Interesting you get downvoted for this when I mocked someone for saying the opposite who claimed that $0.5m was some enormous amount of money we shouldn’t be wasting, and I simply pointed out that we waste literally billions around the world on endless wars killing random people for now reason, so it is silly to come after small bean quantum computing if budgeting is your actual concern. People seemed to really hate me for saying that, or maybe it was because they just actually like wasting moneys on bombs to drop on children and so they want to cut everything but that.

Che Guevara wrote about in his book Critical Notes on Political Economy about how workers who are given full autonomy in their enterprises actually can become antagonistic towards society because they benefit solely from their own enterprise succeeding at the expense of all others, and thus they acquire similar motivations to the capitalist class, i.e. they want deregulations, dismantling of the public sector, more power to their individual enterprise, etc.

The solution is not to abandon workplace democracy but to balance it out also with public democracy. You have enterprises with a board that is both a mixture of direct appointments from the workers at that company with their direct input, as well as appointments by the public sector / central government. The public appointments are necessary to make sure the company is keeping inline with the will of everybody and not merely the people at that specific enterprise, because the actions of that enterprise can and does affect the rest of society.

Workplaces need to be democratic, but also not autonomous from the democratic will of the rest of society.

I wouldn’t, I’d just live there. Get to know the people and culture, get married, grow to old age and die. Just like almost everyone there, and most people in any country. I’d survive just like I’d survive in any other country: go to work every day to get income needed to eat, repeat the process ad infinitum until my body withers away from old age.

Yeah, the jacket is very different as well if you look at the front chest area. While people do say maybe he just changed his clothes, the problem is if he also changed his backpack, he couldn’t have just put the clothes in the backpack, meaning he would’ve had to have left them somewhere and there would’ve been a trail that probably would’ve been found by now. It doesn’t really add up for them to be the same person.

That’s not how political parties work, though. Political parties are largely ideological institutions, they exist first and foremost not to win elections but to propagate an ideology, and winning the election is just a sign that they succeeded in their goal of convincing people of their ideology, and so now enough people agree that it can take root in the state. When political parties lose, it’s very rare that they will interpret their loss as “we need to abandon all our values to match the opinion polls.” No, they interpret their loss as meaning they failed in their goal of convincing people of their values, and thus should change their strategy of their out-reach, not changing their whole ideological position.

Democrats going against the rich elites would be an abandonment of their party’s values and everything they stand for. In most countries, if you dislike the ideology of a party, you vote for someone else. The party itself has no obligation to change its entire ideology for you, such a thing very rarely occurs. If that was the case, then every political party would all have the exact same position, just all copy/pastes of whatever the opinion polls say.

I keep seeing all this bizarre rhetoric about how if the Democrats were “smart” they would just abandon their whole party’s platform and adopt some other platform, but this makes zero sense, because you have to consider motivation. Their motivation is not to just win the election, but to convince you of their ideology, and abandoning their ideology does not achieve this. Democrats are not stupid, they just don’t have the same motivations as you. Yes, they want to win, but they ultimately want to win on their platform, not on someone else’s platform.

That’s how political parties work. They have a platform, and the platform is paramount. If a green party adopted all pro-coal and pro-oil lobby positions just to win an election, that would not be a “smart” decision for them, because, even if it leads to their victory, it still is an abandonment of their ideology. Democrats are unabashedly a pro-rich elite party, it should not be smart for them to become anti-elite, because it is not aligned with their motivations.

Yes, it’s ultimately a cautionary tale as to why social democracy is unsustainable, as it is just the implementation of social policies while maintaining capitalist hegemony. There is no such thing as a benevolent oligarch. Capitalists have utilitarian reasons to implement pro-worker social policies, and it’s usually to reduce unrest or increase productivity. The moment those reasons no longer become relevant, they will begin to dismantle it. Much of western Europe in general right now is suffering from nonstop austerity for a long time now.

Bell’s theorem demonstrates that you cannot have a deterministic theory that would also be Lorentz invariant, that is to say, compatible with special relativity and the speed of light limit. The speed of light limit is very well tested over and over again, and no one to this day has ever been able to construct even a single mathematical model that could even approximately reconstruct the predictions of quantum field theory in a way that is deterministic. That suggests that any deterministic theory would actually make quantifiably different predictions than quantum field theory, and yet we don’t have any evidence that its predictions are violated, and quantum field theory is verified to 12 decimal places of precision.

I don’t really understand your point about the dice. If you have two “quantum” dice that are exactly the same, they are not guaranteed to land on the same thing, and that is precisely what it means to be nondeterministic, that even if all the initial conditions are the same, the outcome can be different. Yes, we cannot make the whole universe the same throughout the experiment, but to make sense of this, you cannot speak in vague philosophy but need to actually specify in mathematical terms what parts of the universe you think are determining the outcome, which, again, any attempt to specify such a thing would require contradicting the predictions of quantum field theory.

My issue with your argument is that, whether or not you intended this or not, what you are undeniably arguing is that all our current physical theories are currently wrong and making the wrong predictions, and they need to be adjusted to make the right predictions, and you are basing this off of what is ultimately a philosophical criticism, i.e. that it is not deterministic and you think it should be, without even having a viable model of what this determinism would look like. It just seems far too speculative to me.

Yes, you can always make the argument that “our old theories have been proven wrong before, like Newton’s gravity was replaced with Einstein’s gravity, so we shouldn’t put much stock into our current theories,” but I just find this unconvincing, as you can make this argument in literally any era, and thus it completely negates the possibility of using science to understand the properties of nature. Every scientific theory would have to always be interpreted as just something tentative that can’t tell us anything about nature, because it’s bound to be replaced later, and instead we’re just left arguing vague philosophy not based on anything empirical.

I will readily admit that if I base my understanding of reality on our best physical sciences of the era, those can be overturned and I could be shown to be wrong. However, I still find it to be the most reasonable position as opposed to trying to “intuit” our way to an understanding of nature. The person who strongly defended the Newtonian picture of nature prior to Einstein was later shown to be wrong, yes, but he was still far more correct than the majority of those who insisted upon trying to derive an understanding of nature entirely from intuition/philosophy. I am with Heisenberg who argued that until we actually have any experimental evidence that violates the predictions of quantum field theory and can only be corrected with the introduction of hidden variables, then positing their existence is pointless metaphysical speculation, not derived from anything empirical.

To express my love for the soup store.

In boolean algebra 1+1=0.

Not sure how getting rid of benches stops people from fighting.

It’s always funny seeing arguments like this as someone with a computer science education. A lot of people act like you can’t have anything complex unless some intelligent being deterministically writes a lot of if-else statements to implement it, which requires them to know and understand in detail what they are implementing at every step.

But what people don’t realize is that this is not how it works at all, there are many problems that are just impractical to actually “know” how to solve yet we solve them all the time, such as voice recognition. Nobody in human history has ever written a bunch of if-else statements to be able to accurately translate someone’s voice to text, because it’s too complicated of a problem, no one on earth knows how it works.

Yet, of course, your phone can do voice recognition just fine. That is because you can put together a generic class of algorithms which find solutions to problems on their own, without you even understanding how to solve problem. These algorithms are known as metaheuristics. Metaheuristics fundamentally cannot be deterministic, they require random noise to work properly, because something that is deterministic will always greedily go in the direction of a more correct solution, and will never explore more incorrect solutions, whereby an even better solution may be beyond the horizon of many incorrect ones. They also do have to be somewhat deterministic as well, because you need some greed or else the random exploration would be aimless.

A simple example of a metaheuristic is that of annealing. If you want to strengthen a sword, you can heat up the metal really hot and let it slowly cool. While it’s really hot, the atoms in the sword will randomly explore different configurations, and as it cools, they will explore less and less, and the overall process leads them to finding rather optimal configurations that strengthen the crystaline structure of the metal.

This simple process can actually be applied generally to solve pretty much any problem. For example, if you are trying to figure out the optimal route to deliver packages, you can simulate this annealing process but rather than atoms searching for an optimal crystaline structure, you have different orders of stops on a graph searching for the shortest path. The “temperature” would be a variable that represents how much random exploration you are willing to accept, i.e. if you alter the configuration and it’s worse, how much worse does it have to be for you to not accept it. A higher temperature would accept worse solutions, at very low temperatures you would only accept solutions that improve upon the route.

I once implemented this algorithm to solve sudoku puzzles and it was very quick at doing so, and the funny thing is, I’ve never even played sudoku before! I do not know how to efficiently solve a sudoku puzzle, I’ve honestly never even solved one by hand, but with sudoku it is very easy to verify whether or not a solution is correct even if you have no idea how to find the solution and even if finding it is very difficult, verifying it is trivially easy. So all I had to do is right the annealing algorithm so that the greedy aspect is based on verifying how many rows/columns are correct, and the exploration part is just randomly moving numbers around.

There are tons of metaheuristic algorithms, and much of them we learn from nature, like annealing, however, there’s also genetic algorithms. The random exploration is done through random mutations through each generation, but the deterministic and greedy aspect of it is the fact that only the most optimal generations are chosen to produce the next generation. This is also a generic algorithm that can be applied to solve any problem. You can see a person here who uses a genetic algorithm to teach a computer how to fly a plane in a simulation.

Modern AI is based on neural networks, which the greedy aspect of them is something called backpropagation, although this on its own is not a metaheuristic, but modern AI tech arguably qualifies because it does not actually work until you introduce random exploration like a method known as drop out whereby you randomly remove neurons during training to encourage the neural network to not overfit. Backpropagation+dropout forms a kind of metaheuristic with both a greedy and exploratory aspect to it, and can be used to solve just about any generic problem. (Technically, ANNs are just function-approximators, so if you want to think of it as a metaheuristic, the full metaheuristic would have to include all the steps of creating, training, and then applying the ANN in practice, as a metaheuristic is a list of steps to solve any generic problem, whereas an ANN on its own is just a function-approximator.)

Indeed, that’s how we get phones to recognize speech and convert it to text. Nobody sat down and wrote a bunch of if-else statements to translate speech into text. Rather, we took a generic nature-inspired algorithm that can produce solutions for any problem, and just applied it to speech recognition, and kept increasing the amount of compute until it could solve the problem on its own. Once it solves it, the solution it spits out is kind of a black box. You can put in speech as an input, and it gives you text as an output, but nobody really even knows fully what is going on in between.

People often act like somehow computers could not solve problems unless humans could also solve them, but computers already have solved millions of problems which not only has no human ever solved but no human can even possibly understand the solution the computer spits out. All we know from studying nature is that there are clever ways to combine random exploration and deterministic greed to form processes which can solve any arbitrary problem given enough time and resources, so we just implement those processes into computers and then keep throwing more time and resources at it until it spits out an answer.

We already understand how nature can produce complex things without anyone “knowing” how it works, because we do that all the time already! You do not need a sentient being to tell the beetle how to evolve to fit into its environment. There is random exploration caused by genetic mutations, but also a deterministic greedy aspect caused by “survival of the fittest.” This causes living organisms to gradually develop over many generations to something fit for its environment. And life has had plenty of time and resources to become more suited to its environment, life has been evolving for billions of years, with the whole resources of the planet earth and the sun.

i’m a gigavaxxer, when the laddies gonna start lining up…

We don’t know what it is. We don’t know how it works. That is why

If you cannot tell me what you are even talking about then you cannot say “we don’t know how it works,” because you have not defined what “it” even is. It would be like saying we don’t know how florgleblorp works. All humans possess florgleblorp and we won’t be able to create AGI until we figure out florgleblorp, then I ask wtf is florgleblorp and you tell me “I can’t tell you because we’re still trying to figure out what it is.”

You’re completely correct. But you’ve gone on a very long rant to largely agree with the person you’re arguing against.

If you agree with me why do you disagree with me?

Consciousness is poorly defined and a “buzzword” largely because we don’t have a fucking clue where it comes from, how it operates, and how it grows.

You cannot say we do not know where it comes from if “it” does not refer to anything because you have not defined it! There is no “it” here, “it” is a placeholder for something you have not actually defined and has no meaning. You cannot say we don’t know how “it” operates or how “it” grows when “it” doesn’t refer to anything.

When or if we ever define that properly

No, that is your first step, you have to define it properly to make any claims about it, or else all your claims are meaningless. You are arguing about the nature of florgleblorp but then cannot tell me what florgleblorp is, so it is meaningless.

This is why “consciousness” is interchangeable with vague words like “soul.” They cannot be concretely defined in a way where we can actually look at what they are, so they’re largely irrelevant. When we talk about more concrete things like intelligence, problem-solving capabilities, self-reflection, etc, we can at least come to some loose agreement of what that looks like and can begin to have a conversation of what tests might actually look like and how we might quantify it, and it is these concrete things which have thus been the basis of study and research and we’ve been gradually increasing our understanding of intelligent systems as shown with the explosion of AI, albeit it still has miles to go.

However, when we talk about “consciousness,” it is just meaningless and plays no role in any of the progress actually being made, because nobody can actually give even the loosest iota of a hint of what it might possibly look like. It’s not defined, so it’s not meaningful. You have to at least specify what you are even talking about for us to even begin to study it. We don’t have to know the entire inner workings of a frog to be able to begin a study on frogs, but we damn well need to be able to identify something as a frog prior to studying it, or else we would have no idea that the thing we are studying is actually a frog.

You cannot study anything without being able to identify it, which requires defining it at least concretely enough that we can agree if it is there or not, and that the thing we are studying is actually the thing we aim to study. We should I believe your florgleblorp, sorry, I mean “consciousness” you speak of, even exists if you cannot even tell me how to identify it? It would be like if someone insisted there is a florgleblorp hiding in my room. Well, I cannot distinguish between a room with or without a florgleblorp, so by Occam’s razor I opt to disbelieve in its existence. Similarly, if you cannot tell me how to distinguish between something that possesses this “consciousness” and something that does not, how to actually identify it in reality, then by Occam’s razor I opt to disbelieve in its existence.

It is entirely backwards and spiritualist thinking that is popularized by all the mystics to insist that we need to study something they cannot even specify what it is first in order to figure out what it is later. That is the complete reversal of how anything works and is routinely used by charlatans to justify pseudoscientific “research.” You have to specify what it is being talked about first.

Neoclassical economists say rich people contribute to the economy by “allowing people to use their capital,” but allowing someone to do something isn’t work, it’s the absence of work. If I disallow someone to use my factory machines, it would require work for me to prevent them from using it, as I would have to get the police involved or at least some sort of private security. Allowing someone to use something is just choosing not to do anything, and supposedly they would have us believe that capitalists not doing anything contributes to the economy.

we need to figure out what consciousness is

Nah, “consciousness” is just a buzzword with no concrete meaning. The path to AGI has no relevance to it at all. Even if we develop a machine just as intelligent as human beings, maybe even moreso, that can solve any arbitrary problem just as efficiently, mystics will still be arguing over whether or not it has “consciousness.”

Edit: You can downvote if you want, but I notice none of you have any actual response to it, because you ultimately know it is correct. Keep downvoting, but not a single one of you will actually reply and tell us me how we could concretely distinguish between something that is “conscious” and something that isn’t.

Even if we construct a robot that fully can replicate all behaviors of a human, you will still be there debating over whether or not is “conscious” because you have not actually given it a concrete meaning so that we can identify if something actually has it or not. It’s just a placeholder for vague mysticism, like “spirit” or “soul.”

I recall a talk from Daniel Dennett where he discussed an old popular movement called the “vitalists.” The vitalists used “life” in a very vague meaningless way as well, they would insist that even if understand how living things work mechanically and could reproduce it, it would still not be considered “alive” because we don’t understand the “vital spark” that actually makes it “alive.” It would just be an imitation of a living thing without the vital spark.

The vitalists refused to ever concretely define what the vital spark even was, it was just a placeholder for something vague and mysterious. As we understood more about how life works, vitalists where taken less and less serious, until eventually becoming largely fringe. People who talk about “consciousness” are also going to become fringe as we continue to understand neuroscience and intelligence, if scientific progress continues, that is. Although this will be a very long-term process, maybe taking centuries.

I don’t get it. Who is claiming that if we build one more LLM we will solve AGI? Maybe I just live under a rock. Top comment here is saying people believe LLMs will “solve climate change.” Who believes that? I do not know what any of this is on about, I have never seen these people.

I can’t say I’ve ever gotten ant on my finger then proceeded to smell my finger.

When I was younger I would play X-Wing Alliance on my PC with an actual like pilot joystick controller with all the lights turned off. That game is a Star Wars game where you fly space ships and fight other space ships, but it’s all in first-person, so you see out of the pilot cockpit.

The space mechanics was definitely one of the great things about that game, in my opinion. Most space games when you land you just press a button and it plays an animation. Having to land manually with a landing camera is very satisfying. When you crash and parts of your ship break and you have to float outside to fix it, that was also very fun. I feel like a lot of space games are a bit lazy about the actual space mechanics, this game did it very well.

I recall watching Kraut’s YouTube channel many many years ago, and I stopped following Kraut when he said “there is no such thing as a war crime.” Justifying a certain action during a war as a necessity is one thing, sometimes there are necessary evils. It wasn’t the particular thing he was justifying that even bothered me so much, but how he justified it. His argument wasn’t even that it was a necessary evil, rather, he straight-up said you should be allowed to do anything you want in war period, there can be no “evil” in war. That just rubbed me the wrong way, assumed he might be a bit off his rocker and stopped following him.