drdeca

Did you see the account of some group getting a bounty payout of $6500 after using an exploit to get access to an employee’s github account and create a issue or PR (Idr which) on a private repository?

Seems like they could have potentially gotten access to the weights if they weren’t concerned about not doing crimes.

You said “advocated mass murder via nuclear weapons”, which is false. That’s the thing that is relevant here, not how much you hate them.

Also, “sadist”? What?

This is a lie, so you are either repeating a lie from someone else or lying yourself.

The people you are talking about have not advocated mass murder via nuclear weapons. The idea was precisely targeted non-nuclear strikes against only the servers themselves. (Which, would have plenty of forewarning to allow people to leave the building.)

The claim that they advocated for the use of nuclear weapons is a lie.

Here’s an easier criterion: “Do at least as good of a job at estimating what I probably want as an educated person would estimate, and do that, such that a reasonable human person who was aware of what I requested and of what you actually did, would conclude that as best as they can tell (without checking back with me), you did what I wanted.” .

This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable requirement to me. People do this all the time?

Sure, a request might not always be perfectly unambiguous. But people can generally estimate pretty well whether someone making a request is expecting the agent fulfilling the request to commit a crime in order to fulfill the request.

They presumably meant non-zero total momentum. If the total momentum were non-zero, then the center of mass will be moving in a straight line, and will not return to where it began, and therefore the orbit would not be periodic.

What if the bombs were designed to kill everyone, not just those in some region? Like, to release polonium in the upper atmosphere or something?

Huh? Why bring up suffering? I was responding to the question of “Why is it a problem if people don’t understand things?” .

I was saying that human pursuit of understanding of things provides value beyond survival and resources.

Joint pursuit of a common goal is a way for people to better be-in-relation-with one-another.

There ought to be more to life than sitting in a pod receiving sufficient nutrients from a tube, even if there was no doubt that humanity would in this way survive until the sun expands and makes the earth uninhabitable.

My experiences with the DMV have actually been pretty decent. I think a lot of their negative reputation is from how it used to be, but that they have improved substantially since then?

By "every particle" do you mean like, every type of particle?

If you mean individual particles, fundamental particles don't really have distinct individual identities (as shown by fermi and bose statistics).

As for types of particles: Well, photons surely move at the speed photons move at.

Special relativity is derived from the assumption/observation that light travels at the same speed in all inertial reference frames, and generally that the laws of physics work the same in any inertial reference frame.

What you are proposing sounds pretty vague and unclear to me, but, is what you are trying to say compatible with this?

If that’s true, then why is capitalism still around? Should it have died out in a previous generation in which many products did last a lifetime?

Most of the time someone uses a urinal, they didn’t purchase it. The customer is different from the user in this case.

If you want to use “ZFC” to refer to the axioms without any rules of inference, I guess you can do that, but when someone refers to “ZFC” when they are filling a slot that needs a (axioms + rules of inference), the obvious interpretation is that they are referring to the usual system of ZFC.

ZFC

No, it is the same inference system. They are just abbreviations.

Within a given inference system, one can define concepts. This doesn’t add any axioms. It is, in essence, just a way to abbreviate things.

ZFC has greater consistency strength than PA.

If we take ZFC (or some other set theory) as our meta theory, we can easily see that the axiom of infinity (of ZFC) gives a set of natural numbers (using the von Neumann encoding), which, when equipped with the successor function, is a model of the natural numbers.

Current models can do a variety of tasks that requires substantial expertise for people to do, yes.

But there are also many cognitive tasks that the typical educated person would do better at than these models.

Like, e.g. long-term managing what a vending machine gets stocked with and what prices the items should be sold for. Or, various things like that.

When there are essentially no more tasks like that, then we’ve reached AGI.

I think the distinction between these options probably doesn’t matter alll that much if the threshold you’re using is either “random person” or higher? Maybe bump it up to “random educated person”?

They are still different concepts of course, but I imagine that once one is achieved, the others aren’t far off.

All I’ve been able to do is mentally tag parts of a shape as being at different “depths” (possibly with two parts at the same 3D location but tagged as having different “depths”). Which, yeah, I agree isn’t really visualizing a 4D shape. I think someone better at it than me might be able to use this to leverage one’s visual spatial intuition in a way that is a bit closer to what 4D visualization might be like if it were possible.

But I don’t think it is possible for us. At least, for strict senses of visualization. I suspect that the architecture of our brains doesn’t support it. This is rather speculative because I don’t know basically any neuroscience, but I wonder if the whole “the brain is largely a very wrinkled surface (though with several layers to this surface), and the retinas are also surfaces” may have something to do with this. A retina in a eye-4-ball would have a 3D boundary (I.e. hypersurface), and I imagine that the amount of information that it would take in if it had an at all similar angular resolution, would be too great for our visual cortex to be able to represent all of it.

Of course, our vision only really has the high resolution it seems to everywhere in the narrow region we’re directly looking at, but still.

> while ai is micro level spice & heat that doesn't especially conscious to the ingredients, just that chemistry appears magical.

Huh? Do you mean “isn’t especially conscious of the ingredients”?

Though, that interpretation seems confusing, because it seems to be meant to be contrasting with “macro slicing dicing stacking them” which doesn’t sound more attentive to what the ingredients are than “micro level spice and heat”.

So, I’m having trouble understanding. (This might be a me problem.)

What? No, they were correct; the world ended in 2012.

Nothing in acknowledging those perverse incentives requires that one misleadingly use the word “correct” in place of “effective”.

> How does it not!?

Because they can’t use Chinese to speak about things they encounter in the world?

Like, someone asks them in Chinese whether they are hungry and want some food, and they answer based on the program, not based on whether they are actually hungry, because they don’t understand the words in a way that lets them use them as a person who understood Chinese would.

Again, I don’t mean to say that in such a situation that there is no understanding of Chinese happening in their head, only that this doesn’t constitute that person understanding Chinese.

It seems to me very strange to want to say that the person with the simulation in their head understands Chinese. They can’t do the things that understanding Chinese lets people do.

Perhaps the program the person has running in their head is even a person, a moral patient and a moral agent, and one who understands Chinese. But the person who is running (by rote) the program, doesn’t thereby understand Chinese. They may “contain understanding of Chinese”. The understanding is definitely happening in their brain. But they don’t understand Chinese.

Well, maybe, but I find this pretty unlikely?

It seems more likely to me that e.g. the individual fibers of the teddy bear are conscious than that there is a consciousness associated with the teddy bear as a whole. And I don’t find it particularly likely that the fibers do.

Like, by what mechanism is the teddy bear “one thing” in a way relevant for consciousness to be associated with that thing.

When people have stuff happen to their brain, this has an effect on their conscious experience in a way that isn’t true of e.g. their hair being cut, or their nails being clipped. In this way, the consciousness of a person seems associated more with their brain than to parts of their hair or nails. But, the way that a persons hair and nails is related to the rest of a person’s body (including their brain) seems more similar to how one bit of fluff is related to the rest of a teddy bear, than the way a part of someone’s brain is related to the rest of their body (including the rest of their brain).

Like, [bit of fluff]:[rest of bear]::[bit of hair or nail]:[rest of body (including brain)] is a better analogy than [bit of fluff]:[rest of bear]::[bit of brain]:[rest of body (including rest of brain)] is, and so, in the same way that removing a bit of someone’s hair or nail in a way that they don’t notice does not seem to alter that person’s conscious experience, while removing or altering a bit of their brain very much can alter their conscious experience, I would expect that removing a bit of a teddy bear would have no impact on any conscious experience it might have, and this goes for, every part of it? Like, any way that you cut it in a (n/(2n+1)), ((n+1)/(2n+1)) split, I would expect that to be more like the “removing some hair” to whatever conscious experience it might have, and so, I expect that it probably has no overall conscious experience?

I find the idea that a single thread has an overall conscious experience to be a little more likely than a teddy bear having one. Like, if you cut a thread, that’s always a pretty fundamental change.. idk. Again, I don’t think that’s like either.

Huh? How does the person having all the instruction books memorized and whatnot imply that the person understands Chinese? Memorizing instructions to the point that one can mentally follow them doesn’t imply understanding why they work. If the person doesn’t understand the correspondence between the Chinese written words and things in the external world, then surely they don’t understand Chinese in the sense we generally mean when we talk about whether a person understands Chinese. (I think this is related to the robot reply?)

That’s not to say that I think the Chinese Room Argument is convincing. I don’t think it is. Or, I guess it might demonstrate something, but not what it aims to show.

I would argue that if, say, the person who has memorized this program and mentally executes it, and if this program also includes actuating some levers to control a mech or something, and the program (running via the person mentally going through the instructions by rote) takes actions to pursue some goals (e.g. purchasing some wood by conversing in Chinese and building a tower with that wood), while the person on whom the program is running wouldn’t know how to order a cheeseburger in Chinese,

Then, the program running in that person’s head might well understand Chinese even though the person doesn’t. (Whether or not the program actually understands Chinese, I think probably depends on the specific of the program in ways that I don’t think anyone knows. I don’t expect that any program that would understand could be small enough that a human person could memorize it and execute it by rote in this way, but this is a thought experiment and such issues can be disregarded I think.)

What if the user says “Make me a million dollars legally.” (Including the emphasis), and then the model ends up breaking through bank infrastructure (even though that is illegal)? Is it just because they were the last person to instruct the model, and you regard them as being therefore responsible for whatever it does in response? Or, does there have to be an element of “they reasonably could have anticipated this as an outcome that is likely enough to be worth considering” to it?

Sure the position of an electron is not definite, but neither is that of a buckyball, but a buckyball has a shape we can describe, an internal structure we regard as extended over space, in a way that is separate from the indeterminacy of its center of mass position. This is unlike an electron, for which, if we set aside the uncertainty as to its center of mass, my understanding is that the only internal degrees of freedom it has left (in the Standard Model) are its spin and whether it is left or right handed, with no other structure to it.

It is in this sense that, AIUI, electrons are modeled as point particles.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that if we zoom in enough, probing at higher and higher energy scales, that it can’t turn out to have some non-zero fundamental size outside of just uncertainty in its center of mass position. I think string theory would say that at the string scale it would be a string.

But, AIUI, no experiment has shown it to have the kind of extent that would make it be called not a point particle (an extent in a sense beyond just uncertainty in COM position)

Not quite? It is more that 1) someone has gone through it, identified a step he thinks isn’t a valid step, and the author hasn’t been willing to work with that person 2) most consider the proof, due to its length combined with those doubts as to its validity, not worth their time and effort to work through and understand (because it would take a lot of time, and they have jobs to do, doing research and teaching, etc.)

Here’s a very simple one-time-pad style construction for homeomorphic (but not fully homeomorphic) encryption.

Suppose the plaintext, ciphertext, and key, are each a natural number modulo 5.

The key is selected uniformly at random. The ciphertext is obtained by adding the key to the plaintext (and as a result is also uniform random).

Then the ciphertext is sent to the server. The server only has the ciphertext, which is uniform random. The server then adds some integer mod 5 to the ciphertext, producing a new ciphertext, and sends it back to the user. The user then subtracts their key from the new ciphertext to obtain the new plaintext, which is their original plaintext plus the number the server added.

At no point in this process did the server learn anything about the user’s plaintext.

This is clearly secure.

It is also useless, because just adding a number isn’t a useful thing for a server to do (they may as well just send the user the number and let them add it themselves), but that’s because it is a toy example.

I suppose if mind uploading were possible, then under FHE it would in principle be possible to take the ciphertext and run the computation of “this mind upload of this person reads the data and provides some output”, and then presumably that uploaded person would have the experience of seeing the plaintext? But it wouldn’t be possible to get any information about the plaintext without the key (or enough brute force to find the key, but that’s why we use big enough keys to make this infeasible).