They do speak of the gravitational singularity (not the event horizon). It's within the horizon, there is a contradiction between the need for two infallers' position to reach the singularity (thus hitting a point) and the causal impossibility of them actually meeting (following General Relativity?). This suggests that the point should maybe be a surface.
The first 1 star comment on the "YEREADW USB-C Tester Power Meter" marketed here is worrisome:
> HOWEVER, the issue is that, for some reason, on some devices, it seems to mess with PD negotiation. On chargers that I know can output 15V, it will not negotiate to 15V, it will only charge the device at 5V 3A.
Say you've got a set of 5 points that are not all collinear (e.g. everytime you draw a line, you never get all 5 of them). Now every time you try to draw a line between two points, you always end up with a third one. Can this happen?
This is what is stated here: there always exists at least a pair where this does not happen.
I understand the point that the physical world is still our (human's) anchor, but the virtual world still "exists" anyway, as in: it impacts the physical world.
Whether some humans are "Real humans", anchored in the physical world, and some are "LLM psychosis victims" is, in itself, not problematic I think: they each deal with parts of reality that are divided, but still affect one another.
Of course, a society more grounded in the physical would feel less dystopian... But ultimately, I think that GA is an intellectual's approach to fighting *for* humans in this numerical world.
I don't think that GA would be incapable of that, from what I know of LLMs and agents. The part where you make the GA uphold your set of values could, instead of coming from an individual, come from a collective. Price could be shared too!
One of the example Gwern brings [1] is a GA as an agent for public discourse and political life, to bring your "set of values" to have an effect in solving society's issues, when you yourself don't have the time or energy to.
I don't think it solves or reconciles with self-actualization, but, from a pragmatical point of view, it offers the promise of extending causally your set of views and philosophies to politics.
Gwern also mentions that it allows to keep "human values" (if the GA truly upholds yours) in the loop, in processes that are to eventually be automatized beyond human's reach.
> when you yourself don't have the time or energy to.
You don't have time, you take time. But what this boils down to is that they propose automating being politically or socially active, or have a bot speak for you.
First off, nobody human will take someone's digital replacement seriously. Second, if everyone did that, then you have a load of AIs just burning compute to talk in circles. This will not have meaningful outcomes, unless you reach for sci-fi stories where the outcome is that humans need to be imprisoned/destroyed for their own good.
that sounds uncomfortably like the public sphere version of spam - using an automated process to amplify some self-serving message and thereby increasingly clutter up the space and tax everyone's scarce and valuable attention.
> One of the example Gwern brings [1] is a GA as an agent for public discourse and political life, to bring your "set of values" to have an effect in solving society's issues, when you yourself don't have the time or energy to.
I'm sorry, that doesn't sound meaningful. If I don't have the energy, I'd rather shut up than have a stupid "avatar" of me yell on the internet in the name of "bringing my values" or "participate in an online discourse". I'm all for forward-looking thinking, but we must show humility. "Society's issues" are complex and deep. Those who propose internet-based solutions to troubling social ills don't often demonstrate a deep understanding of the nature of the problem. You can't plug it all with "agents"! Socrates would be rolling in his grave.
I know Silicon Valley is in a perpetual rush, but this idea needs more soak-time (3-4 years) to see if it actually holds any water. But this kind of thinking won't you get that sweet VC money.
I don't know if this is really about the public sphere as ut exists today. I suspect that the core idea is more along of the lines that in a world where policy is made by artificial super intelligences, you will need your own ASI to advocate on your behalf if your convictions are to have any impact at all.
If someone lacks the time and energy to stand behind their views, how much of that is a result of those views? If you care about the world and justice, if you love life and living things, that's your source of energy right there. If you have half-assed ideas that sound good in the bubble and zero charisma, you have no energy, and interacting with you doesn't give anyone energy.
So much of this just strikes me as "now that I've taken a wrong turn and am in a dead end, what deus ex machina could make this work after all and turn a shitty personality into something grand?", but that will never, ever work. Whatever problem you try to solve that way, now you have two.
Even if pi is an approximation, it is still representable mathematically. Floating-point arithmetic is an algebra (in this case, a magma [1]), which can be studied mathematically.
reply