Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


uncool last won the day on September 17 2019

uncool had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

228 Beacon of Hope


About uncool

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't see how "base 10" makes x^2 = x/x.
  2. 1) That is not a polynomial equation; note the division. 2) Basic manipulation can turn it into the equation x^4 = 0, which means that it has no solutions (since when x = 0, the RHS involves division by 0). 3) What, precisely, do you mean by "solve"? Numerically? Using radicals? Finding a minimal polynomial?
  3. It's worth noting that the Schrodinger equation isn't really a single system. It's a family of systems. Some simple examples have been solved (as noted); some more complex ones have been numerically approximated by perturbation theory. So the question doesn't quite make sense; it's kind of like asking "Has A + B = C been solved?"
  4. You're thinking of completeness. Consistency means that no statement can be proven both true and false.
  5. From my area of math, the "definitional equality" is usually written as "x := ". For example: "Let f(x) := (x - 1)/(x + 1)".
  6. Generally speaking, I am on your side. In this specific case, they made a comment where it is difficult to interpret it in any way that isn't racist: The first part of this comment implies that the people that Hitler deliberately committed genocide against don't get to count as "people". The second part is so facially false in its misrepresentation of basic history that it indicates the writer is either a troll or such a committed racist that they don't even care about the genocide itself. Either way, a forum setting is not going to convince them to change their ways. Part of t
  7. True - or if it could credibly threaten to punish. And in this "theory", the way to credibly threaten is to always follow through on threats. To not have to update - even when that update is being created. Basically, you seem to be trying to analyze from the moment of the AI's creation, as if that is set in stone. In this "theory", that is an error. Instead, analyze which class of AI gets to optimization sooner - one that credibly makes the threat by committing to following through, and therefore may convince people to contribute to creating it earlier, or one that doesn't.
  8. Again: if people of the past can't guess whether punishment would be carried out, then the threat fails to motivate them. Which means that an AI that wants to be created (and which also subscribes to updateless decision theory) would prefer to be in the class of AI that made and carried out that threat, according to this theory.
  9. That's part of the argument, yes. Part of the idea of "acausal trade" is that all parties should be able to predict the strategy the other will use. A common example given is where both sides have the other's "source code".
  10. Sorry if I'm insisting a bit much, but you have missed the point of updateless decision theory. If the AI doesn't plan to carry out its threat, then it fails as a threat. Have you read Yudkowsky's answer to Newcomb's paradox? Because your critique is a lot like the answer of "Why don't I plan to take one box, then change my mind and take both?" If you don't accept his argument there, then you are undermining one of the foundational assumptions behind the basilisk. Note: I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong to reject the argument; however, if you do so, it doesn't really mak
  11. Not if committing to the punishment is how it acausally promotes its creation. Which is part of the point of "updateless decision theory".
  12. Not especially famous, no. It's a niche thought experiment from LessWrong. And your post takes it out of its specific context, namely, as a thought experiment about the effects of Eliezer Yudkowsky's "updateless decision theory" and "acausal trade". Note: I'm not saying that any of the above named things are correct or make sense, but your post ignores the foundation on which the thought experiment is based.
  13. Because big things are made of small things. Alternatively: because large spaces can be broken down to small spaces, in a way that respects the laws of physics. A little more technically, because the laws of physics are local. They are differential equations where all derivatives of things at a point are determined by values of those things at the same point. "Why" for that can be explained by relativity: things can only be affected by what has happened within the past light-cone, which is necessarily small when time is short.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.