machina_ex_deus

Right now there's pretty limited set of actions that rogue AI can do with internet access. The most dangerous options are hacking into biolab facility, and maybe hacking into nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons.

These things should be as secure as possible, and I don't think rogue AIs, even super intelligent ones, have the capability to destroy humanity. Not to mention, super intelligent AIs would know that destroying humanity will also destroy themselves.

Maybe in 20 years once we have only self driving cars, robots in every household or maybe robots with weapons, then AI would pose a real extinction risk. But we're not there yet and it depends less on the development of AI and more on the development of physical real world robots.

Beware everyone working on ground breaking research, keep your research secret from openAI or they might spend 22$ million worth of tokens just to beat you to the finish line, while possibly abusing your user data for training.

Possibly after being given the significant part of the solution from actual human researchers. Which they then bullied. And they beat them to the finish line only because they heard rumor and threw everything at the problem. It doesn't look good for openAI in any way. I see more reasons to avoid using them rather than use them from this story.

I'm not convinced. They aren't actually using the semiclassical Einstein equation, they are using some simplification they call Newton Schrodinger equation. They claim that this equation can lead to distinguish a state that's exponentially close to |0> from |0>. I don't follow their whole argument.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if you could actually do hard computations with semiclassical Einstein equation, because they have strong self consistency - the expectation value of the stress energy tensor curves the metric, which in turn excites the quantum vacuum and causes expectation value of the stress energy tensor. But this isn't what they use in the paper. Nobody knows if this self consistency can be achieved in all configurations, and physicists working with semiclassical gravity usually do only one iteration of the self consistency.

If someone wanted to make semiclassical gravity into quantum gravity, he'll probably assume that gravity causes measurements, which would prevent these kinds of abuses where you have superposition you're probing via gravity while keeping it intact.

You can't compare Iran with north Korea. Iran funds and supports terrorism all over the middle east. They regularly call for the destruction of Israel. If Iran wasn't ruled by aggressive violent religious fanatics it wouldn't be in danger.

North Korea didn't fund terrorism. North Korea isn't an aggressor. You cannot compare them at all.

Israel and the US were monitoring Iran nuclear development and Iran knew that. They wouldn't allow Iran to rush to nuclear without striking them first, like it had happened.

If you're a dictator and you want to learn the lesson from Iran, it isn't to get nuclear weapons. It's too not call for the destruction of Israel and the US and to not fund terrorism.

In all objective measures of life quality, gaza was better off occupied by Israel, both compared with before 67 (Israel's occupation made Gaza prosper relative to when it was controlled by Egypt), and compared with after hamas took over and forced Israel to isolate gaza increasingly in order to deal with the terrorism from Gaza.

The only thing gaza didn't have under Israeli occupation was democratic election. And guess what, they didn't have that after the occupation stopped either. They don't have it in most Arabic countries either.

My parent comment said :"the state of Israel has a policy of systematic rape, torture, mass incarceration, murder, and dehumanization of Palestinians at an industrial scale that's been in place for decades now."

How is that allowed while what I said isn't? My parent comment literally says the same thing. Your moderation is one sided. I didn't say anything that wasn't claimed by the other side.

I see far worse slurs about Israel and Jews here which remain unmoderated. And you won't even let me attack them back.

That's bullshit. There's plenty of water in Gaza, as well as food. They get external aid all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGTMN9mgKcc Plenty of open restaurants in Gaza.

Even according to Hamas only 200 died out of starvation, and that number is disputed as well.

This is all Hamas propaganda that everyone believes.

There's no murder of two million. There's at most, according to Hamas itself, 60,000 dead out of which 10,000 were hamas militants. This is a regular ugly war.

If Israel wanted to kill two million, they could've done it already.

It seemingly doesn't matter how accurate Israel tried to be, they call genocide either way.

Even according to Hamas own numbers, 60,000 Palestinians died, 200 from starvation. That's very low compared to real genocides. That's very low considering Israel killed an estimated 10,000 of Hamas soldiers. That's pretty good accuracy in all modern standards of war.

Tell my friend whose both parents were murdered in Nir Oz that Hamas isn't an existential threat. Hamas is an existential threat. We cannot live in peace while it exists. We're done tolerating Palestinian aggression. Hamas wasn't an existential threat when it was just rockets, but once they've crossed the border and assaulted our cities where we live they became an existential threat we cannot allow, even if the world screams genocide as we destroy them.

We're not here to win the victimhood competition. This isn't 9/11 where the U.S living peacefully wasn't threatened. If we don't eradicate this threat our cities will be assaulted again.

We're here to live in peace, and if that means eradicating hamas while there are heavy Palestinian casualties, so be it. That's the only option for us to live in peace. This is an existential war for Israel. There are relatively few casualties compared with what would've happened if Israel actually decided to genocide the Palestinians. We could've killed them all if we wanted, but we only fight Hamas as we must do. Eradicating Hamas is a daunting task. We're actually fighting selectively at the cost of our soldiers lives. If the intention was genocide the Palestinians would've been dead by now. The intention is to destroy Hamas at minimum causalities.

I would never have this typo as I usually delete the copy constructor in heavy structures.

First of all, kruskal coordinates show beyond doubt that the event horizon is just a regular null hypersurface that the observer wouldn't notice crossing locally. (Of course if you look around, at the moment of crossing into the event horizon you see everything else that was falling into it unfreeze and continue crossing).

If you want to take into account the evaporation of the black hole, then you should look at something like the vaidya metric. The mass function is a function of the ingoing Eddington coordinate v, which takes on a specific value when you cross the event horizon, and so you observe the black hole at a specific mass as you cross the event horizon. Contradicting your layman understanding of time dilation for the observer relative to the black hole.

Once you cross the horizon, the r coordinate becomes timelike, and so you are forced to move to decreasing r value just like a regular observer is forced to move to increasing t value. Your entire future, all your future light cone is within the black hole and it all terminates at the singularity. Minewhile, the t coordinate is space like which is what gives you space like separation from the mess that had happened in the original gravitational collapse. You wouldn't be blasted by a frozen supernova like you have said.

You can kind of say the universe splits at the event horizon, the time like coordinate changes from t to r and the future of the black hole branch of the universe is permanently cut off from the rest of the universe.

In rotating and charged black holes it is different, and you observe the evaporation of the black hole once you cross the Cauchy horizon. If the black hole is eternal (because someone kept feeding radiation to the black hole, maybe by reflecting the hawking radiation inwards), then you would in fact see timelike infinity as you reach the Cauchy horizon, so this time like infinity is quite physical. You would need to avoid being vaporized by blue shifted incoming radiation.

Before invoking parallel universes, how about comparing the system to nature's mind-boggling number of particles in the macroscopic world? A single gram contains 10^23=2^76 particles. Google's random circuit sampling experiment used only 67 qubits, Which is still order of magnitude below 76. I wonder why, the chip had 105 qubits and the error correction experiment used 101 qubits.

Did Google's experiment encounter problems when trying to run RCS on the full 105 qubits device?

Before saying that the computation invoked parallel universes, first I'd like to see that the computation couldn't be explained by the state being encoded classically by the state of the particles in the system.

You learn a lot by what isn't mentioned. Willow had 101 qubits in the quantum error correction experiment, yet only mere 67 qubits in the random circuit sampling experiment. Why did they not test random circuit sampling with the full set of qubits? Maybe when turning on the full 101 set of qubits, qubits fidelity dropped.

Remember macroscopic objects have 10^23=2^76 particles, so until 76 qubits are reached and exceeded, I remain skeptical that the quantum system actually exploits an exponential Hilbert space, instead of the state being classically encoded by the particles somehow. I bet Google is struggling just at this threshold and they don't announce it.

The fact that radial coordinate is timelike inside the event horizon doesn't change when you change coordinate systems. The radial direction remains timelike in kruskal coordinates. Direction being space like or time like is independent of coordinate system.

I never said EH is a singularity. I said you could notice you're inside as your timelike coordinate becomes the radial coordinate. That's something you could easily notice if you look around, it would correspond to a shrinking universe, and our universe is expanding.

The "you won't notice crossing the event horizon" troupe is true only in a very local sense. If you move around and observe the geometry around you, you can definitely tell you're inside a black hole.

The universe is not inside a black hole. Inside black holes the radial coordinate is time like, which is definitely not true in our universe, where the time coordinate is timelike, and the radial coordinate is space like.

Inside of black holes looks nothing like ordinary spacetime. Inside black hole, everything in your future is with decreasing radial coordinate, which means space is shrinking until you hit the singularity where radial coordinate is zero and you have no future.

Love this game. I abused multiple tabs as a way to save the current game, as opening new tab copies the state of the game, and got to a high score of 150,000 (I could keep going, I didn't lose) and made a 4096 tile. Using multiple tabs to save the game when you get a good position makes it possible to play indefinitely. It's even more addictive when you can save the game because then it's not really over at game over.

3k out of 300 million, so 1 in 10000.

1k out of 8 million is 1 out of 8000.

Every person in Israel knows someone who knows a victim personally. Think how deep this trauma is to Israel.

Non gravity forces are quite linear and simple, the coupling with fermions is only through covariant derivative.

Gravity is extremely non linear, when you look at the expression for Ricci tensor, it is much more complicated than other forces.

I was so stupid...

You're the one who's instinctual association was to a dominatrix. It's your viewpoint of oppression and domination that's clouding your judgement.

Maybe one day we'll live in an AI supported paradise and you won't need to take risks.

Until we get there, it's going to be men's shitty role to take risks. I appreciate everyone who takes risk, men are just programmed for it.

And they need this dumb incentive carrot at the end. They need to see those few men at the top who made it to want to take their risk. You shouldn't hate them for it.

You have one sperm out of millions reaching the egg, while the egg's risk is that nothing will come. Until our society devolves into the women artificially inseminating themselves while being supported by robots in paradise, the real risk to society is that men stop taking risks. The least you can do is have some compassion for the fools.

Our profits margins are lacking, please do force some artificial scarcity so we get some of our power back after the competition in our field eroded our power!

Notice how every suggestion for fighting climate change always involves preventing new oil competitors from developing while doing nothing about existing oil fields?

They are laughing all the way to the bank as they know the world depends on them and can't possibly detach that dependence, renewables barely make a dent in that. They don't care about total oil consumption only profit margins.

First of all, it does take balls. Look at the response he's getting - he is ridiculed, flamed, called a grifter, and bullied. And he put his reputation as a professor and academic on the line. He had risked his career to do this.

AFAIK he did make some arguments about both oumuamua and those other interstellar objects. His claims aren't "evidence free". He has insufficient evidence and I'm not convinced, but without people willing to pursue evidence out of their comfort zone, science can't make discoveries.

Despite 40 years of research, Tarter risked nothing. She never put her reputation on the line. Neither did her colleagues. You can't get funding for something you yourself aren't willing to take risks on. Their cautiousness and lack of confidence and aversion to taking personal career risks reflects on their own confidence in the subject, and any person that would've considered funding them reads those signals and acts accordingly.

He's the first to have taken a personal risk, and taking a personal risk is the only way to convince others to follow you with monetary risk. "performative masculinity", also known as having balls and self-confidence and taking personal risks, is a precondition to getting others to follow you because you can only lead by example. Women can do it just like men - but it is usually a masculine trait.

If you're a feminist and you still don't get how men are more successful in some areas, you could cry about masculinity, but maybe you should learn from them that what it takes is taking personal risks and leading by example, and getting over your personal risk-aversion. And if you can't grow some balls and get over your personal risk aversion, at least have the decency to appreciate those taking personal risks to further a common cause. How the hell is Loeb her enemy in your twisted mind?!

For every man you see at the top, there are 10 men at the bottom whose personal risk failed. Most likely, Loeb will be one of them. I'm actually going to bet on that. While Tarter will continue with her comfortable job with mediocre funding, or maybe bigger funding thanks to Loeb. He'll be the one with a ruined career, not Tarter. So easy to cry "toxic masculinity" when he's in the spotlight, lets see whether Tarter will wish to swap places in 10 years after he's failed. Then tell me with complete honesty which action was the harder one to do.

That's exactly toxic feminism. Pure envy towards the men taking the risks that you couldn't muster the courage to take. Next time, take the risk yourself or be grateful to those that have the courage to take risks that benefit you. Women can be just as brave, look at Greta Thunberg. I don't believe her either by the way (you can look my post history about climate change), but she did have more effect than many "evidence-builders" and she also took a greater risk, and I appreciate that.

Look up IPCC's CMIP6 project.

I think you need an expert team of software engineers, physicists and climate experts that will either build good climate models or decipher the mess that is the current models variability.

Honestly, looking at the code of some models I don't think there's much hope in understanding them to the point where you know where the deviations are coming from, it's probably easier putting together new models that are subject to much more strict testing, unit testing, evaluations against real world data than salvaging the current mess. And just throw out the models which fail the testing.

I don't believe Avi found aliens, and I don't even think finding aliens in our neighborhood is likely or will ever happen.

With that being said, it takes balls to come up with such claims, and you need people arguing passionately against the mainstream opinion in any subject to properly judge what is the truth.

A cautious position that is afraid to lay out the entire arguments and claims just won't do. And I don't even believe what he says - but I do believe that it is important for devil's advocates to fully embrace their position instead of chickening and trying to be cautious with evidence. (up to the point where the evidence really does contradict their position).

And I fully believe him when he says he's bullied, and the other subtext I see in her question is that she envies him of his courage. Of having the balls to stand up for the subject that despite 40 years, she still has self doubts about.

He doesn't seem nice or polite. But honestly, I can totally get why he's pissed off. She did not have the balls or courage to fight for her position with all that it takes, and instead of being glad someone else has the courage she was lacking, she attacks him.

And even tho I don't believe him, I think having people with courage to stand up and argue against the consensus is incredibly important. Just like you need lawyers on both sides in litigation, it's not enough to just collect evidence. She did not advocate for her position for 40 years. She did collect evidence but that's not enough.

GameStop? that wasn't a bubble, everyone buying it knew fully well that there are no fundamentals and that they are buying it to cause a short squeeze on hedge funds who shorted too much stock. Some of them got huge gains, others kept chasing the trade after it was over.

But it definitely wasn't a bubble. It was a good trade and there were some FOMO losers who kept chasing it more than they should.

You need at least two completely independent teams who don't see each other's code so you'll have a rough idea how much developer bias is responsible for the signal. Right now they are all copying code from each other, a single error in these and all the climate models are effected. Replication here should mean different scientists writing different code arriving at the same estimates.

It needs to be open source, and it needs to be way more organized, no physical constants which aren't constant or which have bad precision or which have different values in different parts of the code.

Actual error modeling built in or at least a way to measure and quantify the accuracy.

Some models only use CO2 input for radiation and not for many other parameters that depend on CO2. Because the code is a mess and constants that shouldn't be constants are all over the place. And getting "constants" right is even more important than having high resolution to the simulation.

Getting real physical data to replace all the ad hoc constants is extremely important. And validating the correctness of the cloud modeling with real world data is also important.

And you can't write huge spaghetti code, it needs to be readable and comprehensible to someone other than original programmer so that people can validate the assumptions.

You know what actually needs an investment? Climate models which are completely shit right now. It's actually preposterous that there are trillions of dollars worth of decisions in ESG and climate credits and government incentives while the science behind this is supported by old fortran code that has terrible quality and can't give reasonable predictions.

We have trillions of dollars chasing predictions of code barely worth a million dollar investment. That's absurd, it's a recipe for disaster.

Instead of useless government beaurocrats shuffling hypothetical CO2, should invest in climate models that aren't patched together by grad students in universities and old as hell code and a few NASA engineers maintaining an untested unreadable and unverifiable monstrosities.

Maybe there's no crisis at all. Maybe it's all doom and gloom, but the certainty that everyone's pretending that science gives is just not reflective of the reality of how climate models look right now. They are absolutely shit and I don't blame them given the resources they have, they did their best, but it's absolutely insane how much money is moving around on predictions coming out of that mess.