pzkpfw

What paradoxes? (Yes, there are things with "paradox" in their name, but they are not actual unsolved "issues".)

It's fun seeing all the places Pi shows up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vY0CKYhPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dTyOl1fmDo

*exhume

Yay, once again "discussing" with an AI. Imagine that seed is an octect (or byte if you like). There could then only be 256 possible worlds generated. (If the procedure isn't deterministic, you won't get the same world each time). You could add tricks like using the encoding of the location of the world, the neighbors it has, ... as part of the seed to add variety, but that's not adding much. Obviously NMS will be using a bigger, more complex seed than just 8 bits - but the point is still: how much data is needed to be able to simulate your Universe, even given limitless time. So far all you've done is hand wave about a game that makes players happy for $34.39 NZD.

To be the same tree, there needs to be enough stored detail to allow the procedure to generate it the same way each time. For a game, it's enough to remember a few things like height, orientation, which textures to use when displaying it. For a real tree, how much detail needs to be stored? Way more storage than a computer that can run No Mans Sky has.

Another thing that occurred this morning, was the relativity of simultaneity. i.e. How would a "we can use as long as we want per step" simulation cope with the fact that there isn't even a single "now" for all observers?

No. The No Mans' Sky example doesn't work. Much of the game is procedurally generated. Nobody has all "18 Quintillion Planets" fleshed out and stored somewhere. Only the parts that any gamer needs to see get generated; and if every human on earth played it for a year and each day they visited a planet never visited before ... that's still well off the claimed sum. And even then, the level of detail is nowhere near a simulation. Try going outside and looking at one single tree. All the leaves, all the details in the bark. The flows inside it, all the cells living and dying. All the creatures living on it and under it. While it doesn't solve the compute resources issues, the time thing is interesting. (The following assume simulation, to some extent, is possible at all ..) I forget where I first read this idea, maybe Neuromancer? One of the things was: if a consciousness is uploaded into a computer that simulates their environment - are they alive? What if the algorithm running them is slowed down, perhaps single-stepping at one operation per real World day - are they alive now? Last year I was watching a show called "Upload" where people get uploaded into simulations before death. Rich people paid for more compute and got a fuller ("realer") experience. Poorer people got less compute time; a lower grade experience and when their credits for a (real World) month were used up they got paused. Provided for some plot hooks.

You'll need more than time, you'll need enough memory and storage. https://xkcd.com/505/

An MIT study has been doing the rounds. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/do-you-really-learn-when-you-use-ai-what-mit-researchers-found/ https://www.edweek.org/technology/brain-activity-is-lower-for-writers-who-use-ai-what-that-means-for-students/2025/06 Some main points: People who used LLMs to do the heavy lifting for their essays often didn't even remember it was their essay when shown it later. (So much for learning.) People who used LLMs to do the heavy lifting often still did worse when later not using an LLM.

There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary, and those who do not. (An oldie ...)

Most forums allow people to do a bit of font/typeface messing about, but it's generally only, er, certain types of poster who feel the need to do much more than the basics. Seems to be their way to shout, which makes them more rightTM or something. So non-default fonts has long been a box in my crankery bingo card. Over the last few weeks or so there's been a huge up tick in "extremely formatted" posts; easy to spot, and a new box in my bingo card. (Edit: closely related, the walls of text now generated. Sheer volume has always been an issue; people who take one small claim on a long journey then think the length of that journey is proof it was worthwhile. I wish they just stop at the first step, get that discussed before moving on.)

Luc Turpin: even lawyers are falling into this trap. Just one of many examples: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/27/business/chat-gpt-avianca-mata-lawyers The LLMs are not your friend.

The OP reminded me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Go_to_Golgotha!

The statement he quoted was of the form "if (something) then (result)". It seemed pretty clear the "why" was accepting the "if" and questioning the "then".

(Just bumping this thread to get an unpleasant thread title off the main page.)

Wow, badly misinterpreted. (Or weirdly sensitive.) Did you even listen to the song? The point wasn't the specific prediction, but that it was so predictable. Which was swansonts' point, which I was simply agreeing with. (And, ah, if you read post #1 of this thread, do you really think this is serious?)

Sort that table by "Excluding NMSC" and you get the answer.

Responsibility? I work for a finance company, and use certain AIs to get some coding tasks done faster. If we leak customer private details, or charge them too much, etc, Government regulators come and stomp on us. And if the problem was caused by AI generated code, no, the AI takes no responsibility.

You missed the most important part: "... and it's you who is moving, and length contracted."

How does your length contraction "explanation" square with the reciprocity of effects? i.e. for you that spaceship flying past at constant speed of 0.99 c might be length contracted - but for them, their rulers are all normal in all directions, and it's you who is moving, and length contracted.

Maybe species isn't always as separate as you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

In the ellipsis menu to the right of the symbols.

(I was going to post the same thing, except "summarise" ;-) )

Hydrogen isn't wet and doesn't quench my thirst. Oxygen isn't wet and doesn't quench my thirst. H2O is, and does. Some properties are emergent,