drdeca

7 ms·

1.
by drdeca 4d ago
Huh? Why bring up suffering? I was responding to the question of “Why is it a problem if people don’t understand things?” . I was saying that human pursuit of understanding of things provides value beyond survival and resources. Joint pursu
2.
by drdeca 5d ago
There ought to be more to life than sitting in a pod receiving sufficient nutrients from a tube, even if there was no doubt that humanity would in this way survive until the sun expands and makes the earth uninhabitable.
3.
by drdeca 7d ago
My experiences with the DMV have actually been pretty decent. I think a lot of their negative reputation is from how it used to be, but that they have improved substantially since then?
4.
by drdeca 9d ago
By "every particle" do you mean like, every type of particle? If you mean individual particles, fundamental particles don't really have distinct individual identities (as shown by fermi and bose statistics). As for types of
5.
by drdeca 9d ago
If that’s true, then why is capitalism still around? Should it have died out in a previous generation in which many products did last a lifetime?
6.
by drdeca 9d ago
Most of the time someone uses a urinal, they didn’t purchase it. The customer is different from the user in this case.
7.
by drdeca 10d ago
If you want to use “ZFC” to refer to the axioms without any rules of inference, I guess you can do that, but when someone refers to “ZFC” when they are filling a slot that needs a (axioms + rules of inference), the obvious interpretation is
8.
by drdeca 10d ago
ZFC
9.
by drdeca 11d ago
No, it is the same inference system. They are just abbreviations.
10.
by drdeca 12d ago
Within a given inference system, one can define concepts. This doesn’t add any axioms. It is, in essence, just a way to abbreviate things.
11.
by drdeca 12d ago
ZFC has greater consistency strength than PA. If we take ZFC (or some other set theory) as our meta theory, we can easily see that the axiom of infinity (of ZFC) gives a set of natural numbers (using the von Neumann encoding), which, when
12.
by drdeca 12d ago
Current models can do a variety of tasks that requires substantial expertise for people to do, yes. But there are also many cognitive tasks that the typical educated person would do better at than these models. Like, e.g. long-term managing
13.
by drdeca 13d ago
I think the distinction between these options probably doesn’t matter alll that much if the threshold you’re using is either “random person” or higher? Maybe bump it up to “random educated person”? They are still different concepts of cou
14.
by drdeca 14d ago
All I’ve been able to do is mentally tag parts of a shape as being at different “depths” (possibly with two parts at the same 3D location but tagged as having different “depths”). Which, yeah, I agree isn’t really visualizing a 4D shape. I
15.
by drdeca 14d ago
> while ai is micro level spice & heat that doesn't especially conscious to the ingredients, just that chemistry appears magical. Huh? Do you mean “isn’t especially conscious of the ingredients”? Though, that interpretation seem
16.
by drdeca 15d ago
What? No, they were correct; the world ended in 2012.
17.
by drdeca 15d ago
Nothing in acknowledging those perverse incentives requires that one misleadingly use the word “correct” in place of “effective”.
18.
by drdeca 20d ago
> How does it not!? Because they can’t use Chinese to speak about things they encounter in the world? Like, someone asks them in Chinese whether they are hungry and want some food, and they answer based on the program, not based on wheth
19.
by drdeca 20d ago
Well, maybe, but I find this pretty unlikely? It seems more likely to me that e.g. the individual fibers of the teddy bear are conscious than that there is a consciousness associated with the teddy bear as a whole. And I don’t find it parti
20.
by drdeca 20d ago
Huh? How does the person having all the instruction books memorized and whatnot imply that the person understands Chinese? Memorizing instructions to the point that one can mentally follow them doesn’t imply understanding why they work. If
21.
by drdeca 21d ago
What if the user says “Make me a million dollars legally .” (Including the emphasis), and then the model ends up breaking through bank infrastructure (even though that is illegal)? Is it just because they were the last person to instruct t
22.
by drdeca 22d ago
Sure the position of an electron is not definite, but neither is that of a buckyball, but a buckyball has a shape we can describe, an internal structure we regard as extended over space, in a way that is separate from the indeterminacy of i
23.
by drdeca 28d ago
Not quite? It is more that 1) someone has gone through it, identified a step he thinks isn’t a valid step, and the author hasn’t been willing to work with that person 2) most consider the proof, due to its length combined with those doubts
24.
by drdeca 1mo ago
Here’s a very simple one-time-pad style construction for homeomorphic (but not fully homeomorphic) encryption. Suppose the plaintext, ciphertext, and key, are each a natural number modulo 5. The key is selected uniformly at random. The ciph
25.
by drdeca 1mo ago
They didn’t say that it “appears” indistinguishable from noise, but that it is indistinguishable. It seems like you strongly believe otherwise, but I suspect you don’t have a good reason to, and just find it unbelievable. Do you think yo
26.
by drdeca 1mo ago
Hmm, could one instead of sending the model weights, send like, a merkle tree root for them, not exactly specifying the model, but at least demonstrating that the same model is used each time?
27.
by drdeca 1mo ago
You said that FHE is an oxymoron, seemingly on the basis that in proper encryption the ciphertext is indistinguishable from noise, and you think this can’t be true of FHE. I am arguing to the contrary. In the secret sharing multi-party comp
28.
by drdeca 1mo ago
Eh? With secret sharing one can do computation on a shared secret where it is provable that no individual party can recover any information about the data with their share alone. I don’t see why you conclude that FHE couldn’t be close to as
29.
by drdeca 1mo ago
The state you describe, sqrt(1/2) ( |01> + |10>) is an entangled state, but not all entangled states are like that. The state sqrt(1/2) ( |00> + |11> ) is also possible, and is also an entangled state, but doesn’t have
30.
by drdeca 1mo ago
No. A state is entangled when it isn’t a product state. Two spin (1/2) particles in a singlet state have the kind of “they have opposite states” thing going on that you describe, and is a specific way that two particles can be entangle

More ›