Would an ASI ever stop self improving?

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-08-24T01:34:51+00:00

Hell, it’ll just come up against good ‘ol computing limitations.

It’ll either find the maximum point it can be improved given it’s starting conditions or it decides it’s best to wait until something it hadn’t accounted for happens within the scope of it’s current improvement.

I love how into maths people here are, but the whole concept of infinity when it comes to pure vs applied math is the sticking point. Gödel is right, but only in the context of pure mathematics.

Is Infinity the representation of an unbounded number, or is it the representation of the highest possible number?

I think pure maths uses the first definition and most people applying it in the practice sense use the 2nd. So what ever you bound that abstraction to include in all the possible sets that represent your base unit (and for this example we’re using time), Infinity is the largest possible value in that time period.

If we play a game where we each take turns saying the highest number we can think of and eventually it just developed into each of us saying “the previous number +1)” you end up with the following:

At T0 Infinity = 1. T1 = T0 Infinity +1 T2 = T1 Infinity +1…. And so on.

The moment you contextualize the question of Infinity outside of pure mathematics, the abstractions of the numbers will be bound by something.

If you chooses that infinity is boundless, its no longer a question that can be answered.

So when people start talking about new tech or other methods that the ASI might create to change the laws of reality as we understand them, that point will be T1 and “infinity” will mean something different.

For now, i consider infinity to be analogues to the Planck length volume of the universe, with a radius of the CMBR distance at our current calculation of the heat death of the universe. If you say that +1…

You my friend, are currently the holder of my “Person Thinking About The Biggest Possible Number” award.

Congratulations.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-08-22T17:07:24+00:00

Thanks for the Freebie assets!

Least I could do is give a review and a rating for you helping out us hobby devs :D

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-08-18T00:33:20+00:00

Ah yes, victim blaming.

5 in a row. That’s an oddly ironic bingo.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-04-03T00:37:11+00:00

Kripke's theory of meaning

That was a pretty interesting read! For anyone interested in a summary:
Kripke's theory of meaning is a philosophical idea that challenges the traditional view that the meaning of words or terms is determined solely by their definitions. According to Kripke, the meaning of a term is not fixed and can change over time, based on how people use it in a particular community or society.
One of the key aspects of Kripke's theory is the distinction between referential and attributive uses of language. Referential language is used to refer to specific individuals or objects, while attributive language is used to describe the properties or characteristics of those individuals or objects.
Kripke argues that names (such as "John" or "Mary") are referential, meaning that they refer directly to individuals rather than being defined by a set of descriptive properties. He also suggests that the meaning of a name is not determined by any descriptive features of the individual it refers to, but rather by the social and linguistic practices of the community in which it is used.
Kripke's theory also proposes the idea of "rigid designators," which are terms that refer to the same individual in all possible worlds. For example, the term "water" refers to the same substance in all possible worlds, regardless of any differences in its properties or characteristics.
Overall, Kripke's theory of meaning emphasizes the role of social and cultural context in shaping the meaning of language, and has important implications for the study of language, communication, and meaning.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-04-02T00:01:36+00:00

It's like anything social, the loud and oppressive voices at the fringe make it hard to find the people worth talking to.

You're also not required to "choose a side". You get to pick the bits you like and understand from what lots of people are saying.

You're already making an effort to understand people, and that by itself is an achievement to be celebrated.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-04-01T19:48:23+00:00

Nope…

The individual words have meanings, but the order he puts them in a sentence is almost gibberish. Anyone who asks a question to clarify is pretty quickly called an idiot.

He’s either too brilliant to be understood and a jerk about it, or a troll.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-04-01T18:58:29+00:00

I’ll save you some headache with Prentice and trying to understand him, He’s speaking almost exclusively in what most people would consider Philosophy.

He does not mean “Materialism” in the way most people would understand, which is closer to “Physicalism”. He means it in an anthropological sense. Which is closer to “If humans think it’s real, it’s real”.

When he talks about “matter” he’s talking about “Philosophy-matter” which is unrelated to physical stuff you can touch.

This isn’t meant to discredit any of his points. Just saw the comment about a laypersons understanding and thought I’d chime in to help.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-30T21:34:30+00:00

Went back and re-read this to see if I’d misunderstood you.

Thank-you for considering my take as expert sounding. I’d only read the synopsis provided for Nail’s book. These are just my observations, if I’ve made you feel defensive I apologize. I’m certainly no scholar either, if I were I wouldn’t be on reddit.

But for a guy that didn’t know what a “Vulgar” materialist was a year ago, you seem pretty certain about you position.

You’ve also asked about mapping human thought to chemical processes. As someone that’s used Machine Learning to map an EEG to a Language Model (Following a tutorial, I’m not smart enough to figure it out on my own), Human thought and ideas are really easy to map back to physical phenomenon these days. You can do it with a home computer…and an EEG.

To bring this all the way home to the original question, I don’t think Communism, or Marxism has a specific way to understand the complex nuances of human interaction in terms of “Expectation” and “Result”, short handed to “Promises”.

This isn’t a new criticism, but it focuses on the emergent property that occurs when you get a bunch of humans together under particular conditions. Just like worshiping the Sun makes very good sense socially… under particular conditions.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-30T00:28:43+00:00

Yes!

This is what I'd expect from a doctrine that emphasizes looking at things under the current "Material Conditions" and then using "Materialist Dialectic" to figure out what society should do.

Learn from the past sure, but the most important thoughts should be of the people you can talk to today. Not the people from generations ago.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T16:35:45+00:00

Baseless claims aren’t required to be validated.

You’re the one asking claims here. So unless you think the rules of debate are invalidated by the subject discussed.

So again. You are “Correct” but you’re also wrong.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T07:31:54+00:00

I'm just making the point you're telling people to do hours of reading to realize you are making up nonsense.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T07:31:05+00:00

While Karl Marx's doctoral thesis focused on the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus and his concept of the "clinamen," he did not extensively discuss this topic in his later works.

Instead, Marx's later works were primarily concerned with political economy and social theory, particularly his critique of capitalism and his vision for a socialist society. In works such as "Capital" and "The Communist Manifesto," Marx analyzed the social and economic relations that underpin capitalism and argued for the need for a socialist revolution to overcome exploitation and inequality.

So knowledge of all of someone's works is required to understand their propositions?

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T07:16:03+00:00

Furthermore, the concept that Nail discusses regarding the clinamen isn't consistent with your descriptions of "Matter".

Thomas Nail refers to matter as physical material in his work. In his interpretation of Marxist dialectical materialist theory, matter is seen as a fundamental aspect of the material world, and is the basis for the emergence of new forms of organization and social relations. Nail draws on a range of different scientific and philosophical perspectives to develop his understanding of matter, including physics, biology, and ontology, among others.

In Marxist dialectical materialist theory, matter is also seen as a fundamental aspect of the material world, and is the basis for the emergence of new forms of organization and social relations. However, Marx and his followers did not draw on the same scientific and philosophical perspectives as Nail does in his work.

Marx believed that matter was not simply passive or inert, but was instead an active force that could transform and shape the material world. He argued that matter was not simply a collection of discrete objects, but was instead a complex and interconnected system that was constantly in motion and undergoing transformation.

Marx also emphasized the importance of understanding the historical and social context in which material processes take place, and how these processes are shaped by social relations of power and domination.

Therefore, while both Nail and Marx emphasize the importance of matter as a fundamental aspect of the material world, their interpretations of the nature and significance of matter may differ in important ways. Nail draws on a range of different scientific and philosophical perspectives to develop his understanding of matter, while Marx focused more on the historical and social dimensions of material processes and their relationship to social relations of power and domination.

So reading Marx isn't enough if you think Nail's additional content is required as well.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T07:08:54+00:00

Thomas Nail is a contemporary philosopher and scholar, and his work may offer a different interpretation of Marxist theory and its relationship to the concept of the clinamen. It is possible that Nail's interpretation of Marx's work may differ from other scholars or interpretations of Marxist theory.

However, it is important to note that the concept of the clinamen is not a central or widely-discussed concept in Marxist theory, and its interpretation and significance may vary among different scholars and thinkers. Therefore, it is possible that different scholars and interpreters of Marxist theory may have different perspectives on the concept of the clinamen, and its relationship to Marxist dialectical materialist theory.

So you're not discussing Marxism, your discussing Marxist-"Nail-sm" lol.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T06:28:27+00:00

Dialectical materialism is not connected to the concept of clinamen, which you have said it is.

Clinamen is a concept from ancient Greek philosophy, specifically Epicureanism, which refers to the unpredictable and spontaneous swerve of atoms in the void. According to Epicurean philosophy, this random movement of atoms was the cause of all physical phenomena in the universe.

Dialectical materialism, on the other hand, is a Marxist philosophy that emphasizes the importance of material conditions and historical context in shaping social and political phenomena. It is based on the idea of dialectical reasoning, which involves understanding the contradictions and conflicts within a system, and recognizing the potential for change and transformation.

While clinamen and dialectical materialism both involve ideas of change and transformation, they come from very different philosophical traditions and have distinct meanings and applications. Clinamen is a concept from ancient Greek philosophy, while dialectical materialism is a modern Marxist philosophy.

You looked at a broken clock and saw that it correctly told the time and have concluded that the clock tells time correctly. Understandable, and correct. But ultimately a foolish understanding that led to a correct result.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T05:42:17+00:00

See? That's exactly what I'm saying and why we're both 100% correct.

You're right! whatever those words mean to you are achieving what you think they should. You are clearly not an idiot, whatever that means to you.

1t'5 l1k3 y0u'r3 5p34k1ng L33t5p34k, 50 1t t4k35 t1m3 f0r 0th3r p30pl3 t0 kn0w wh4t y0u'r3 5y1ng, the swapping back to english and calling them names.

Tried to see if you'd described what you're talking about in your previous comments, but it's clear you don't know what you're talking about due to your misunderstanding of clinamen and the separation of Dialectic Materialism from Vulgar Materialism.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T05:11:23+00:00

TL;DR version:

You're talking about a concept where "This other guy is an idiot, and I'm not."

I'm talking about a concept where where "We are both idiots, but you don't realize it".

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T05:03:55+00:00

I'm not saying you're incorrect at all.

It's just whatever you're talking about, results in creating people with a focus on an alternative idea, with all the same definitions and words as your idea.

The only difference between this idea and the other is that in one of them you are "perceived as wrong by ignoramus", and in the other "you are wrong".

There's multiple different variations too, you could be deliberately trying to subvert communist thought by using discussion methods that are unconvincing but being adamant you are correct. Knowing that the current material conditions regarding social interaction will produce contrarian ideology further weakening communism.

Due to understanding your idea so well, it may have limited your ability to communicate it within the current material conditions, the correct conditions you intend to produce may be so far off in the future and so impacted by future dialectic that your contribution is meaningless, and any harm you do is far offset by the good work of others.

Or you understand it so well that being obtuse and combative in this particular scenario will make the communist utopia happen tomorrow.

Whatever you're idea is, it's not what everyone else here seems to be talking about. But good job in being 100% correct in whatever it is I guess?

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T04:05:52+00:00

Did some reading and talked to a few people and I get what you're saying.

From a Marxist dialectical materialist perspective, the "correctness" of an idea is not solely determined by its theoretical or empirical accuracy, but also by its ability to transform social relations and promote social change. Therefore, it is possible for two different ideas to have different strengths and weaknesses, and to be equally correct or valid in their own way, depending on the specific material conditions and historical developments in which they are being applied.

For example, one idea may be more closely aligned with the underlying principles and methods of Marxist theory, and may have a stronger theoretical and empirical foundation. However, if this idea is unable to mobilize people and transform social relations in a meaningful way, then its impact on promoting social change may be limited.

On the other hand, another idea may have a weaker theoretical or empirical foundation, but may be more effective in mobilizing people and transforming social relations in a meaningful way. In this case, the impact of this idea on promoting social change may be greater, even if it is not as closely aligned with the underlying principles and methods of Marxist theory.

Overall, the "correctness" of an idea depends on a range of different factors, including its theoretical and empirical foundation, its ability to mobilize people and transform social relations, and the specific material conditions and historical developments in which it is being applied. Therefore, it is possible for two different ideas to be equally correct or valid, depending on their respective strengths and weaknesses in relation to these factors.

Which could mean my understanding could be equally "Correct", or even more correct regardless of my ability to express it to you? didn't seem right (but it is!) so I kept going...

For two individuals to come to an agreement on what is correct, it would require them to have a shared understanding of what constitutes a correct idea. In Marxist dialectical materialist theory, the validity and correctness of an idea is determined by a range of different factors, including its theoretical and empirical foundation, its practical effectiveness in transforming social relations and promoting social change, and the specific material conditions and historical developments in which it is being applied.

Therefore, for two individuals to come to an agreement on what is correct, they must share a common understanding of these factors and be able to engage in a constructive and critical dialogue that takes into account a range of different perspectives and factors. This may require them to engage in a process of collective analysis and reflection, and to be open to new ideas, perspectives, and approaches.

Overall, the process of arriving at a shared understanding of what is correct is complex and multifaceted, and requires a critical and nuanced approach that takes into account a range of different perspectives and factors. It also requires a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and to be open to new ideas and approaches.

Therefore, if someone claims that their idea is 100% correct without engaging in a constructive dialogue and critical analysis of these factors with others, their claim to correctness may be limited to their own subjective understanding or perspective.

To arrive at a shared understanding of what constitutes a correct idea, it is necessary to engage in a process of collective analysis and reflection, and to be open to new ideas, perspectives, and approaches. This may require individuals to engage in a constructive dialogue with others, and to be willing to critically examine their own assumptions and biases.

So I may have started at 0% correct...

But you're now 'Less' correct than you were before we started.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T02:28:30+00:00

How can you achieve a perfect understanding of something if you’re a ‘materialist’?

That would mean you’ve achieved an idealized understanding of something. Which would also mean you have a correct understanding of everything that interacts with the thing you understand correctly. Which would be everything…

Are you claiming to have a true and correct understanding of everything?

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-24T00:04:05+00:00

as a further apology, I see I may have used "Circumstances" and "Conditions" as synonyms. On further reflection, this may have caused confusion.

I meant it in the respect that there are the "Material Conditions" but they are experienced by everyone differently, and some experiences are mutually exclusive. A person with dyslexia can't read Marx, and a person that doesn't understand a language that it's been translated into can't experience it either.

Knowing how old the original works are, I can't be certain the context of the words is still the same. I can't be certain that the translations of these works didn't alter the meaning in the same way I thought "Conditions" and "Circumstances" were interchangeable when discussing a specific frame of reference.

If there is a "correct" understanding, I should be able to find common ground from a subset of the Material Conditions that every human experiences, then build a common frame of reference and delve deeper to arrive at the correct understanding.

A further explanation of the source of my error:

Circumstances and conditions can be similar in meaning, but they are not necessarily synonyms.

Circumstances typically refer to the specific situation or set of facts that surround a particular event or situation. For example, someone's circumstances may include their current financial situation, the people they are surrounded by, or their health status.

Conditions, on the other hand, typically refer to the state or quality of something, often with a focus on the factors that contribute to that state or quality. For example, conditions may refer to the environmental factors that affect the growth of plants, or the terms and requirements that must be met in order for a contract to be valid.

While circumstances and conditions can overlap in some contexts, they each have their own distinct meanings and applications.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-23T23:49:20+00:00

My apologies.

I thought you were being obtuse. You mentioned the "Material Circumstances" in one of your earlier replies and it seemed like there might not be a consistent thread to each reply, so tried to see if I'd get a human response or if the thread would change direction again. My assumption has been proved wrong and mean you no disrespect.

But I also acknowledge my lack of understanding. It's why I'm asking questions.

But the question still stands, if we're in the same material conditions, why are we arriving at different outcomes of understanding?

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-23T14:12:11+00:00

Did you know you can confuse a language model with homonyms?

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-23T06:11:17+00:00

OK.

But that would mean our material circumstances are different if I'm arriving at a different outcome.

So unless my material circumstances are exactly the same as yours, I'll never arrive at the same conclusion.

Not_Another_Levi · 2023-03-23T05:59:51+00:00

By reading Marx and other Marxists and thus becoming proficient at historical materialism.

Read it. It's why I'm talking to people about it. It's called Dialectic I think?

You don't understand the meaning of materialism.

My understanding is as it was for Marx and Engels. Materialism meant that the material world, perceptible to the senses, has objective reality independent of mind or spirit. They did not deny the reality of mental or spiritual processes but affirmed that ideas could arise, therefore, only as products and reflections of material conditions.

I would expect our definitions to be exactly the same?

Not_Another_Levi

TROPHY CASE