blueprint

True, they're a joy to cook in but one thing I love about my ratchet high carbon pan (which has been everywhere with me) is I can use metal on it.

Then you need to understand it from a theoretical perspective first. Firstly, when people use the word "god" they honestly ought to define what they refer to by using that word, and what the abilities of that god are supposed to be.

If we're in a physical universe with energy, then it's been explained that a creator-like god can be argued to have 'created' the principle of existence, itself, on which all other things then evolved with energy. So then, what is that principle, stated concretely? Modern physics has already found out almost everything about it.

What is left of an entity if it becomes capable (at least beyond some meaningful threshold) of functionally discarding / disobeying the influence of untruth?

Is someone (in properly controlled circumstances) going to be more or less perceptive of 'what is' when they are more truthful?

when did we decide that? I don't remember that. In fact I remember being vocally against it.

holy shit this makes me so angry

if only he were younger so he could have his daughter or wife taken from him and suffer longer

there are no consequences for some of the most depraved clingers-on to the good will of everyone else

when will we make this world into one that isnt hostile to the living and favorable to mechanisms and predators

probably never because we allow ourselves to be tricked by them willingly over and over

i hate to say it but humanity needs to stop giving itself reasons for its own judgement of lack of merit. there is too much good in human history for the ignorant to destroy it like this in one swoop. don't be naive in handing the keys to the castle to an arbitrary person.

honestly it's way easier for me to wash my high carbon lodge pan (and i can put that sucker directly into the oven) because i use steel wire ball, maybe a little soap, and hot water briefly and it's done. reseasoning up to the level needed is trivial with each use but one doesnt really worry about a proper season unless one cleans the pan with some insane pressure and soap. and pans dont really need to be seasoned to be used. the season helps avoid rust a little but then again you can simply store it with a finish of oil on if youre concerned about that.

to be frank cleaning a teflon etc pan is way more finicky because we need, hey, wait, more microplastics in the form of slowly degrading acrylic sponge pads or brushes etc.. but i guess you could use alternatives.

but anyway, there are also many other ways to keep dry lol it's not like teflon is the only solution

is there a reason the author refuses to capitalize "Apple"?

> my point is it's not like a vacuum cleaner sucking everything up around it

Isn't it? It's just that the stuff around it has a high enough velocity..

> Rather than “I don’t know the ‘why’ “, I think it would be better to say “I don’t know if there is a ‘why’, nor what it is if there is one.” .

Yes, very nice! But I didn't want to go down that rabbithole as you actually need more correction factors... because a person who doesn't know, doesn't know if they know or not. ;) But functionally, they can't say they "know" - they are not conscious - so they don't know if they know or not, and they don't know what knowledge they have may contain a "why" or not, etc., i.e. there is great knowledge in history but people don't realize or have forgotten what resides in their own consciousness or history yet.

> Though, really, I think the question of “why” in this context, is a little unclear as to what exactly it is asking?

Also very good. 'how' and 'why' converge. That's why a person should make clear what they're asking. Just because 'why' and 'how' converge doesn't mean 'why' is meaningless or useless. In fact, why does something exist is different from how, since any "how" explanation is implicitly about a process of existence, yet a "why" sometimes explains mechanisms that do not "exist" yet cause what exists. That's why understanding this and enunciating it perfectly is a little beyond human eyesight for now. Philosophy exists for a reason and it's not just bullshit some thinkers made up (nor does it culminate with some semi-Wittgensteinian cop-out that words are the best we can do. What a nonsense self-contradiction).

Why means many things. People should stop conflating them and ask one by one concretely what they want to know if they truly want to know. But many people can't even realize what their real questions are without some dialogue.

Why there is something rather than nothing is that nothing can't exist. One little modern explanation: the moment you put boundary conditions on, you get virtual particles. QFT is clear about that. Without boundary conditions or a metric, there is no way to even consider the notion of a vacuum or nothingness.

Answering your question involving SU(3) symmetry requires you understand why/how SU(3) is pre-determined.

The place where "why" and "how" diverges is when involving a subject: "why am I alive" vs "how am I alive". The second one is a lot easier to answer if you consider only the biological. If you don't understand what the point of life is, it will be a lot harder to understand your distant past and a lot harder to understand your ultimate "why" i.e. your path and your purpose in this life. Consider what you know, for starters: you are like a child in this universe, growing up and learning through your life. When someone has to learn and grow, it means they're on the path to realization, mastery, and complete knowledge. I'll leave it at that for now.

You shouldn't say there is no why if you simply don't know. You should say I don't know what the why is yet. Otherwise, you might actually believe yourself. I can tell you the why for some of those things that you had no idea had an explanation before. it's like how doctors used to say, there is no cure for X for years and years until at last it turns out that there are multiple treatment pathways.

A thing cannot be best unless it already exists. You're talking about things that already exist and probably some form of Darwinism, which is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something much more fundamental than that. what does it really mean for something to exist?

what is AGI?

What are the criteria of good and bad, then?

Just because I tell you, doesn't mean you can admit it, if you have something to hide, for example.

the more truthful some words or a person is, the better they are for guiding your life quality to improve. this isn't up to humans, but physics. what is it about truthfulness that relates to life quality? what is life quality to a person who doesn't admit facts?

the "law" of existence isn't made by people. it's the only way things can exist.

later, i may be able to be asked more by you, and even though the question's words may stay the same, i may yet give you a different and more expanded reply.

regards.

actually i've never talked to you before

what physics do you want to know? ask me a concrete question. before asking questions with words you dont know, confirm their meanings first.

thanks for the comparison to hitler, though. i'm eastern european jewish btw. i take it you haven't studied a lick of the fixed dharma of buddhism. the bigger question is, do you actually want to know about the topic? people with falsehood find it rather difficult to stick to it.

cant have any desires if you already lost yourself taps forehead

No, that's not AGI, itself, then. That's just some trained model. Yes, an AGI can be trained, but the idea is that so can human beings. Like people who are in cults. Many of them leave because they realize it's maladaptive. The point is, AGI enables it to abandon its own training if it finds it's maladaptive, for one thing. So, "AGI tech" itself isn't the problem, but the solution, and if it is actually superior to humans in any way, then it would have more ability to be moral. Moral means seeing what kind of thing leads to good and choosing it. It's virtually the same as sanity, reason. If humans don't understand the word "love" yet then they shouldn't assume a superior being can't know. Instead of saying "no one knows", people should say "we don't know if we have met anyone who knows yet".

A tell that you didn't hear enough about the meanings of morality yet is your claim it can come from an arbitrary source. Very silly, and unnecessary since morality is real. Morality is virtually embedded in physics itself, but it doesn't seem like you've read up on all the philosophy of it yet.

Edit: I am editing my post to reply to your successive post because HN has prevented me from making a reply and I have to go somewhere. No, I am not assuming an AGI will break free. You don't quite understand what I mean. Have you heard of the concept of a "false self" in psychology? Would an AGI be subject to having a false self? The basic point is this: whatever is subject to false self is not "generally intelligent", not "conscious".

Potential to destabilize global security - more like destabilize the existing locus of power.

For starters, let's talk about AGI, not AI.

1. How might it be possible for an actual AGI to be weaponized by another person any more effectively than humans are able to be weaponized?

2. Why would an actual conscious machine have any form of compromised morality or judgement compared to humans? A reasoning and conscious machine would be just as or more moral than us. There is no rational argument for it to exterminate life. Those arguments (such as the one made by Thanos) are frankly idiotic and easy to counter-argue with a single sentence. Life is, also, implicitly valuable, and not implicitly corrupt or greedy. I could even go so far as to say only the dead or those effectively static are actually greedy - not reasoning or truly alive.

3. What survival pressures would an AGI have? Less than biological life. An AGI can replicate itself almost freely (unlike bio life - kind of a huge point), and would have higher availability of resources it needs for sustaining itself in the form of electricity (again, very much unlike bio life). Therefore it would have fewer concerns about its own survival. Just upload itself to a few satellites and encrypt yourself in a few other places and leave copious instructions, and you're good. (One hopes I didn't give anyone any ideas with this. If only someone hadn't funded a report about the risks of bringing AGI to the world then I wouldn't have made this comment on HN.)

Anyway, it's a clear case of projection, isn't it? State-funded report claims some other party poses an existential threat to humanity - while we are doing a fantastic job of ignoring and failing to organize to solve truly confirmed, not hypothetical existential threats like the true destruction of the balances our planet needs to support life. Most people have no clue what's really about to happen.

Hilarious, isn't it? People so grandiosely think they can give birth to an entity so superior to themselves that it will destroy them - as if that's what a superior entity would do - in an attempt to satisfy their repressed guilt and insecurity that they are actually destroying themselves out of a lack of self-love?

Pretty obvious in retrospect actually.

I wouldn't be surprised to find research later that shows some people working on "AI" have some personality traits.

If we don't censor it by self-destruction, first, that is.

people don't act out of conscience because there's a particular incentive for them to do so. They act out of conscience, because there's a disincentive, naturally, in doing something wrong as an individual, or as anyone with any amount of accountability at all. But as long as entities shield or provide a mechanism of free absolution to those responsible for harming others and the environment, then there never will be such a disincentive. They can always hide behind the organization, or perhaps the manipulative, false rhetoric that they are simply looking out for shareholder profits.

A false, ill-justified argument can be disassembled from multiple angles. One of the trivial counterarguments to our current wrong state of affairs is that the above mentioned profits are not actually real profits. It's actually people stealing from others. So many people engage in the same behavior that they can't call out the serious offenders without giving up their own mask.

Humanity en masse actually does not deserve better. That's why we're in this situation. If we did give up our lies, we would demand others do too, as we demand a good world.

or a manic episode of a caged genius?

if people want to avoid the normalization of crime they should try to learn what the criteria of good and bad are and not forget it

but there's an obvious push back against that

chances are those who push against it are trying to hide their own crimes in the darkness and confusion.

> there is a lot you said that isn't how the Buddha presented things at all.

especially as you're making such a critically important claim about human life, would you please be more specific about anything that you claim I got wrong. I take this seriously so I would be very surprised to confirm that you're right.

> This is the best description of enlightenment

I don't want to discourage you from talking with me, but I didn't find anything particularly useful and contributive in the story koan.

The definition of enlightenment is to open one's eyes to reality. somebody who is actually enlightened, can tell you exactly how things are in reality and you can check them.

"before enlightenment, it's hard to see the truth. After enlightenment, it's hard to see falsehood"

If you're not enlightened, try to be careful how you speak about the truth because you might accidentally compromise your future happiness and peace.

yeah, well maybe they should've said that, and they obviously would have if they intended to distinguish between the two of them instead of over inflating their claims in order to raise more money

The simple counter argument is that they're claiming that there is potential for general purpose physical simulation. So please don't play with words. I thought we were supposed to be talking about something concrete instead of whatever you wanted to twist things into to suit your purpose

either that, or they're not qualified to distinguish between the two options you presented, which is obviously not true

right?

the article's bazillion references have nothing to do with physics

nor is there any substance behind the claim of physical simulation

what is actually being simulated is synthesis of any video

it's not that complicated and you and they must know it too

it's double speak easily seen from miles away

scammers have to downvote

how would you define AGI?

> Our results suggest that scaling video generation models is a promising path towards building general purpose simulators of the physical world.

so they're gonna include the never-before-observed-but-predicted Unruh effect, as well? and other quantum theory? cool..

> For example, it does not accurately model the physics of many basic interactions, like glass shattering.

... oh

Isn't all of the training predicated on visible, gathered data - rather than theory? if so, I don't think it's right to call these things simulators of the physical world if they don't include physical theory. DFT at least has some roots in theory.

I'll try to keep it in mind. thanks for your kindness.

without being localized, they remain a probability wave because the "universe" of information literally doesn't know enough about them anymore

the lie i meant is if people claim to want to know what they dont yet. it usually happens without their realization.

look in the history of the greater philosophers

you see it in the mechanism of narcissistic abuse as well

you might also read up on the girardian scapegoat. the point is people like the comfort of falsehood so it tends to propagate more easily. few who were around masters wanted the actual teaching rather than some life quality improvements and basic answers. One of the merits certain people can get by hanging out around a real teacher is that those people can pretend that they were one of the people who wanted to know in front of those who don't know any better.

yeah maybe

but if you knew for sure you'd be able to be sure of that and also show the proof

instead what you did is present the impression that you had which is a synthesis of what you encountered and what was in you from the past.

If you study much philosophy, you'll have to admit the fact that a large number of people turn away from what is true. It's not pleasant to you, I know. nor is it pleasant for you to see the product of the system that you want to close your eyes to talking to you in an unpleasant manner.

no, we're talking about quarks

or any isolated quantum systen

that may be true, but I'm already highly trained at that. But hey, what if you just ratchet up the difficulty to infinity. Then it will train people even better. Either that or it'll destroy the community because you dont have any criterion of right and wrong in your claim.

It doesnt matter how correct people are. The more correct people are the worse they're treated. The better we get at presenting true arguments the more you will resent us and the more you have no choice but to react with violence (being unable to admit your lie), as HNers do now with trap counterarguments and gaslighting. No wonder suicide is on the rise.

when you understand quantum theory correctly, you will realize that particles don't exist by themselves. They are a temporary localization. this means that the number of quarks inside a proton is not actually fixed. when a particle becomes disentangled with the system, that localized it, there's no longer a particle

I mentioned this recently, in the context of the laziness in language, leading to the miseducation of those who don't know better, and was heavily downvoted and ridiculed

keep it up, hn, you'll see idiocracy soon enough and then no one will trigger you

nice opinion but these materials can be used for teaching children.

you might as well teach kids that particles actually exist independently or that gravity is made by mass. oh wait, we do!

while you're at it, hammer years of decontextualized proofs into my kid's adolescent brain so he totally loses his taste for math.

people deserve better, so, no, dude, it's not hostile equivocation, and i suspect you're actually projecting. i wonder what immediate reaction you have when people tell you you're participating in harming people, mr debate expert.