im3w1l

What is the meaning of sending the #pragma as a commandline argument to those games?

To me it seems like the sequence is basically (made up but i hope its clear what I mean) 1, 5, 100, 10000000, NaN, NaN, NaN, NaN...

> Any turing machine will either halt or not halt.

I guess this is the crux of the issue for me and what I'm struggling with. This does not seem obvious to me.

So then if the BB sequence has finitely many entries. What does it mean that it grows faster than any computable sequence? A finite sequence can't have any asymptotic behavior right?

I feel like I keep failing to wrap my mind around computability in the same way over and over.

Would the following statement be correct?

"There is a turing machine that cannot be proven whether it will terminate or not. For any n we can construct a proof that it will run longer than n. But we cannot construct a proof that for any n it will run longer than n. Due to this particular turing machine, BB(k) cannot be determined for k large enough to admit that turing machine."

No one does this. The best you can hope for is that a rare few especially error prone allocations (perhaps they are huge, or user controlled) are handled. Someone might I suppose also wrap all malloc calls in a function that shows a dialog or error message and only then exits. But returning all the way to the top, yeah.. no..

Arrays are not pointers in c. Though they are very similar and will implicitly convert, there are differences. The big and obvious difference is that declaring an array will allocate space for it. In a function, on the stack. In a struct, inline. They have different sizeof. I think there are also some other stuff I can't remember.

I disagree. Firstly, people in AI likely care about math on a personal level. Secondly math is useful. Playing go or chess is basically a party trick. Being useful gives it staying power.

But, I do think you are right that there will be some level of moving on. The spotlight is currently on maths and that won't last. It will move to some other area where there is more impact to be had. So while they might shift gears and put less focus on math, it will always be there as part of the portfolio.

I think it should also be fed the search results. Like if there is a lyrics match or something that "explains away" the query. But if there isn't then maybe it should be taken at face value.

I don't think incompleteness disproves my idea, at least not trivially. Let's take the case of ZF vs ZFC. I would say that ZF can simulate ZFC. To create a simulation we want a function f from statements in ZFC to statements in some subset of ZF so that valid inferences in one correspond to valid inferences in the other.

This is quite simple. f(p) = C implies p does the job quite elegantly.

Interestingly it's harder to do the opposite, to simulate ZF in ZFC, because there is no way to express "forget that you know about C". Such a construction cannot be possible in general because if a contradictory axiom is added, then everything is true, and a theory where everything is true is useless and can't simulate anything. However for C in particular I believe it should be possible to make such a construction but I can't immediately think of how I would do it.

Just like turing machines are universal in the sense that they can all emulate each other, I feel like there should be some universal logic that can emulate any other logical theory. Something like the gödel numbering construction maybe? This is where my knowledge ends, I'm afraid.

If something can be proven there is a finite length proof, and if you check lengths one by one eventually you will reach a high enough length for a valid proof.

I specifically said that it will prove everything that can be proven, conceding that some statements cannot be proven no matter what you do.

A very simple program that loops over all strings and feeds them into a proof verifier should eventually prove every statement that can be proven, as far as I can tell?

You are thinking on the wrong level. Of course we don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the world encoded into our genome. It's like we have certain structures of the world hard coded, and they may use different learning algorithms.

We instinctively know that there are other intelligent beings, and we have the the machinery to model them. We are born with the capacity for language. It must still be learned, the specific words aren't hardcoded, but the concept of language is. We are born with the capacity to store and replay memories. The brain knows some aspects of how the world is supposed to look like visually, and if it doesn't it will try to correct that. People who used optics to see the world upside down have found that after a brief time their brain learned to flip the world right side up.

Personally I think the dirty secret of the brain is that a lot of things are hard coded. And many things that we need to learn are also hard coded except that some parameters need to be tuned.

If we puke, the brain will not do general aversive learning, it will learn to avoid specifically the last thing eaten, because it instinctively knows about food poisoning.

Imprinting is absolutely fascinating. Some newborn animals will run a very simple pattern detector like looking for a red dot or something and use that to bootstrap their conception of their parent.

For fully general learning I have a hunch that it can be done using local history plus a semi-global reward scalar (global neurotransmittor levels).

It kinda rubbed me the wrong way that he considered both the lost sale and the value of the goods as part of the cost. That's double counting.

It does indeed mean ideological alignment. But we don't get to leave the answer blank. They have to pick an ideology to put in there, and whatever they pick will have huge consequences.

It's kinda a throw-away remark in the middle, but I thought it was really cool to realize that speakers produce an on-axis net-blow and an off-axis net-suck.

For public transit in my city they have an official website where you can type in where you are and where you want to go and it plan it all for you. Can choose from arrive asap to picking a time when you want to depart or a time you want to arrive. This has been operational since 2002.

More recently Google Maps has the same functionality and it will work in many cities across the world.

Does that mean you can build precedents with "matchfixing"? Like pay the plaintiff under the table to throw his case by presenting really bad arguments? And then subsequent cases must reference that result?

You are making an argument against caching it at all which is clearly not what they want. So the comparison must be uncompressed storage vs compressed storage.

The compression cost is always the same. The storage cost depends on how long you keep something in cache. The decode cost is proportional to number of total hits.

So compression makes the most sense for something you want to keep a long time that will be accessed very rarely. And the least sense for something you will drop very soon and will have many people requesting it.

Well what do you want? Presenting clear, desirable, and achievable visions and trying to build consensus for how AI should develop is crucial at this point in time.

> Ban construction (...) and let the economy and market forces compete to find the cheapest alternative

This sounds nice and unbiased on paper, but often this means that rather than expanding alternatives, the poor are simply made to go without and then they will scream at politicians for relief until they get it and you are right back at square one.

As a fellow Swede you will know how the price of gasoline has become a hot topic and how politicians campaigned on bringing the price down again by reversing climate policies.

Personally I think the solution is to make a commie-style 5 year plan and then work backwards to what kind of incentives would be needed for that plan, probably involving industry leaders in that discussion. Then you can make sure that the incentives are technology neutral. This ensures that if nothing better comes along the "free" market will execute 5 year plan but they do have the option of gambling on alternatives if they so choose or if some wonder technology emerges out of a secret lab.

I don't think it's really a tradeoff and rather that Ebola is simply bad at its job. Why? Because it's primarily a bat virus (and it's basically asymptomatic in bats) that ended up where it doesn't belong and wreaks havoc because it hasn't learned to play nice.

This framing seems like the correct one, but I think that just like being physically sedentary leads to weakness of muscles and joints and health problems, so being mentally sedentary could also lead to a mind that is weakened in the long term, though the weakness could likely be reversed with exposure to exercise.

Can we pick and choose the good without the bad? If we agree stability is a net-negative we could just say there will be a list of blessed trustworthy libraries with extra scrutiny and bureaucracy (make no mistake this is completely necessary to what people are asking for) to make sure they don't go rogue. But without a guarantee they will stick around and get updates forever.

This is why you dont use linear save frequency. 5 min, 10 min, half an hour, one hour, two hours etc

You are basically arguing that travelers with little to lose from a delay should subsidize travelers with a lot to lose, they would pay the same ticket prize but end up with different payouts.

I don't think that's reasonable. If you have a lot to lose then extra insurance should be a premium offering.

Adaption is just how the body works though. From the perspective of someone living in the mountains, descending to sea level is "addictive" in that they will get air withdrawals (altitude sickness) when coming back.