frei. Alle anderen sollen frei leben dürfen.
Great, well written article; spot on. Let us know how you decide. I myself am leaning “flight” right now, having been very patient throughout 2020 with my beloved CA but nothing seeming to get better and no opportunity to change any of it. It’s a real shame what’s been happening.
“They were created by the men and women who, for the tremendous, historical wealth they brought [...] to the Bay Area, have in turn been demonized, scapegoated, and punitively targeted by a land lording political class of leeches who have themselves built nothing.”
Indeed.
2/2
“For the last half century, entrepreneurship in tech has been positive sum, which is to say almost everyone who participated won. For decades, new companies and technologies were built almost from nothing. They were not discovered, and they were not mined from the earth...”
@sGinole @c_drosten
Sie wissen, dass mein Kommentar ironisch und aus der Sicht von Lockdown-Befürwortern gemeint war? Ich selbst bin gegen Lockdowns.
Abgesehen von Corona zwingt der deutsche Sozialstaat bereits alle zur Versorgung aller anderen - das ist gar nichts Neues.
Wenn Leute zur Schließung ihrer Geschäfte gezwungen werden, dient das (angeblich) zum Schutze anderer.
Der Kollektivismus basiert genau auf dieser Art Zwang - es macht keinen Sinn, den Kollektivismus zu verteidigen und gleichzeitig zu behaupten, es gäbe keinen Zwang.
Actually, it may be chapter 12... either way, both are important.
Make progress, quickly. Then others will see that progress is possible, which they want to make, too, no matter how loudly they may deny that. (cf Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity, ch. 9)
Ich meinte damit, dass “die Gesellschaft” keine eigenständige oder kohärente Entität ist, der man Attribute wie “gesund” zuschreiben kann, außer metaphorisch.
Wann habe ich behauptet, dass es sich nur um eine Grippe handle?
Lockdowns sind übrigens eine Erfindung des 21. Jahrhunderts, die gab es früher noch nie.
Das ist mit einer Waffe nicht vergleichbar.
Jedem, der sich selbst zu Hause einschließen will, steht das frei. Er kann sich damit schützen, egal, was andere tun. Und jedem, der das Risiko eingehen will, mit anderen Leuten zu interagieren, sollte dies daher ebenso frei stehen.
Nicht zur Versorgung der Gesundheit anderer gezwungen werden zu wollen heißt nicht, dass man alles jederzeit haben möchte.
Der Wunsch nach der Freiheit vom Zwang ist keine Egoismus, sondern ein einfaches Grundbedürfnis, das der kollektivistische Ansatz überrollt.
@moiMeru @sashintweets @iamFilos
Hoffe ich auch. Panik mache ich jedoch keine - das tun die Befürworter des Lockdowns.
“Gesundheit der Gemeinschaft” gibt es nicht. Nur Individuen können krank oder gesund sein.
Ist es nicht egoistisch, andere für die eigene Gesundheit einsperren zu wollen? Den anderen dazu zu zwingen, für die eigene Gesundheit zu sorgen?
Und es ist nicht menschenverachtend, den “Ignoranten” die Krankheit zu wünschen?
Na prima, dann haben wir trotz Impfstoff also doch wieder einen Grund, weiterhin Leute zu Hause einzusperren.