zero_call

Karma: 165

zero_call Aug 2, 2010, 1:03 AM
1 point
on: Open Thread, August 2010
Suppose that inventing a recursively self improving AI is tantamount to solving a grand mathematical problem, similar in difficulty to the Riemann hypothesis, etc. Let’s call it the RSI theorem.

This theorem would then constitute the primary obstacle in the development of a “true” strong AI. Other AI systems could be developed, for example, by simulating a human brain at 10,000x speed, but these sorts of systems would not capture the spirit (or capability) of a truly recursively self-improving super intelligence.

Do you disagree? Or, how likely is this scenario, and what are the consequences? How hard would the “RSI theorem” be?

zero_call Aug 2, 2010, 12:48 AM
3 points
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Open Thread, August 2010
I will reply to this in the sense of

“do you believe you are aware of the inferential connections between your expertise and layperson-level knowledge?”,

since I am not so familiar with the formalism of a “Level 2” understanding.

My uninteresting, simple answer is: yes.

My philosophical answer is that I find the entire question to be very interesting and strange. That is, the relationship between teaching and understanding is quite strange IMO. There are many people who are poor teachers but who excel in their discipline. It seems to be a contradiction because high-level teaching skill seems to be a sufficient, and possibly necessary condition for masterful understanding.

Personally I resolve this contradiction in the following way. I feel like my own limitations make it to where I am forced to learn a subject by progressing at it in very simplistic strokes. By the time I have reached a mastery, I feel very capable of teaching it to others, since I have been forced to understand it myself in the most simplistic way possible.

Other people, who are possibly quite brilliant, are able to master some subjects without having to transmute the information into a simpler level. Consequentially, they are unable to make the sort of connections that you describe as being necessary for teaching.

Personally I feel that the latter category of people must be missing something, but I am unable to make a convincing argument for this point.

zero_call Jul 28, 2010, 12:23 AM
7 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Alien parasite technical guy
Cool article...

zero_call Jul 26, 2010, 9:33 PM
3 points
on: Madison meetup: Wednesday, July 28th, 6PM
Cool… that’s really close to where I work. I’ll probably make it. Thanks for taking the initiative guys.

zero_call Jul 20, 2010, 8:16 PM
0 points
on: So You Think You’re a Bayesian? The Natural Mode of Probabilistic Reasoning
I’m not sure if I buy that the “frequentist” explanations (as in the disease testing example) are best characterized by being frequentist—it seems to me that they are just stating the problem and the data in a more relevant way to the question that’s being asked. Without those extra statements, you have to decode the information down from a more abstract level.

zero_call Jul 11, 2010, 10:23 PM
1 point
in reply to: Yoreth’s comment on: Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2

For example: I’ve heard vague rumors that GWF Hegel concludes that the Prussian State (under which, coincidentally, he lived) was the best form of human existence. I’ve also heard that Descartes “proves” that God exists. Now, whether or not Hegel or Descartes may have had any valid insights, this is enough to tell me that it’s not worth my time to go looking for them.

This is an understandable sentiment, but it’s pretty harsh. Everybody makes mistakes—there is no such thing as a perfect scholar, or perfect author. And I think that when Descartes is studied, there is usually a good deal of critique and rejection of his ideas. But there’s still a lot of good stuff there, in the end.

What philosophical works and authors have you found especially valuable, for whatever reason?

I have found Foucault to be a very interesting modern philosopher/historian. His book, I believe entitled “Madness and civilization”, (translated from French), strikes me as a highly impressive analysis on many different levels. His writing style is striking, and his concentration on motivation and purpose goes very, very deep.

zero_call Jul 10, 2010, 5:19 PM
0 points
in reply to: Paul Crowley’s comment on: Cryonics Wants To Be Big
I understand that there is work supporting the idea that cryonics/regeneration/etc. will eventually be successful. However, I don’t feel the need to respond to this work very directly, because this work, after all, is very indirect, in the sense that it is only making plausibility arguments. As a cryonics skeptic, I am not attempting to rule out the plausibility or possibility of cryonics. After all, it seems fairly plausible that this stuff will eventually get worked out, as with the usual arguments for technological advancement. As a cryonics skeptic, I am only asserting that there is insufficient evidence that it will work for my personal freezing/revival to justify my substantial investment.

The response to this might be to claim that I am unfairly or erroneously making “demands for particular proof”. I think that this point is an intelligent point, but that it is being somewhat abused or overused in this context. In areas like physics or biology, it is completely status-quo to believe nothing except that which has been shown by fairly direct evidence. You might even abstractly characterize the entirety of professional science as an area in which “demands for particular proof” are the centralizing, unifying, distinguishing feature. Seeing as how cryonics is essentially an area of physics and biology, I view it in much the same way. I expect to see more concrete proof of its ability before being willing to believe in it, invest in it, or rely on it for my supposed personal immortality.

zero_call Jul 7, 2010, 7:40 AM
−11 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Cryonics Wants To Be Big
The extent of qualification necessary to clearly convey a meaning on here is absolutely unfathomable. No, it’s beyond unfathomable, it’s really utter rubbish, it’s exasperating and despicable how this happens almost every time one starts a substantive disagreement.

It’s perfectly clear from context that I am referring to the entire cryonics refrigeration and revival process, but in case that wasn’t clear, let that be clearly stated now. In case that was clear and it was intentionally or subconsciously disregarded, as I must shamefully and cynically suspect, then you can simply go fuck yourself.

zero_call Jul 7, 2010, 6:26 AM
−8 points
in reply to: SamAdams’s comment on: Cryonics Wants To Be Big
In my experience, it’s quite fruitless to get into the discussion of evidence on this particular problem. That’s because it’s absolutely clear that cryonics (on current evidence) does not work. The entire argument in favor of cryonics is based on projections for future discoveries and technologies, which any cryonics proponent will admit. Thus their argument is not really an argument based on evidence—it is more of an argument based on expectation. Now, this expectation may very well be solid and well justified, but in my experience, the LW community tends to really bastardize the argument and claim that the evidence is somehow solid and well worked out. To the extent that you should dish out a lot of money, starting now. This goes so far as to the IMO absurd idea in ciphergoth’s post above, whereby he states that the burden of proof or evidence should be put on the cryonics critics.

zero_call Jul 7, 2010, 6:10 AM
0 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Cryonics Wants To Be Big
This kind of rebuttal absolutely fails, because it simply doesn’t address the point. You’re taking the OP completely out of context. The OP is arguing against cryonics evidence in the context of having to dish out substantial money. The pro-cryonics LW community asserts that you must pay money if you believe in cryonics, since it’s the only rational decision, or some such logic. In response, critics (such as the OP) contend that cryonics evidence isn’t sufficient to justify paying money. This is totally different from asserting that you don’t believe in cryonics or the possibility of cryonics out of context.

In your examples, you don’t have to pay out of your wallet if you believe that 1) practical fusion power, 2) human mission to Mars, 3) substantial life extension exists. These examples are misleading.

zero_call Jul 3, 2010, 5:28 AM
0 points
in reply to: JamesPfeiffer’s comment on: Open Thread: July 2010
You might think about the zen idea, in which the proposal of solutions is certainly held off, or treated differently. This is a very common idea in response to the tendency of solutions to precipitate themselves so ubiquitously.

zero_call Jul 2, 2010, 9:35 PM
2 points
in reply to: VNKKET’s comment on: Open Thread: July 2010
Without any way of authenticating the donations, I find this to be rather silly.

zero_call Jun 21, 2010, 1:53 AM
0 points
in reply to: Mass_Driver’s comment on: Open Thread June 2010, Part 3
I just saw this and realized I basically just expanded on this above.

zero_call Jun 21, 2010, 1:50 AM
0 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Open Thread June 2010, Part 3
I wasn’t familiar with this description of “world states”, but it sounds interesting, yes. I take it that positing “I am a think that things” is the same as asserting K(E). In asserting K(K(E)), I assert that I know that I know that I am a thing that thinks. If this understanding is incorrect, my following logic doesn’t apply.

I would argue that K(K(E)) is actually a necessary condition for K(E). Because if I don’t know that I know proposition A, then I don’t know proposition A.

Edit/Revised: I think all you have to do is realize that “K(K(A)) false” permits “K(A) false”. At first I had a little proof but now it seems just redundant so I deleted it.

So I guess I disagree, I think the iterations K(K...) are actually weaker statements, which are necessary for K(A) to be achieved. Consequentially I don’t see how you can learn anything beyond K(A).

zero_call Jun 18, 2010, 2:23 AM
5 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Open Thread June 2010, Part 3
Um, if you’re a brain in a vat, then any “brain” you perceive in the real world like on a “real world” MRI is nothing but a fictitious sensory perception that the vat is effectively tricking you into thinking is your brain. If you’re a brain in a vat, you have nothing to tell you that what you perceive as your brain is actually really your brain. It may be hard to implement the brain in the vat scenario, but when implemented, its absolutely undetectable.

zero_call Jun 17, 2010, 10:34 PM
2 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Open Thread June 2010, Part 3

People don’t mention anything like altering the brain itself.

Altering the brain itself? The brain itself is the only thing there is to alter. The only thing that exists in the brain in the vat example is the brain, the vat, and whatever controls the vat. The “human experiences” are just the outcome of an alteration on the brain, e.g., by hooking up electrodes. I really have no idea how else you imagine this is working.

zero_call Jun 17, 2010, 5:14 AM
0 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Open Thread June 2010, Part 3
You don’t seem to be familiar with this concept.

You could posit a brain in the vat where the controllers also have lots of actual drugs or electromagnetic stimulants read to go to duplicate those effects on the brain,

This is the entire point of the brain in the vat idea. It’s not that “you could posit it”, you do posit it. The external world as we experience is utterly and completely controlled by the vat. If we correlate “experienced brain damage” (in our world) with “reduced mental faculties”, that just means that the vat imposes that correlation on us through its brain life support system.

Although I don’t claim to be an expert in philosophy, the brain in the vat example is widely known to be philosophically unresolvable. The only thing we can really know is that we are a thing that thinks. This is Descartes 101.

zero_call 17 Jun 2010 2:17 UTC
4 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Open Thread June 2010, Part 3

How to check that you aren’t a brain in a vat: inflict some minor brain damage on yourself. If it influences your mind’s workings as predicted by neurology, now you know your brain is physically here, not in a vat somewhere.

No, there’s no way of knowing that you’re not being tricked. If your perception changes and your perception of your brain changes, that just means that the vat is tricking the brain to perceive that.

The “brain in the vat” idea takes its power from the fact that the vat controller (or the vat itself) can cause you to perceive anything it wants.

zero_call 1 Jun 2010 0:33 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease
That’s a flagrant misinterpretation. The OP’s intention was to say that innocent people don’t get put in prison intentionally.

zero_call 31 May 2010 7:11 UTC
0 points
on: Open Thread: May 2010, Part 2
I sometimes get various ideas for inventions, but I’m not sure what to do with it, as they are often unrelated to my work, and I don’t really possess the craftsmanship capabilities to make prototypes and market them or investigate them on my own. Does anyone have experience and/or recommendations for going about selling or profiting from these ideas?