Leaderboard

Here’s math that shows what the temperature needs to be for the universe to not be opaque; it’s around 3000 K https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/the-temperature-of-the-universe-at-recombination-decoupling/ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Kinney/Kinney3.html That happens at a redshift of around z = 1100

This thread is already way too personal, and I'd prefer we focus less on the individual. I'll try to be better at this myself, but we all need to remain focused on the positions and merit of the information being shared. Let's be clear: Many of Alkon's points are entirely valid. Much of what he shares contains very good and useful information. Likewise, some of what I've shared has been somewhat weak. This is all true, and so is the fact that he clearly has a strong interest in this topic and obviously allocates much of his time learning about it. That's exactly what we ALL should be doing... learning, growing, understanding and I applaud him for it. I just cannot personally join him in that final leap where he keeps making absolute comments about what will and will not be possible in the future, or where he dismisses things based solely on a rigid framing of terms or the quite limited technologies which are most familiar and most hyped today (or those being discussed on LinkedIn, for example). Nobody has a crystal ball, and nobody should IMO argue in the manner he has by starting with formalized rigid unbending structures and preconceived conclusions. We can make any logic work if we put all data into rigid potentially inaccurate semantic boxes and I see a lot of that here. If that works for him, then great! But it doesn't work for me, nor I propose does it work for most people who are scientifically minded (I believe he may be more philosopher than empiricist, but that's not intended as either a judgement or sleight, just a general observation). The technology in this space is changing at an incredible pace. It is equally being amplified by parallel technologies in processing power and capabilities. There are literally tens of thousands of seriously brilliant engineers working on this every single minute of every single day, and my core position here is that we must be EXTREMELY cautious and avoid making broad sweeping proclamations and predictions with any illusions of certainty. We must temper our confidence. What's potentially worse here is that we barely have workable definitions of consciousness and unconsciousness, the actual topic of the central claims made in the OP... so any assertions about what does and does not fit into those ill-defined ever-evolving categories strike me as specious, at best. Anyway... enough personal bullshit, yeah? This is an interesting topic that's fun to explore if we can please be civil with one another (and yes... the same reminder applies equally to me).

You must be fun at parties

Try Polyethylenglycole 10000

The temperature when the universe becomes transparent, and electrons can 'stick' to hydrogen nucleii, is basically the ionization temperature ( energy ) of Hydrogen. At higher temperatures atoms cannot bind, and you have a radiation filled plasma that is opaque like the Sun. As the present CMB temperature is 2.7oK , that indicates ( according to gas laws ) that the universe has expanded to over 1000 times its size since the recombination era.

Take a 2D flat surface, like a flat sheet. Its intrinsic curvature is identically 0 everywhere. Roll it into a cylinder. You get a different topology, but it has the same, 0 everywhere, intrinsic curvature.

Indeed, it's easy to forget that these discussions are little more than a parlour game...

One might hypothesize (though not perhaps falsifiable in accord with Popper) that the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog was a surviving Precambrian rabbit. You can also deal with time travelers surviving by positing alternate timelines. When you've stepped on a Jurassic moth or whatever, you start a different timeline but your own remains and can be returned to. This would make time wars pointless however.

They used to be called frozen stars, because light passing the event horizon around them appeared to freeze when viewed from another perspective. They also yes, do evaporate as per Hawkings calculations. As for the rest of your OP, the syntax is rather borked and hard to parse. These ideas are not considered as valid just because they're written down. They're accepted as valid because they accurate model the universe we encounter.

Mostly I dislike when people pretend that they can tell what will or will not be possible in the future, or who declare things to be impossible when those things are still very much only in their infancy. ✌🏼

Sedenions are non-associative. They're also the first algebra you can build with the Cayley-Dickson construction that is not a division algebra. Ie, it has zero divisors. They're some kind of generalisation of complex numbers. @studiot can probably tell you more. Meanwhile, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedenion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayley–Dickson_construction And a nice 30-min video by Michael Penn that I recommend,

LinkedIn is largely a cesspool of self promoters and blustery overhyped marketing so this isn’t surprising.

There's a very long list of people on my LinkedIn feed that have been frustrated by the seemingly unending and unrelenting hype surrounding LLMs. I think all of us are basically exhausted at this point from the continual exasperation. I attended the annual Stochastic Parrots Day celebration on the 2nd anniversary of Bender's paper via Twitch, and it looks like they do have a recording of the different sessions: https://peertube.dair-institute.org/w/p/5k7JempgUbCAcpTjUZPuKQ The panel on worker exploitation is rather prescient considering the later Hollywood actors' and screenwriters' strikes stemming from generative AI: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23794224/sag-aftra-actors-strike-ai-image-rights https://www.polygon.com/23742770/ai-writers-strike-chat-gpt-explained There was a Google docs from the event where all the attendants submit links relevant to the topic. I put my link on there along with some other articles I've collected but I'll need to go look for the URL of the sheet.

I asked “Are there any polls saying that this is a big issue with voters not already going to vote for TFG?” So items of interest to GOP voters doesn’t answer this question. Most/all of them are voting for TFG. They are not the ones who will be convinced by facts, anyway. They’re too far into the cult to be deprogrammed.

You're very welcome. If you don't want to start following people on LinkedIn, you can use this article as a starter: https://theconversation.com/why-a-computer-will-never-be-truly-conscious-120644 It's also a collection of arguments like mine, except it talks about a different set of arguments including Turing's own Halting Problem. Have fun.

Well, there you go. Complete idiots. 1. The US has the lowest rate of inflation in the G7 countries. The GOP voters aren't being told this. 2. Immigration is vital to any growing democracy. The GOP voters are being misled about this. 3. The objection is basically, "I don't want to hear how I've been manipulated as an American!" GOP voters don't seem to understand this perspective. 4. This is a two-party system problem, another thing the GOP voters are constantly misled about. It's very sad and frustrating. Like watching Lennie with the rabbit, and trying to explain that he shouldn't hug it so hard, knowing he's not listening.

These seem to be the Right's favorite conceptually empty attack phrases. I have no idea what they really mean, nor do most people who use them. It's impressive that politicians can get a quarter of the GOP to rank fighting these chimeras at the top of their concerns. I'll bet if you actually defined the real meanings of woke and liberalism and presented them (minus those hot button words, or following them with "agenda") to your polled sample, you would get a much smaller group that wanted to "fight" them. For example, here is the actual definition of woke from Merriam Webster: "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" Yeah, my God, let's fight this looming threat of people attentive to important facts and issues, especially where racial bias in concerned! This could destroy the basic fabric of American life and drain our precious bodily fluids!

In addition to what TheVat just said, there are long lists of search results that you could look up on this yourself, including this one: https://perpet.io/blog/which-ai-tool-to-pick-for-your-next-project-chatgpt-llama-google-bard-claude/ The above talks about products by MS/OpenAI, Google, and Meta. I've seen discussions around ones that are still in development on LinkedIn, and they ALSO operate on the same basic principle (see section "The main mechanism of LLM-based AI tools" in the article) Now, please substantiate what you said. As for your statement regarding "thousands of new LLMs" each week, I don't think that's really true either, since the bulk of new LLM tools coming out are based on existing models (versions of GPT, and open-sourced ones like Llama)

I agree with iNow regarding how the term "subconscious" is largely useless. I would say what makes the practical difference between AI and human would be referents. Algorithms, by their nature, can't refer to anything. This is one of the examples in my article I used to illustrate: In other new happenings, Bishop read my article and this is what he had to say: I missed the part where Searle said that CRA applies to any formalism in a machine, and not just symbols. So I didn't broaden CRA's scope when I talked about it. What I did was just making it harder for its detractors to argue against (e.g. certain criticisms directed toward CRA for including a 3rd person and/or a specific language)

Hmmm, let me see, uh...North Dakota, South Dakota, aaannd Baja Dakota!

The second sentence of the reply shows you've no idea what I'm talking about with regard to formalism.

I don't think you know why I mentioned the paper. Every LLM out on the market right now operate on the same "self-attention" principle detailed in that 7 year old paper. None of those are "badly outdated." Again, I don't know what prompted you to say what you said. I don't think you knew what you were talking about. Please substantiate your statements.

Way to go with generalization. Professors of Emeritus are already retired educators, they're in it for the knowledge sharing. Boy, just how desperate are you at grasping every last little straw? Congrats on being able to use a search. Now either look at something with more than just one sense defined, or try not cutting off what you don't want to acknowledge from screencaps. Here. I'll throw you a bone. Try sticking the term "logical" or "mathematical" in front of the word "formalism." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2017.0872

No, this logic makes sense. X cannot be proven, because Y by DEFAULT doesn't have instruments to prove X. And X explains Y's white spots.

Mostly I dislike it when people pretend that they know even a shred of what they're talking about when they absolutely don't, starting with the word "formalism." Particularly those who entertain the idea that a particular formalism change just because the implementation of that formalism changes. Again, perfectly demonstrating utter ignorance on the matter. Oh, and not to mention constantly jabbing and venturing into metadebate.